I Believe in Eternal Life

Greetings readers,

I wanted to write a little something from my memories and I want to account for the reason for my hope. To a dear friend, who has gone away for now, but I will hope to see in the afterlife.

I Believe in Eternal Life,
This is My Hope
For Without This Hope, the last week seems meaningless
For death seems to be an end
A loss which words cannot describe

Some call it an end
Some call it nonbeing
But this is not what I see
For I see hope, even in what seems like tragedy

Now of course, my phone won't ring every night
and I won't hear certain antics anymore
but I'll always have these memories
and people to share them with

And this shows me eternity
Because memories and feelings while they fade
They tell something of something greater
A world unseen, a glorious treasure

But to explain eternal life,
To explain eternal life itself,
is something no one can do
because no one can really see,
but we all can have hope,
because there is an unseen

The unseen is in you and me and all we see
The unseen is in how we all see different
but at the same time there is a whole
because we all love and we all die
these are the only experiences we all share

So for now, there's no more phone calls
no more "sup bitches"
no more cards, games, or movies,
but someday we'll play again
and we'll have community
not just you and me, but everybody
all who gathered will be together

but this is not the whole of eternal life
eternal life starts with how we act now
because this is our symbol of the world to be
in faith, hope, and charity

and this is the reason for my attempts to love
to live the experience of eternal life
to give love openly and freely
because this is the ideal of our friend
and I hope the ideal of us all.

May death be our guide to life
as we know nothing about death
and speculate about eternal life
therefore we must not judge
and when uncertain we love
and love deeply and always

So why don't you fill me up, fill me up
buttercup baby just to let me down,
may we be filled with more than we can imagine
from a source of compassion and mercy
more than I can give and more than I can be
Let me be this love and let me see it in the other
So I can live the eternal life I've glimpsed

Aristocrates

Masterpieces of Animation: A Night on Bald Mountain - 1940

What is so remarkable about Disney before World War II was how wide a range of different projects they attempted. Some were simple and pleasurable diversions while others were serious and ambitious artistic endeavors. Walt Disney's most ambitious project was Fantasia, in this movie Disney was attempting not only to infuse animation and music, but to bring about a revolution in the concert experience. In Disney's mind Fantasia would function more like a yearly concert series. Every year Disney would re-release the movie with different segments added and others removed to showcase different pieces. Disney hoped that it would in many ways replicate the traditional concert series, people would dress up and there would be an intermission. The biggest hurdle Disney faced was the limited sound quality (mono no stereo) that many theaters at the time and so to make Fantasia work (who would consider an animated concert compatible with the live alternative if you didn't have somewhat decent sound) he had to construct and renovate a number of existing theaters with his own money, unsurprisingly this took a huge toll on the profits of Fantasia in fact it nearly destroyed Disney and the company and alas Disney's dreams with Fantasia went largely unfulfilled but what a film we were left with! The animation is among Disney's finest and their combination with the various musical pieces leads to some interesting new interpretations of the musical ideas (some more masterly then others).

Of the different works, one of the most famous (and this is quite a claim as a great deal of the pieces have become quite famous and well known) is the animation for Modest Mussorgsky's "A Night at Bald Mountain." Although it is perhaps the one piece that is interrupted most traditionally (it's animation is a representation of the actual story the music was written to represent). Visually it is always fascinating to see and draw demons and devils, ghost and goblins and watching them dance around malevolently and the scenes are drawn so amazingly. The chalk used to draw the ghosts, the fire dancers morphing into demons, the shadows creeping over the town, distorting the buildings as Chernabog raises the dead from the graves all are visually crisp and detailed. The whole piece is given a vague medieval time period and the ghosts of nights, queens, peasants and barbarians fly around represented on a thin line that dances back and forth between reality and fantasy. As the hellish party escalates with the music the partying gets more and more frantic but then dawn arrives and the church bells begin to chime and A Night at Bald Mountain quietly segues into Ave Maria and the result is stunning and beautiful. But don't take my word for it, watch it on youtube (and honestly you should buy the dvd if you find it enjoyable.)

Here are some books that should be in your large pile of books to read

If they are not in it already that is. For anyone out there interested in reading books that are not merely escapist fare, this seems to be as good a list as any to start from, it's a recommended reading list for incoming college freshmen so the books should be reasonably achievable for anyone with a high school degree! Happy reading!

Something Beyond Our Wildest Imagination Part 1

Greetings and salutations earthlings,

Our fearless leader welcomes you to our opaque planet in the sky. We hope you will enjoy your stay here in a land filled with rainbows, lights, and joys, which all connect to the minds and hearts of others. When mercy and kindness is shown in this world, the light from that kindness extends into the sky, and the gratitude of others is formed as a in your culture it would be a transparency type thing, it looks laminated. The light gains a texture which makes the light shine brighter, because where mercy and gratitude meet is where kindness shines the brightest. We hope you enjoy your stay on our planet and bring your own light to our home world. Only then will our light continue to shine, and also our light will shine to your own world. :) Peace earthlings,

This sounds like a mystical and wonderful planet doesn't it? A place where mercy, love, and kindness are always efficacious, when mercy is done it fills the backdrop of the sky with splendid color which radiates through being. And then this mercy spreads to everyone, because all can see it. Sadly, kindness doesn't always radiate in being, sometimes it is snuffed out by community which seeks to oppress the other, and other times doing the right thing does not appear to be efficacious because it is painful. Our existence does not appear to have the mystical backdrop of the world described above, at least at the surface. But what if I were to say that our actions can have this efficacious quality for others. What if deep down all our actions affect the horizon we paint, not just for ourselves, but for others as well?

To examine this claim, we must reflect on existence and think about the decisions we make each day, nothing in particular, but just our decisions in general. But first, we need to think about the foundation, or lack of foundation, in the background of every decision we make. We must build a landscape before we can plant the flowers so to say. After we do these two things then in my next post we'll examine how this affects community living.

The foundation of being is difficult to examine because it is an opaque concept. These ideas are a mere reflection which can always be improved. Now metaphysics and phenomenology (2 philosophical disciplines) have moved away from the idea of onto-theology (e.g. the idea of God as Being) for various reasons (some of the philosophers are atheists and don't like the idea of God, others think this places limits on God, though this is a bit of an oversimplification.) The greatest difficulty comes in the latter concept, the idea of placing limits on God by naming God. This is a claim on how people attain knowledge through identification. By naming something, we gain some idea of what something is, (e.g. a bottle is something that holds water, someone's name gives us an image of a certain self/object person whom we have memories of.) However, in order to name something and identify it, there have to be other things which a particular thing is not. (e.g. a bottle is differentiated from the self/object being I see in existence.) A good exercise (which was performed in my Trinity class by Professor Kim Belcher), is to take any scene of being which is around you. When looking at it, pay close attention to the differentiation of things. Trees are not grass, grass is not pavement, and pavement is not the self/object being walking to her car. However, when all the things are taken away, and this is most clear in a nature setting, there is this no thing which tends to be defined as sky. This no thing is a horizon, something which we need to see in order to define anything else, because without a horizon beings blend into each other. Differentiation is impossible because the horizon is the ultimate backdrop which allows to see what things are not.

The foundation of being then is a horizon which extends and the differentiation of objects which I experience in life. Based on this foundation, I interact with being in various different ways. I touch, I feel (the first active, the second passive (as in the Latin word passio to be acted upon)), I smell, I talk, I see, etc. These interactions all have consequences for how one examines the backdrop of being. The paradox in thinking about this backdrop is that there appears to be one backdrop, one horizon, yet everyone seems to have a different view of the horizon (and in a purer sense everyone does unless there is interference, more on that in the next entry.) Also, our actions affect how others see the horizon of being, they affect the feelings of others and what their radar towers attract. We can make people more sensitive to their environments, or less so. However, on the horizon of all these decisions, and all things which appear before us is a no thing, a thing with no name, except the name of the unnameable, God. Without this horizon, things which should be just things become more, they invade our lives, and take us away from being love for others. Without a horizon, and foundation for being, things, selves, and object being all merge into something which it is not, these things become God. When these things become God, our backdrop starts to have darkness creep in, because these other things become more important than the nameless one, God, and the nameless thing, (in its richest form) love.

The alien in the introduction teaches us a strong lesson about the importance of a nameless backdrop inspired by people's actions. In its richest form, love must take on many different characteristics, because people receive, give, and need love in different ways. Thus love becomes nameless and matches the characteristic of God being nameless. But some will say, "Oh Aristocrates, you're using a label of God by naming God." And these people are correct, but we also have to examine what we are assuming by using the name God, and what we think about in using that label. Also, we have to examine how communities form because of things which they make/label/utilize as God. These communities are what form our images of God, and cause us to act for what someone believes is a particular cause for good. However, we must always keep the infinite horizon in the background and see God's presence not just in the infinite, but in all the things we name which come forth, and how they reflect the infinity of love, wonder, and awe. When community is built in this way, God's love will reflect on the horizon and shine in people's lives. When community is not built in this way (more on this next time), then pieces of God's love will appear, but darkness will also creep in and overshadow the denominative (the lack of naming, or unnaming) effort to bring humanity into infinity by knowing God and love.

The horizon is more than we can imagine in our own small sphere of being. The horizon is painted by one master painter who is one great mystery after another, but all who participate in the painting affect the horizon by the choices they make (namely in the love they show.) "If they'll know we are Christians by our love" then the love we show must match the goal of infinity. Only then can one build true community which peers beneath the surface and causes a deep encounter with being and the self deeper than the object being by which we see most persons. Stay tuned to our blog for the next installment of "Something Beyond Our Wildest Imagination"

Can Pokemon teach us anything about the good life (and I don't just mean Nebraska!)?

After a summer of relaxing and vacationing I have gathered a bunch of ideas and I am ready to start blogging full time (by full time I mean once a week!) again. Today I am just running through a thought experiment, I don't have any data or facts to back up what I plan to propose but I do now that it does exist out there (Read E.F. Schumacher's "Small is Beautiful"). One of the activities that kept me busy this summer was bringing out my old Game Boy Color and playing Pokemon Blue again. It's an old game - about 10 years old if I recollect correctly, perhaps more - but it is a classic and a lot of fun to play. Like many of my favorite games as I play through the games I tend to focus not so much on the plot or even the game play (This is why I am not very good at most of these games), but rather the created world in the game. I am always thinking about what kind of economic system these lands have, where the infrastructure is, what makes the inhabitants of different regions different, basically I lot of questions regarding the geography of the land. Sometimes I find aspects of the game world that I think are intriguing and would be beneficial if implemented in our own world and that is what I want to think about today.

In the pokemon world - what I have always loved about the games is that their world is more technologically advanced then ours (they can for example resurrect extinct animals through fossils) yet as you play the game the world you inhabit is not some futuristic technological haven but rather has more in common with America around the turn of the century . There are very few cars or motorized vehicles (although they do exist and have a modern design) and most people get around by walking. The connections between towns (which are unrealistically close in the game through limitations, but I am accounting for that) are short and people can easily walk from one to another not on rural highways but rather on bucolic country trails. TV's and computers abound but no one's life seems to revolve around them (I admit I am extrapolating just a bit as that only person in pokemon you really get to know is yourself and the game doesn't let you sit and watch TV all day, however since a the vast majority of NPCs in the game are outside training pokemon or going about their business I feel it is a reasonable assumption). Scientists in the game are making amazing technological discoveries yet the vast majority of the inhabitants continue to live relatively simple lifestyles.

Now compare to the real world where a great many people (In America for sure, which is my sphere of experience, but I am reasonably certain this is also the case in Europe and Japan) live lives seeped in technology. - driving cars, texting, watching tv, riding elevators -These devices are supposed to make are lives easier but most people seem to think that life is getting more hectic as opposed to less hectic. As a culture and society we also seem to be losing important basic skills for relating to each other and the world as technology takes over the responsibilities that once were common to normal life. While I don't want to come across as a Luddite (I do use quite a bit of "technology" every day - I mean I am writing on this blog which is an amazing end of a remarkably large and complex technological process - but I am suggesting that we should have as our goal a life which relegates technology to its appropriate limited facility. As an easy place to start, turn off the ipod while you walk down the street. At first it might seem hard to not be jamming to your favorite tunes but eventually you (well I did at any rate) might begin to notice the sounds of the city or even better the sounds of your own head thinking.

Another aspect of the pokemon world that philosophically intrigues me is the connection between mankind and the natural world. In pokemon it is represented by the connection between humans and pokemon and their importance in the culture and lifestyle of the pokemon worlds. In Nebraska and much of the United States farming was the often the primary connection between society and nature but in other areas timber felling or fishing serve the purpose and these professions (along with the natural environment) served as the basis for which unique and human cultures could develop. This connection between man and nature (I know "man" is not politically correct but I am a traditionalist when it comes to English - "humankind" just isn't euphonious enough for me!) serves as a way to bring both stability to life (nature is pretty unchanging or changing so slowly that it seems unchanging in one's life time as compared with society) and is properly humbling (those who understand nature neither fear it nor think that it is all sunshine and lollipops either and respect it as a force that brings both life and death, joy and sadness - a proper humility). This, in it's own way forces all of us to see the necessity of being good stewards and caring for nature that we could in may respects completely destroy if we put our minds to it (or conversely put no thought into it what so ever.)

Now it is always worth noting that a fictional world is.. well... fictional and as such doesn't always have to follow the rules. Just because it works in fiction doesn't necessarily mean our society can actually function in such a way - and it may very well be that our society will never function in the intriguing ways of the pokemon world - maybe technology and simple living are just not as compatible as we would like (it seems to me that the drive to develop new kinds of technology might be severely hampered if our culture stopped looking for ways to make their lives "easier" which is essentially what I am in some ways advocating) but I have a lot of faith in the human intuition which seems notice that something is wrong with the current state of affairs and that living simply and using technology with a daft (I'm using this with its Old English meaning) touch are ideals to shoot for even if we can't actually achieve them as they are represented in the pokemon world.

"The Saturated Phenomena" (Marion)

Greetings readers,

Yes, today I will be using something that is not Freestyle Lyric Poetry to express a point, and I will be writing in sentences. :) Yay!! (as much as that style of writing is cool, it's not my particular strength I don't think.) Now, I want to talk about a strange concept in philosophy, or at least when it first appears, namely, the inversion of subject and object. The subject being the human self which observes phenomena, and objects which are phenomena, (which includes things, events, etc.) However, there are certain times that instead of observing phenomena subjects are actually overtaken by phenomena. Marion lists 4 types of Saturated Phenomenon: a) the event; b) the idol; c) flesh; d) the icon. These four types of phenomenon explain interactions where objects affect the subject more then simply being there.

A: The event. Events are saturated phenomena because the object involved is something which affects the subject and ultimately builds the self. Events affect and build sensitivities for people which in turn affects people as they look at future phenomenon. The subject takes in events based on past experience, but also can be changed by events in unforeseen ways. A good example of this is examining conversion experiences. When people have a dramatic conversion experience people do not foresee this consequence going in, but something in the event stimulates the self to react. This reaction causes growth toward something different and the event will be remembered as a key event in the life of the self. (Events include many things, speeches, movies, video games, music, etc.)

B: The idol: The idol captivates the subject because it possesses the person with an image of the divine in something concrete. The idol then captivates the self because the image of the divine affects how a self receives phenomenon. If an image of God is created (particularly in statues, but also in word images people use of God) then people influence their actions based on that image of God. For example, if people are given and receive an image of God as powerful and judgmental, then people's actions will be affected by that image. (There are many possible effects which this could have, but this is outside the scope of this entry.)

C: Flesh: "Flesh is that which feels itself feeling." (Marion, The Erotic Phenomenon) It is different from a body because the body is the object which can only be felt. Flesh is the source of overwhelming stimulation because everything which feels and feels itself feeling stimulates the senses in ways the subject does not control. For example, if you touch something hot unexpectedly, you quickly pull your hand away, but you don't rationally pull your hand away. The flesh feels something hot and pulls itself away on reflex with no thought.

D: Icon: The icon is also related to the divine like the idol but the icon has a different purpose. The icon does not build an image of God but rather provokes reflection of the infiniteness of God. This can be done in artwork, stained glass images, and various other things. (Honestly, the icon is complicated because it's not an idol but it's similar.)

The inversion of subject and object is important because it builds philosophies of conscience because it shows how people interact with being but also how being interacts with people. Conscience is affected because it must add to its examination how being affects the sensitivities of the self which affect the reception of being (particularly with events, but the flesh and idols also affect this, especially when language is considered.) (yes, outside of my thesis, conscience has become my new research buddy.) Manipulation is something which also is affected by these thoughts because people can use these saturated phenomena (knowingly or unknowingly) to affect the sensitivities of others. (hehhee more ideas for more posts.) I hope you've all enjoyed the read.

Aristocrates

Freestyle Lyric Poetry Thingy

Yo,

Today is a day where 3 line sentences with words we don't understand are for chumps seeking advanced degrees and those in the establishment (keeping in mind I'm seeking an advanced degree.) There will be no long sentences, no paragraphs, no form, just words that show reality, that present life and seek life to it's fullest. Here we go...

Sisters and brothers,
I'm here to tell a story today,
One of suffering and sorrow, joy and grace,

I'm here to tell about a world which bleeds.
It cries out for healing.
But none is to be found,
at least not as we appear to see.

Brothers and sisters
Power is everywhere,
and it seeks to corrupt life itself.

The world bleeds because of leaders and because of me
Because I don't respond to the world which bleeds.
Because I fall victim to power, and greed.

When we talk about evil,
we're not just talking about actions and deeds,
we're talking about our hearts
the pride, the anger, the greed,
these things which consume us and others,

It's not just the big bad world we have to fear,
it's those in power anywhere,
our politics, our TV, and even some religions
it's all those things we're supposed to trust.
Our communities which teach us these fears.

It's those in power who teach us to fear the BIG BAD OTHER
Those who look different,
Those who think different,
We should all be afraid, because they're not me

These others have opinions and feelings
But they're not to be considered by me,
Because I have the truth, I have reason,
I don't need the opinions of others.
Because what I have is objective
or at least that's what others tell me who claim it.

But racism, genocide, abortion, war,
This is why all these exist
because what's human is what someone else makes it
and those who don't fit die and suffer freely.

Even lesser things like teasing, bullying, and intimidation
stares, glazes, and screaming,
all happen because we don't listen
we talk because we're right, and fight because we're justified.
and is okay because our leaders tell us so.

In all this, where is the hope and grace
where is the love we feel and the joy we're told about
is it in ourselves or in our things
is it in believing the leadership and fighting blindly for them?

No, no it's not.
Hope and grace is in the love we have for ourselves
It's in the love we have for God.
And it's in the beautiful combination of the two.

Because many will claim God to justify their hate
but in the end, God cannot justify the hate,
because God sees through the hate
and raises it with love
raises it all in with love
raises it with a cross of giving love.

It is in this cross where we see the consequences of hate
We see people in fear drag innocence to crucifixion.
because of darkness and leaders infected by it,
and in response they affect the people
and this is what the story tells us.

So how do we deal with the intrinsic evil in the world
how do we give hope and love
does it start with ourselves, our leaders, and our large groups,
or does it start with me?

The question comes, "Can I love first?"
from a learned man, a Marion,
because that's where it starts
hope comes from me loving you and you loving me
and when this happy harmony comes
we can love the community which approaches

With this hope, we can engage the leaders
the leaders who spread fear and hate for the other
those not like me, or you, or we.
They build community by similarity and strawman
making human themselves and others not.

but we can build community different,
because we can model it on love of you and me
we can find God's happy harmony
and participate in life with God

This community of love, can appear in being,
can appear in what we see before us, if people choose,
if people choose hope and tolerance over fear and hate,
people can live in community.
People can really be people.

Because love is not about a feeling, or what a person is good at,
but rather something special about each person,
a uniqueness which cannot be repeated,
because every history is different,

which we need to respect,
because we can learn from difference,
about you but about me too,
and we can stop the intrinsic hate
we can stop the racism, genocide, war, abortion
manipulation, fear, malice, torture, and more

Though being is bleak, we have hope,
because though we see many examples of others and me failing,
there is always redemption beyond our control,
and a love which gives mercy,
which we can spread, and which we need to spread
because we can hoard it and keep God's love for ourselves,
or we can be that love for all to see.

We can separate love of God and neighbor,
or we can unite it,
and if united in the love I have for you,
then it becomes a sign for all,
of God's love for you and me.

And that's all sisters and brothers...
The reason for our hope is that we can always try again,
and we always have redemption.
Though things around us may seem angry, and fear related,
we can always love.

And that's it y'all, I'm out.

Aristocrates

Minnesota Nice and Compatibility with Catholicism

Dear readers,

Today we're going to examine a cultural phenomenon and assess its compatibility with the Catholic faith. (Since I'm an MA theology student, this interests me greatly.)

First, for those who are unfamiliar with the term, Minnesota Nice is the term used to describe Minnesotan (and other Midwestern) behavior of peace ability and acceptance toward others. It is characterized by not being aggressive and being cordial. On the external, this phenomenon seems wonderful, people that don't fight or get aggressive with each other, some may ask, "Why Adam why would you ever question this phenomenon?"

To analyze this phenomenon, let us examine a common greeting between persons in the area, "Hi, how are you today?" Now, keep in mind these always come together, even without our realizing it. The standard response for this question is something between fine, and pretty good. Even a person who isn't fine, or a person who is really excited about something, or just life in general, will still say something between fine and pretty good for the most part. This analysis presents us with a problem on the surface level already. In this regard, we are all sort of lying. Now of course, true vulnerability is not something we can have with everybody. But, in asking the question, "how are you today?" One is implying with language that a person really wants to know. If saying, "how are you today" is part of a cultural phenomenon where being courteous is expected, then "how are you today" becomes a statement which is much more difficult to get a real response, and also to give a real response. This is a problem because then we don't see real people, people still appear to us only as objects, where we might know they are people, but we don't see the character of the person, or their real being (Marion, The Erotic Phenomenon). The inauthenticity presented in this simple exchange of greeting seems good on the outside, but on the inside, one tends to know the "how are you today" is not something for which most people want a real answer. As this is a cultural phenomenon, I don't have a great beginning solution to this problem, however, there is still the possibility of acknowledging the presence of the other person, and not being intimidating by saying a forced "how are you". If one says hello to someone and walks away, that's still recognizing the presence of the other person. Now, if one does say "how are you" to someone, another good idea is especially if you're walking somewhere, stop! This is a gesture which shows that you're really interested in how someone is doing. If you're in a hurry or not interested, then it might not be a good idea to do this, because then you are positing an inauthentic self (Kirkegaard).

This idea of controlling feelings is also problematic when people get into friendships with each other. If the idea of "how are you today" is any indication of how people handle feelings with each other, then deeper friendships become a problem. People will say things which are not true and give words which express some form of sentiment, even if one doesn't exist at all. Minnesota Nice mentality will encourage people to tell others that they are friends, even if the actions in the friendship show otherwise. For example, say two people are hanging out, and one of them has this annoying habit of making a vuvuzella sound (for more on this see my future post on the World Cup). The other person might give a laugh (which if one examines the person's face the signs of awkwardness would probably be apparent, e.g. eyes kind of close and crinkle toward the self, looking away from the person, etc.) but on the inside the person might be feeling that this is really annoying. Now let a couple months pass in a friendship, and this annoyance builds up into other things. Minnesota Nice then becomes Minnesota passive-aggressive because this anger and annoyance at a small feeling, since the culture encourages ignoring those feelings, then those feelings are ignored and they go poof, and often friendships are lost because there was a) a lack of sensitivity on the part of the vuvuzella person and b) the person listening did not say what she was feeling.

This becomes incompatible with Catholicism because people are encouraged to lie, lying becomes an acceptable part of the culture, which people will justify in the name of tolerance. However, ironically, this behavior becomes intolerant because in the long run anger seethes and boils over and goes kaboom! Also, Jesus got mad (see any passage about the Cleansing of the Temple, except for John, that account is a little weird, until the author's intent is clear), Jesus cried (Jn), Jesus had real feelings, and he found appropriate ways to express them. The challenge for people in dealing with Minnesota Nice is that we have to find appropriate ways to express our feelings.

The first step to fixing the problem, is becoming more real yourself. This requires vulnerability (which by the way, is key to Levinas' ethical friendship and the exchange of persons mentioned in a lot of 20th century philosophy.) However, in being vulnerable it also allows people to be vulnerable. Real being is contagious. Some will be turned off by this, but those who you really want in your life can handle real vulnerability and real being.

Second, we have to deal with real problems as a community and not think that we can't do anything and must rely on professionals. Sure, counselors, psychologists, therapists, are all wonderful people, which I highly recommend to people. But, this does not excuse our own lack of witness and care for those who suffer, and also trusting our friends to hold us up. As Americans, many of us tend to buy too much in the idea of the need to be independent, which when one looks at real being is never the case (because there are always influences, and you always need people and community.) So, part of being real, is dealing with real problems. Until we deal with real problems as they are (and not for our own agendas) then we will get lost in a lack of real being. This is a great disaster because people need reality, need conversation, and need real being to experience the timeless moment where time flies by and no one knows because real engagement gives us a foretaste of the life to come.

Some Random Articles

Okay so I haven't been posting as often as usual - in my defense it is summer and there is no homework for me to avoid by blogging! Also I have recently hit a dearth of ideas. I am starting to formulate a few topics to post about but in the meantime, and so this blog doesn't have a most recent post that is almost a month old here are a few recent articles that I have read and enjoyed and a few quick thoughts about them:

Landscapes Grittier Aspects: One of the greatest programs ever created was probably google earth. I am one of those people who can spend hours just looking at different cities and countrysides. As a Simcity player as well, I have been forced to ponder the little ugly aspects of modern human development - like rail-yards and landfills. Here is a painter that takes on the same topics in his landscapes. I had never heard of him before but his paintings are illuminating.A Living Memorial: A look at the Lincoln Memorial and the architectual thought that went into it's construction.

The Education of E.F. Shumacher: I had never heard of the book "Small is Beautiful" but I may have to check it out now. A fascinating man.

The National Vice and the Kingship of Christ: A look at the problems America faces because of some of its cultural and philosophical assumptions.

A Water hole: Ashfall quarry, 10 million years ago: A little bit of an introduction into a wonderful fossil quarry that sits out in western Nebraska.

Enjoy!

The Types of Work I like Doing

This is a hilarious take from xkcd on the kinds of work I like doing in theology, granted it doesn't apply completely but I'm sure you'll find a good laugh.

http://xkcd.com/755

If that doesn't work.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/interdisciplinary.png

Enjoy

What makes a masterpiece?

Instead of my usual music review, this month I thought I would try something a little different. The reason being is that I picked Pink Floyd's Darkside of the Moon to review and honestly I don't think there is anything I can say that hasn't been said one hundred times before. This album is so critically acclaimed and so popular that there is, if anything too much ink spent extolling its virtues. But that leads to an interesting observation - Darkside of the Moon is both a critical and popular success. It is one of those works of art that truly deserves the title "masterpiece." But why is that? What makes the album so special that everyone one (in a general sense, I'm sure there are some who hate it) is attracted to it.

Art is made up of a few general basic aspects: There is the technical side, the skill and dexterity of the artists hand's. There is what I call the philosophical side - the worldview of the artist or the truth (in a non hard scientific sense) that the art means to reveal to the world. I also identify a third "grab bag" category for all aspects of the art which are more or less subjective. Now for there to be such a thing as a "masterpiece" their implicitly has to be a method or way to rank different works of art as better or worse compared to each other. The existence of the idea of a masterpiece rejects the idea that art can be neither good or bad or is entirely subjective. However because art itself is so complex the idea that we could set up some sort of system to rank art is impossible almost to the point of being absurd, there is no simple system. Because artists are endlessly inventive there are always ways of combining skills and talents into a myriad of different ways. Is it really possible to compare Darkside of the Moon to Beethoven's 9th Symphony so completely as to be able to definitively rank one as better then the other, I'm not sure there is. How could the specific structure of the 40 minute album with it's own (natural) criteria of what is good and not be able to compare to a symphony what has a very different set of criteria that makes it good art.

As such the discernment of a masterpiece can really only be done on a case by case basis or perhaps more generally in a very specific categorical basis (symphonies by Beethoven, albums by Pink Floyd, statues by Michelangelo). Now within art their are both subjective and objective criteria and both must be looked at when discerning a masterpiece. Both technical and philosophical sides have objective and subjective criteria. The lines between what is subjective and what is objective of may be blurry, especially on the philosophical side sense (to my knowledge) mankind has not yet discovered a philosophy that all agree is true in the same way whereas technical skill is relatively uncontroversial in what constitutes being better then others
Art however is one of those funny creations of mankind where the audience has almost as much influence on the outcome of the creation as the creator. Roger Waters (the lyricist for Darkside of the Moon) has a worldview that is very different from my own, but his observations about time, money and airports in Darkside of the Moon are presented in such a way that my own philosophy about each can take what is presented in the lyrics or music and make sense of it.

A masterpiece in a sense is a work of art that has been created in such a way that a great many people can experience it and walk away with a sense that they understand what is being said and yet at the same time feel there is more to learn by revisiting the experience. Certainly simple works can be pleasing and understandable but they are not masterpieces because what they can teach us about ourselves and our world (reality perhaps being the operative word here) is limited. Works that our so complex that they leave the vast majority of people (I realize I haven't defined the scope of people I am talking about - is it global, national, cultural? I don't know if it actually matters too much right now - it certainly must be large enough to include a variety of different experiences) confused or unable to grasp the meaning the art is trying to convey also fall short of masterpieces. There is a great deal more to consider when trying to figure out what makes a masterpiece (for example the thorny problem of popularity which I appear to be leading to even in this definition here.) and I will come back to adjust and add on to this definition as time goes by (as this is a blog post I don't want to make it too long) but for now this seems sufficient.

Omahensis

Movie Review: Invictus

Greetings,

I normally don't do movie reviews, because I normally don't watch many movies, but this movie warranted a review because it has characteristics which need to be highlighted. This work of art takes a good look at a historical event and brings the subjects to life, which in my own opinion, is the most important part of studying history, as the events themselves are influenced by real people.

Graphics: The art is the first thing one should talk about in discussing this movie. The viewer sees a lot of things in this movie in South Africa, from Nelson Mandela's mansion to the poorer areas of South Africa. The camera views at times can be awkward especially during the Rugby scenes, but all in all, what you see in the movie overtakes the bad camera angles at times. (P.S. I don't know a lot about graphics and how to make things look good so more comments on good editing would be helpful.)

Characters: This is the strength of this movie. Nelson Mandela (played by Morgan Freeman) comes alive on screen; you see his strengths and also points where one would realize that Mandela could be a hard person with whom to get along. One sees this in how his secretary and his daughter react to his sometimes hard and aggressive tendencies in speech and in leading South Africa. Matt Damon's character has a wonderful transformation from a frustrated leader to one who gains inspiration upon encountering Mandela. His reaction is typical of many people who encounter Mandela, he brings out a tough challenge to the person wants the best for his country, and each individual. In doing so, people have a warm respect for him, though few are personally close to Mandela. The people in this movie interact believably and very well with each other sharing tension, trust, joy, and many other feelings. These interactions make this movie a piece of art which is to be cherished.

Story: This movie is based on a true story of a South African rugby team who plays in the 1995 World Cup of Rugby, which was hosted by South Africa. The story tracks how Nelson Mandela worked with a rugby team to unite South Africa after its struggles with apartheid. Other readers will have more expertise than myself on the history of South Africa but from my limited understanding, apartheid was racism in South Africa between white and black South Africans. The whites were a vast minority in South Africa but used oppressive government power to oppress the blacks. (I apologize for not knowing a more politically correct term in advance.) This story tells of a struggle for forgiveness, reconciliation, and a true building of community based around a common purpose, being the country of South Africa.

Ethical lessons: Of course, one did not think they were getting a blog entry which was completely about a movie right... Hehehee, so ethical ideas which come from this movie. First, it is a good examination about racist leanings, even if not always expressed in the most explicit manners. This challenge is notable in the relationship between the white and black security guards for Mandela in the beginning of the movie. Even though both sides do not make an explicit "I don't like you, or trust you." there are plenty of snarky side comments and glances which suggest internal tension and distrust. Mandela also talks about the reality of these fears when he addresses the National Sports Council about how one needs to have respect for the white South Africans and let them have something, namely the rugby team, colors, and logo, which they love. This leads to the second challenge of the movie, which is building real community. Oftentimes, in society (both secular and religious), people like to sort themselves out with those who think uniform to their own thoughts and actions. (The Big Sort is a book which was mentioned by Dr. Richard Gaillardetz in a speech given at the St. Cloud Newman Center on this topic, further side note, Richard Gaillardetz is really accomplished in the field of ecclesiology, if anyone has an interest in reading on the meaning of Church, he is a good author to find.) South African community; however, as portrayed in this movie, does not work in this manner. This kind of community embraces difference around a common purpose, and appreciates the beauty in that difference. The different celebrations by each group in response to good things happening in the tournament or in the country are portrayed well in the movie. In the stadium, amongst the people and security guards, there is racial intermingling, which for South Africa just getting through apartheid would have been a big deal. Community in difference is an important lesson as it applies to everyone with whom we sort ourselves. Do we see the unique gifts in each person, and work to draw them out? Or, do we want to build people like ourselves? One type of community is healthy and lifegiving, the other seeks power and possession of other people.
Every good piece of art should challenge being in some way, and this piece does that by causing introspection looking at an external event. Though difficult, the reflection for our own lives can change our behavior, and in response being itself. Because when love is allowed to flourish and grow, people are affected by that love, and seek to follow that example themselves, or it touches them in some special way. The people that really love you, for being yourself, those are the ones you'll always remember. In this movie, we learn that we have to be that for others around us because everyone deserves to have that influential person who loves her. Mandela exhibits this beautifully both in his compliments to his co-workers and also his desire to remember the name of everyone on the rugby team.

All in all, this is a great piece of art which I highly recommend people go and see. And maybe I should write a movie review more often, this is actually a fun genre of writing.

Aristocrates

Certainty vs. Assurance

Is it more important be know one exist, or to have one affirm you exist? The difference between the question exercises two different parts of the person. To know with certainty one exists engages an exercise of the mind, but to be assured of one's existence requires a body (Marion cites this as "flesh" in The Erotic Phenomenon from where the philosophical ideas originate.) Each exercise is important at different times in one's life, and times of joy, boredom, or fear will question our existence and why we're here at all. At these times, Descartes and Heidegger become useful case studies because they ask the essential questions of being. But this is not always a sufficient answer for existence questions. Because there are times that we ask something greater than whether we simply exist as a "thinking thing" (Descartes, Meditations). This meditation creates an isolated existence because it finds the existence of a self outside the self, or hidden inside the body in a surreal mind, which even at the end of the Meditations, it's extremely unclear what the mind looks like, though the essence of thinking is clear.

But sometimes human persons need more than this certainty. Sometimes we all need to have others affirm our existence as a good, as being loved by others. Without this affirmation (Marion cites this as "assurance"), life becomes lonely. The next question one must ask is whether certainty of existence is enough. Is it enough to live life alone, but be certain of one's existence? Common experience would tell us this answer is no. A life alone means that one is not assured in the good of their existence, and thus is not really loved. People who don't have love in their lives start losing themselves, others, and their mental certainty of their existence.

So the next step, is asking how to promote love in their lives? How can people find a love which satisfies them and also deal with the risk of not receiving love in return? This is Marion's best point so far in his work "The Erotic Phenomenon". He moves between two stages of love which are commonly seen in society. The first he labels "reciprocity" meaning a love which seeks exchange, doing things and interacting with the other but not stepping out of one's way unless it's either convenient at that moment, or there is an expected return in some way. This is a common way of relating with people, we see it in businesses, acquaintances, and many sectors of life. People are objects in this stage because people are useful but not really lovable. The second stage of love is the one which requires more risk, because this is the stage where one steps out, even if there is no person to love. A person in this stage becomes the lover, and starts to act in a manner which does not care about reciprocal action. The lover slowly finds a beloved and the beloved becomes a person (namely, the person becomes real, the person is always a person with certainty but the person does not seem a real person because in the first stage of love people are focused on what they can get out of the other person, and don't see the person behind when they are doing so.)

With a paraphrase of Marion's work (this is all Marion's idea if this post hasn't made it clear already), now let's apply this a bit. What do we phenomenologically see in being in response to this philosophy presented above? And also, what do we do in response?

The first thing which is noticeable is that there are so many friendships that never get out of the first stage of love. Culture and society does a lot to encourage this first stage of love, because there are bar scenes, dance clubs, movie theaters, sports games, etc. where people can meet each other in a social setting. In a large group setting, it's hard to get to know a real person, all one can see is maybe, "I have fun with this person, this person does x and y and z, which is fun." But do we know the other real person besides I have fun with this person? At this stage, one cannot say that; however, most people do not move out of this stage, even in their most intimate relationships, and we see this based on what happens when people are a little different.

When there are those people who do not like the massive social setting, and begin to ask people about themselves and what they think about life, it ruffles feathers. Most people do not want to engage the deeper questions of life because it can cause anxiety and challenge people's beliefs. But real love grows from intimate conversation, because that is where a real person becomes apparent. Until there is real conversation, then love cannot form at least in the sense of having a deep, personal love. Hanging out in a social setting is easy for many people, and it creates a social atmosphere where a lot of people can have fun in a short amount of time, but these times do not last, when the burdens of life come and one needs someone who is really there for them, the friends you have fun with at massive parties tend not to be the ones to whom you go if there are difficulties. (Unless you've gone outside the massive social group setting.)

However, the difficulty in this thinking comes with how society seems. Many people do not see not having this deeper love as a problem. Many people don't see the difficulty in not having real people in their lives. This causes difficulties for people who want that deeper love because they have to navigate a market of people in order to find the kind of deep friendship they want, whom many just want for the sake of their talents and not their person. In doing this, there is a serious risk of emotional damage for people who are sensitive to being treated as something different than a person. So what's the joy of risking oneself in love when there are so many emotional hazards and an overall culture who does not want love. Eventually, when one finds that love, they find a treasure they can cherish, especially when one finds the stability of a real love. To get there though, one has to take the risk and become "a lover" (Marion). Without this risk from any individual person, our world (I'm including Church and secular society, this is a problem in both) does not find that real love, and the best example of that real love is the witness of Christ.

Masterpieces of Animation: The Old Mill

Along with music, one of my greatest loves is animation and puppetry. I enjoy the medium for its story telling abilities as well as the great technical details that go into animation that create the illusion of reality. Animation is fascinating when you stop and try to grasp how certain scenes were done, the amount of work and ingenuity that goes into even a short 10 minute cartoon is absolutely mind blowing. Periodically I would like to introduce and talk about some of my favorite pieces of animation and today I decided to start with what might be the most beautiful short (meaning less then 15 minutes) cartoon ever created: Disney's The Old Mill. Made in 1937 this cartoon confounds all the typical stereotypes of early cartoons. It is in color, there are no dancing animals (there are animals though) and most importantly no repetition of scenes. Instead it is a realistic depiction of an abandoned countryside mill, and the animals that live there, through a dark and stormy night.
Truth be told, The Old Mill was more of a developmental exercise to prove a concept then a deliberate masterpiece (kind of like Chopin's etudes). The short was created to develop and perfect the animation tools that would be used on "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" but as can be seen the animators at Disney already had the skills down pat. What is most amazing about this cartoon are the little details. The glistening spiderweb at the beginning, the ripples in the water, the sunlight dancing on the bat's wings and the bats' reflections in the water as they fly away. It all works together perfectly, the movements of the animals are smooth and very realistic in a stylistic way (they still tend to be (deliberately) a little anthropomorphic especially the owl). Thanks to Disney's newly developed multiplane camera (not the first one used in animation, but certainly the most advanced) a feeling of depth and the ability to have independently moving backgrounds (like the cows moving behind the mill) was used to great effect.
Great animation by itself however does not a masterpiece make. Both the music and the story boarding in this short are top notch. The composer really nailed the essence of a warm summer evening and the buildup to a short summer thunderstorm. When the sun comes up after the storm and the morning music kicks in, it instantly takes you back to mornings after a thunder storm, the music conveys the experience perfectly. Like the music the story bounces from animal to animal as they start their nightly activities staying long enough to be interesting without staying to long and becoming boring. When the storm finally hits, the tension rises (wonderfully accomplished in tandem with the music) and as the audience you can feel the worry of the little bird family caught in tough situation trying to weather the storm. Then finally the last lightening strike hits and the storm is over. Throughout the whole piece their are little bits of soft humor, more bemusing then laugh-out loud funny and an air of lightness that helps to contrast with the moments of grand tension (I feel it really speaks to a human "fear" or "uneasiness" that powerful storms cause, even on screen and the humor helps to ease that uncomfortable feeling.) Finally the whole cartoon is done without a single word or narration relying totally on the music, sound and visuals to convey the emotions of the piece.
The Old Mill really represents an apex of what animation can achieve and if you have never had the pleasure of experiencing the cartoon I really recommend it, it will change how you look at cartoons and animation.

God's Will? Really, can this be? Part 1

Greetings readers,

Today's blog entry is a perfect example of one of my situations where I do a "what if we thought about it like this?" The standard use of God's call language is that God has a perfect plan for everyone that everyone should accept in their lives for the most happiness for themselves. That vocation is something which is given and not fully chosen (because if it is to draw one to the most happiness when one is discerning God then one by this model is going to find their vocation because one will not often make themselves miserable. (unless it's for the sake of some other good which in this model there is no higher good than God, so of course in the people who promote this ideology have no real outs for not following one's vocation because nothing can be higher than God.)
While this is true, this makes God a robot master and a puppeteer at best. Plus it always serves one image of God, which is a introverted image of God. It always serves the prayerful person in monastery or seminary image of God who can live alone. It does not serve the extroverted person who wants to love and be available for other people necessarily because by exposing oneself to real community, we find as people that we need real community of those like us. In the above model, this means that a perceived need is placed before God, other people.
Of course, we are not perfect people, we screw things up, so there are times when we might not be real community for other people and cause a negative image of love (of hurt). And psychology tells us that hurts are powerful, negative images tend to stay in our minds more than positive ones, at least without training. Now keep in mind, this is where the above model gets power from people. If an institution/person/vocational director can show how community relationships cause suffering because humans are imperfect, then one can make a certain kind of religious life more appealing because it isolates the person from real relationships. It seeks to take the vulnerability out of relationships by establishing an ordered argument for creation. When one takes out the relationship in humanity; however, we are not contributing to the growth of real people, rather on the contrary, we are contributing to brainwashing and harming the overall Church.
A New Statesman article I read recently ("The Pope, the people and the paedophiles") touched on two different models of priesthood which are present in the Church with one having more influence (because it's initiated by the Pope, e.g. the introverted model of God.) and one which was favored by John Henry Newman (which I'll call an extroverted model because he focuses on the priest having good relationships with people (male and female) drinking fine wine, and overall living life (paraphrase) www.newstatesman.com/print/201004010012. This extroverted model of priesthood is tucked under the back burner now because it is not a popular response to the sex abuse crisis in the "more traditional" (I use this label as an identifier, but it really doesn't do it justice) sect of the Catholic Church. The popular response to the sex abuse crisis is asceticism, that priests (and I'm going to include religious as well, for this argument.) Priests and religious in this light should be more separated from people because they are higher than normal people and since they are following a call from God, it gives them a different life purpose, which all in all stands against the human community because it focuses exclusively on the community of God.
However, an extroverted model of priesthood is going to examine life as an experience. When one sees life as an experience, it means there is an examination of people's choices and interests. It takes into account real people. God is important because God is a guiding source for each person, but it is not for a specific end (e.g. there is no one way which favors God's light, because the goal of a life is to live an authentic Christian life, however each individual person experiences that reality. This needs to become a feasible option for priesthood and religious life because until this happens, God's will language will be used to manipulate people away from community and into extreme religious practice. When this happens, even people who find love are told of the horrors of love and a life with someone or any real community, and then as such get slowly taken to an introverted life where they are told they will find communion with God. The extroverted model then replies, it is in the experience of other people that we see signs of God. People/friends/family can bring us God's healing or the devil's hurts, and it's bull shit to believe that God wills suffering for people. God is not like, hey look this person gets cancer, or this person gets into a car wreck which isn't their fault. God's control is not that explicit. Where the power of God reigns is in the individual response to their situation to live an authentic Christian life in every moment of every day.
This entry is complete for now, however, there needs to be more discussion of this, because this affects so many issues. Til next issue, love deeply, be vulnerable, and seek the face of God. Amen.

Aristocrates.

What's Wrong with the Automobile Pt. 2

In my last post I discussed the problems related to automobiles and urban environments and maintained that it was a tension caused by space. City life requires densities and cars need immense amounts of space to move and function efficiently, effectively putting the two at odds with each other. This is the first problem of automobiles in urban places - cars require space to function. The second space issue that cars raise is probably more complex and also incredibly more difficult to solve. It is the physical space that the car itself takes up. Cities of course need densities to function well but, of course, everything takes up space. Your body, for example, requires space that could be put to use in other ways (think bedroom space and places to sit.) Now of course if we got rid of all of the people and the space their bodies require we wouldn't have a city anymore - this points out that the tension between space and density in city is not a matter of density good - space bad but in reality a proper balance between the two. Cars, it is my opinion distort this balance.

Of course all objects take up space, but since in good city design space is at a premium priority needs to be assigned to those objects or activities that make the best use of the space. This is primarily where cars fail. Your average commuter drives his car to work and then parks it and walks to the office and the car sits there and performs no useful function for the rest of the day until the worker uses it to get back home. This means that the thousands of cars being used everyday take up space and are providing no useful function in the space they are taking up. They are just sitting there. This is the huge problem every city has to provide for thousands of cars by using space that could be put to more useful functions like offices and homes as well as other functions.

Like the space required by roads to allow cars to efficiently function, this space required by cars increases the distances required to get to separate functions within a city hampering a primary benefit of living in a city. Mass transit in general doesn't have this problem (at least not to the same degree - nothing is used 100% of the time of course) because as soon as some people get done using it, it is available for others to use. This versatility makes mass transit a more efficient use of space.

Buses and trains however are not the only solution to the usage problem represented by cars. New York City, for instance makes extensive use of taxi's. This provides convenient personalized transit while at the same time allowing the taxi to be used by others once the original user no longer needs its services.

It should be noted though that this problem is not unique to cars but actually to all forms of private transportation. bikes, horses even Segways all will suffer the same space problems it is just a difference of degree (for example bikes are smaller then cars so the same affects that will appear with X number of cars might appear with 3X bikes.) In fact this is the main reason why mass transit should be preferred in dense city environments.

As a final note I would like to add again that cars are not total evil and they provide certain advantages that makes them a useful tool to have around and available. Private transportation is about the only feasible method to access rural and low density areas since public transportation requires significant densities to be useful. The ideas and thoughts presented in this argument are limited to certain specific instances and cannot necessarily be used in other situations (i.e. do not take this argument to far and draw conclusions that are not warranted by the points and truths elucidated here.)

The Event and The Moment

Note: At this busy time at the end of the school year and transitioning to summer I've been a little distracted from blogging, and honestly I've had some writers block so I've been trying to see if an experience will spark my writing. Well, one has, but that will come at a later entry. Today I want to talk about what it means to experience an event and how to find the central message or meaning in such an event.

To speak of an event, first one must think of a moment. In memory, certain moments in being stand out greater than others. How and what people remember is greatly affected by "factical life experience" (Heidegger, Phenomenology of Religious Life) because this experience builds patterns of memory and gaining knowledge. (Note: this is also a useful skill if one is attempting to think about how people gain more knowledge in their studies as well, by relating experiences to things which are familiar.) Every event is a moment of some sort, and the events which come to mind the easiest are going to be familiar moments which shape our lives. These can be good or bad events/moments and have good or bad effects, not necessarily in synchronization with each other. From bad events and come good results and good results can create bad events. (If this were not true any theory which tries to make good come from suffering would make no sense.)

One must distinguish the difference between event and moment before proceeding further. An event is an objective phenomenon which has more than one actor. A good example of this would be a conference, a first kiss, or a class (all of which, except for the kiss are more than one event even in itself.) These objective things point to reality and have a central message and meaning behind them, which is greater than the sum of their subjective parts. This is true because these events all cause moments to occur in one's memory. A moment is distinct from an event because it focuses more on the subjective interpretation of an event. In culture this is a popular sentiment when one hears, "I/we had a moment". There may be an objective thing which happened (the event) but the importance in the discussion is the subjective interpretation the person is giving in the phrase "we had a moment". (Note: I've found this is particularly popular in dating interpretation, stereotypically on the feminine side.) Also, event and moment must be parsed from "the occasion" (Kirkegaard (Johannes Climacus his pen name), Philosophical Fragments). Kirkegaard uses the occasion to refer to a specific opportunity to witness to a particular message (in the text namely about the teaching of the God.) This is distinct from the event because it focuses on the subjective person teaching, but it is not the same as a moment because it is not open-ended in its interpretation. The occasion always has a specific end goal in mind. (For Kirkegaard, namely the witness of God as the end goal.)

Parsing these words helps the observer to understand phenomena which exists in front of her. The objective event is something which has a central message which it wishes to convey to all people. A first kiss is a sign of future affection, not only is it a risky endeavor (because person a is trusting another person with an intimate side of himself, but also because it involves trust that the other person will not use person a.) but also a sign of great joy, a shared experience with another. To an objective onlooker, this kiss is just a kiss, a sign of affection, and probably something one would rather not see others doing in public, or walk in on accidentally. However, for the participants in the kiss, there is something much different going on in this event. The two people share a story, a series of moments together, which others cannot see unless their story is told (and even then I'd argue most people still would not understand the significance of the story because that requires time to understand the "factical life experience" of both persons (Heidegger, Phenomenology of Religious Life). The passion in the kiss comes from the shared life together, and this may or may not be known even to both participants at the time, especially because a first kiss tends to be an initial sign of affection, an invitation of sorts. This is where the growth for the future comes, because that event for the two people involved becomes a moment which grows and continues to get interpreted through time.

There are two good contemporary examples of which this mentality becomes extremely important in understanding interpretation. The first is when someone uses the phrase, "I'm preaching the Truth in love." The second is any ritual conference setting. These are two events which have objective happenings and subjective interpretations (even what people tend to call objective in these events is at least somewhat subjective, or group subjective, meaning a group of people are working toward a common interpretation (which the group wants to pose as objective.)

"Preaching the truth in love" is a phrase I've heard many times, from various people, in different walks of life. The general intent of this message is to say I want to preach the message of Jesus Christ but I'm not willing one's face off to do it. So in other words, there is no desire for a forced conversion. However, underneath the surface, this is still a subversive statement which is problematic in how one views the Gospel. To be clear, I believe the Resurrection is an objective happening, and as an event in history it has many interpretations from many people necessarily. (This is clear when one sees how many Christian denominations there are and the factions in each Christian denomination, and even seen in the lack of belief for most.) However, my own interpretation of the Resurrection is one which observes the objective happening (the event) and seeks to mold my life around the example of the Resurrected One. (And we are talking about Jesus Christ to be clear.) (Hilariously enough, this is similar to Kirkegaard's idea of the teaching of the God and how it is given to the rest of humanity through the God-man. (For more see Johannes Climacus). This critique is not in viewing a problem with the event, even so, "preaching the truth in love" is ambivalent at best, and at worst an ignorance of the witness of Jesus.
The reason the phrase "Preaching the truth in love" is so problematic is because it sets certain people apart from others because a supposedly objective interpretation of an event, in this case, the Resurrection event. However, this does two things, a) it assumes that the person saying this statement has the truth, and b) it assumes the person listening to whatever the person in a is saying has no truth in them at all because it needs to be given to them. This is more than a little Gnostic in its interpretation because people assume they have a secret knowledge which is given to them in making this statement, the only real difference is the belief that this knowledge is accessible to everyone. The only problem is that the interpretation given in "preaching the truth with love" is not accessible to everyone because the group subjective is given to people who have some form of similar experience. (particularly notable in the ritual conference or seminary setting) This language is used as a tool of empowerment because it gives people belief that they have the objective interpretation of the Resurrection event that they have to share with others.
What this does, however, is in effect negate real conversation. When one is told, or believes to "preach the truth in love" there is no need to listen to the other, because that person "has" the objective truth and interpretation of the Resurrection event, everything else can be seen as a lie, or demonic, or "of the world" (FOCUS, (Matthew Kelly, On the Single Life; Dr. Edward Sri, Don't Impose Your Morality on Me?, etc).

Citing FOCUS above moves to the second example where this interpretation of event and moment becomes important, and that is in the ritual conference setting. This setting is one which there is an objective event, and many objective events in that event, such as speeches and particular rituals. The important part of this examination is to think about when event becomes moment, when the objective moves to something more personal. In ritual studies, one attempts to determine how this happens in the ritual participants and what themes are coming across. However, in noting the difference between event and moment, there is a folly in my research, in that my interpretation of events comes from subjective experience, my opinions and thoughts, to come to a conclusion about a ritual event, and how it can possibly be interpreted by those who participate in the ritual. This possible interpretation is also the one which the leaders of the conference want to give to people, however, as I've argued above, there is nothing objective about what I say, or even what the leaders of the conference say, it is all based on our own interpretations of faith.

A step back will reveal the validity of this research and why it is necessary to examine event and moment so carefully. Any ritual conference setting has a mentality which is the group subjective. This is the consensus agreement given by the majority of the leaders as the message which is preached. When a message becomes the consensus agreement, it gains the appearance of the objective (especially when it is placed in the substratum of Tradition in Catholic circles.) In reality, however, this is simply the group subjective being placed as such. This makes interpretation difficult because one has to figure out how exactly one gets to an objective message which a ritual wants to proclaim (through verbal and non-verbal language.) Repetition becomes important to study in the ritual setting for this reason. What is repeated becomes objective to the subject who participates in the ritual (namely the repetition leads to a process of a certain idea becoming a objective given (such as something in logic puzzles), rather than something which must be examined throughout life, and maybe being a subjective given (which is fine because all people have values which are important, but when this interpretation is used to justify berading other people and "preaching the truth in love" then it becomes an issue). However, until one examines the group subjective and what is truly going on in that dynamic, one will never be able to ascertain the "objective" message they are trying to get across. (What exactly the ritual setting is trying to get across is up to individual discussion based on observance of each conference.)

One last point: it is important in the Catholic ritual conference setting (e.g. FOCUS) to determine whether the repetition given at conference is the same as the repetition given by Jesus. In "preaching the truth with love" it is also important to examine what is repeated because that tells an observer what is important to the subjective preacher about the Resurrection event. How one interprets this event, and the life of Jesus as a whole, is important in showing the validity of any ritual as authentically in the name of Jesus. Some of this gets down to imagery, and some of this gets down to textual analysis (which complicates things far more than my expertise can ascertain in this piece, or even in general.) but in the end, there are points which are repeated and this repetition is a source of critique for everyone's lives. However, the repeated points are different for many observers, and different observers emphasize different things. The objective message of Jesus then gets many subjective interpretations, so instead of seeing an event, one often sees a series of moments which are someone else's supposedly "objective" interpretation of an event.

The challenge in all this is to find an objective message which Jesus was trying to preach, which many historical-critical biblical scholars have attempted to do for hundreds of years. However, this is an impossible endeavor, because any information necessarily has an interpretive lens, because not all see an objective event the same way. And even looking at the group subjective does not help because the Bible presents the stories of many different groups and their strengths and difficulties in encountering Jesus and his mission. So in this case, there is no objective interpretation; however, this does not negate the message of Jesus. With any social commentator, there is always subjective influence, both on the part of the speaker, and of the interpreters. If one finds truth in the Resurrection event, one must always deal with the social commentary on Jesus, from both influences whom one likes, and whom one dislikes. To find what is important in the event of Jesus life, one must look at which moments come up consistently, and what themes are drawn from those moments. Then we must ask two questions, first, do the rituals in which we partake and observe match the repetitions and themes which Jesus does in his ministry? Finally, and most importantly, are our own lives in consistency with the repetitions and themes of Jesus and the entire Bible? These two questions really get to the importance of event and moment. Do our personal moments reflect the Resurrection event, if we claim to be Christian? Where do we as individuals, and as a people, fall short of our ritual repetitions matching the life of Jesus? Finally, what do we resolve to do about it if we do see the need for change? This can only be done if one understands objective events through the lens of subjective moments and by really listening to the lives of others. (Which in some respect is also an important repetition, Jesus as meeting people where they are at, accepting their good, and motivating them to do better.)

Album Review: Dusty in Memphis

I want to take a short look at what might be one of the oddest entries in the annuls of great rock albums. Upon first listen it doesn't sound in the least like a rock album, it's soulful at times (think Aretha Franklin) at other times poppy and always incredibly lush. It hardly fits a general conception of what a rock album is, and even after multiple listens it still doesn't sound like a record your typical rock fan would even want to have in their collection. Yet nonetheless VH1 and Rolling Stone both list the album as one of the top 100 rock and roll albums of all time so apparently there is consensus amongst claimed rock authority that "Dusty in Memphis" is a rock album, and a significant one at that. In lieu of my normal album review I want to investigate this phenomenon and hopefully this will lead into some insight as to what makes it a great work of music.
I'll admit that one of the reasons I am trying to review the album this ways is that I have only recently discovered the album and as such can not claim to have the listening time put into the album to go song by song, but in the last week I have been listening to it over and over again because I have become absolutely enamored with it so I wanted to bring some of that new found excitement into this review. It really wouldn't be a review of "Dusty in Memphis" without a look at the big song on the album, "Son of a Preacher Man." This was the big hit and its not very hard to see why, it slinks and grooves with the opening keyboard and then Dusty begins singing the song. Dusty's vocals carry this song and throughout the whole album. She manages to give the right tone to fit the character in the song she is singing, naive, insecure and yet jubilant. Even so she never belies her confidence that she knows she is in complete control of the song. She owns the music and as you listen to both "Preacher Man" and everything else on the album you are intimately aware that you are in the presence of a master.
But the voice alone can not carry the album. A weak choice of songs or flat arrangements could easily derail an album and diminish the power but "Dusty in Memphis" is full of gems from professional songwriters and the arrangements are all top notch. What is so amazing is that the producers and Dusty wisely use a wide range of musical styles resulting in an album that span the gamut from traditional and sixties pop to southern soul and bluesy rock. After "Preacher Man" her version of "The Windmills of Your Mind" is perhaps my favorite song on the album (so far) and in many ways I feel that the arrangement is what truly seals the deal. Starting at a crawl with a nightmarish swirl of strings "Windmills" slowly builds up to a quick paced guitar strum (almost Spanish or Greek sounding) and then the drums start up and the songs ascends into rock territory with an arrangement that sizzles. In some ways it encapsulates the sheer musical variety as the album as a whole.
So what makes this album a rock classic, in many ways I think it more closely fits the aesthetics of a rock album then the surface implies. Dusty's impassioned vocals, full of spirit and feeling, could be the match of Little Richard or Robert Plant. Wexler, Dowd and Mardin, the producers/engineers, daring arrangements and freewheeling style make one think of Beatles and the Beach Boys with their embrace of a myriad of genres all blended into a seamless and beautiful fit. So in a overarching sense, "Dusty in Memphis" can sit comfortably with "London Calling" and "Abbey Road" amongst rocks pantheon and its reserved place speaks to the inclusiveness of rock music in general. (Interestingly that brings up another discussion as to what sort of genre of music, if any, rock actually is, but that is for another post.) So as it seems "Dusty in Memphis" does deserve its accolades and hopefully this post will inspire you to look into this wonderful work of rock music!

Why the Media Attacks on the Pope are Justified

Greetings readers,



An issue which is near and dear to my heart has come forth in the past weeks with the recent run of sex scandal revelations in Europe. The pope himself has been implicated as one who helped keep the abuses a secret from secular authorities by authorizing the movement of pedophile priests while he was in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. There have been two main responses to this crisis, one which is to defend the pope at all costs. The other is to attack the Pope without understanding how Church bureaucracy works. This opinion is neither and seeks to approach the manner from a different angle not looking so much at the actions themselves, but looking at the issue of how the Catholic Church is viewed in society. This is an important distinction to make because this affects the people's response to this crisis and does not look particularly at the victims, or give a victims perspective.


The best way to approach this justification is to examine how people who are defending the pope are doing so. People who seek to defend the pope are blaming the media for being on a witchhunt. The media is seen as a force who is trying to show mistakes which the pope made in his handling of the abuse crisis. The mentality exhibited by this group of people is that the pope cannot make a mistake because he is infallible in his decision making. (Note: there are problems with how infallibility is defined by this group as well, as infallibility has an extremely limited definition in Catholic theology, namely the teaching must be about faith and morals, and the teaching must be given ex cathedra (from the chair) explicitly.) If the pope is infallible in this more extreme category, then any perceived mistake is a threat to stability in the Catholic Church.


However, the definition of the Catholic Church in this way focuses on a specific model of ecclesiology (of the Church as Institution) (see Avery Dulles' book Models of the Church). This model of Church is focused on by the media because people in the Catholic Church focus on the pope more now than at any other time in history. The world of Catholicism is moved by the words of the pope, and everyone knows who the pope is. The words of the pope are move available for people to read than ever. This creates some sense of unity because people have the opportunity to read the pope's thoughts on any given topic, and the pope is able to make his opinion known on a grand scale.


In the current age of the Church, however, this creates a culture where dissent is not tolerated as well because everyone can see the pope's opinion. Vocal dissent from any bishop is not encouraged, and is heavily noticed. This occurs because of the perceived threats which many people in the Catholic Church feel toward the Church as a whole. Also, the increased exposure of the pope is an extremely important factor. When people entreat into a defensive stance, people turn toward the perceived center of the Church, in this case the pope and the magisterial teaching (e.g. the central teaching authority, the Vatican). When this happens any perceived attack against the center of the Church, rightly or wrongly, garners a strong reaction to demonize anyone who would say such things against the Church.

The reason the media attacks in this recent sex abuse crisis against the pope are justified for this reason. Because the Church as a whole, in the mainstream opinion, has centered on the pope and many people are willing to front this image of Church to the whole. Because the pope is placed as the center of the Church when anything goes wrong in the Church, the pope is the first person everyone blames. This is justified because people have built up this image of the pope and church and have accepted it as a part of faith. In essence, this crisis of authority is the fault of every person of faith (particularly, but not limited to the Catholic Church.) (Noting also there are dissenters from this view, but however, the people as a whole must take responsibility, because in some way all people are responsible for this crisis because of an unwillingness to point to Church teaching which shows a different direction.) People are at fault because people do not realize that they are the Church and not just the institutions (see Lumen Gentium chapter 2).

What is a possible solution to this crisis of authority? Avery Dulles in his book Models of the Church presents other models with which the Church can identify. Particularly he mentions the Church as communio, sacrament, herald, servant, and community of persons. (from Models of the Church). Each of these models presents a different solution to this problem because each model offers different focal points of the Church. For example, the Church as herald focuses on the proclaimed word of God as the uniting source of the community, while the Church as servant finds its strength in being willing to serve the needs of the world and "embrace the hopes, joys, and fears of real people (Gadium et Spes 1)." With any model, there are weaknesses as Dulles does well in his book, so a good solution to the crisis of authority in the Church is to have a balanced model of Church which takes into accounts the many models of the Church. However, in order to do this, one must take a reading of Vatican II and understand the discontinuity in discourse between what Vatican II imagines and what is lived in Church discourse today.

There is a warning, if more models of the Church are not embraced by the general public, attacks on the pope will continue because he will continue to be the perceived center, and people will be seen as lock-step with the pope. (In this light, bishops must also have their own authority to act in collegiality, to be able to have discussions about matters of discipline to see what is best for the Church.) (e.g. Richard Gaillardetz in his article Can I Disagree with Catholic Teaching highlights the different levels of teaching in the Catholic faith. There are four levels "definitive dogma, definitive (irreformable) doctrine, non-definitive doctrine," (the fourth is the lowest level and this highlights things which are done out of practicality or opinion though I forget the name of the particular level as I write this post.) Collegiality requires that bishops can discuss how certain disciplines affect their people to the universal Church. In the current model of Church which is heavily advocated, there is little collegiality because there can be no open disagreement. To solve this problem, one must realize that the world does not hate the Church as a whole, but in this case, people hate what has happened in the Church, and how it has not lived up to its image as Sacrament, in teaching which is proposed (e.g. teachings on sexuality.) (Side note: Rene Girard and his theory on sacrifice and scapegoating has to be balanced with this, because I do agree the work of Jesus as one which exposes the scapegoating mechanism in all societies, which is a threat to everyone, but this is the subject for another post.

In conclusion, as one examines the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, one must look at what the people as a community have to do with this crisis. Most people have nothing to do with the actual actions of the crisis, however, everyone has a responsibility to forgive, and also can examine how the Church has grown in centralized power recently. People have the ability to use power for the good of love, but also for the power of use, manipulation, and evil. Power in itself is not bad, but in this case, power was used and is still being used to hurt others. However, it is not just the people involved in the crimes who are to blame. By looking at ecclesiology (e.g. the Study of the Church), one can see how the model of Church which is heavily favored has an effect on how people respond to crisis. By favoring an institutional model of Church, people lean toward the center, the pope, for strength. However, in times of crisis, the pope is also the first one to get the blame when something happens, because people see the pope as the Church. Until the dominant model of ecclesiology changes, or better yet, people utilize an image of Church which balances many different models, then this problem will continue to happen in the Catholic Church.
However, this solution gives hope, because when the institution starts to lack credibility, people begin to explore new models, and examine the depth of what the Catholic Church is. This time of trouble can be one of great hope because it will spark creativity and love has the potential to permeate whatever structure exists (which of course in saying all of this, what is also affirmed from this methodology is the need for some form of leadership, because the Church as Institution is still a model, and thus a necessary one for ecclesiology.) And there can be no scapegoats in this model either, because everyone has a role in healing the wounds which are present, and everyone has the potential to be blamed as well. People have unlimited potential, and this potential is what allows humans to love. In love, will people match the example of the founder of the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ.

What's Wrong with the Automobile Pt. 1

I'm going to start by proclaiming my sincerity that I do not hate cars. I love taking road trips and being on the open road. Cars have some amazing advantages to offer as a tool for us to use and to desire to get rid of them completely is rather silly. That being said, cars are not an absolute good they have negative qualities about them as well. In particular I want to focus on the incompatibility of cars in developed urban areas.

When I talk about urban areas I do not merely mean large cities like New York and L.A. Mid-size cities like Omaha or even small cities like Sioux Falls are included even if the effects are not as noticeable. Density is the measurement that truly matters (although population is not completely irrelevant).

Initially, it may seem that the problem with automobiles is emissions and exhaust and at the present that is a serious problem, but it is not what makes automobiles incompatible with urban areas. It is good to remember that in the last 40 years or so cars have become much more efficient and the emissions per car have been reduced (the number of cars has drastically multiplied which offsets the increase in efficiency). It seems likely therefore that as time goes by we will be able to continue to reduce car emissions and eventually move to a non-fossil fuel base and remove the emissions problem altogether, so emissions isn't the problem with cars.

The problem with cars is not a problem of emissions but a problem of space. Cities and urban areas work on principles of density and function best both economically and socially (not that these two aspects are completely distinct from each other) when the densities are high (It should be noted that "high" is not a particular number but is a relative value dependent upon the particularities of individual cities, and neighborhoods and districts within cities.). For discussions on why this is so look at Jane Jacobs The Death and Life of Great American Cities. High densities require a conservation of space and cars, by their nature, work against such a principle. Cars require space in two different senses. Cars are themselves large and tack up a certain amount of physical, but when cars are moving they require an additional amount of space to operate in safety like a personal bubble.

Lets deal with the moving space first. Cars are useful because they allow us to quickly get from one place to another very quickly. In a car I can get from Omaha to Denver in about 7 hours (okay 8 if you drive the speed limit, but come on). That is about 7 hours to cover a distance of 540 miles. Now quickly do the math, to cover 540 miles in 7 hours you have to go on average about 77 mph. Now to have a large metal and plastic object travel at 77 mph creates some obvious safety concerns. One needs to be able to keep the car in control while going at that speed and in order to do that, the road has to be designed in certain ways. Invariably all of these design attributes require space. Want to get rid of all the stops on the road, well build a freeway, but you need to take extra space along each road to construct ramps and bridges in order to remove traffic conflicts. Need to be able to make a 90 degree curve without slowing down, then you are going to need to increase the radius of the curve by a few hundred or thousand feet. Want to keep other cars from brushing up against you, well you might have to increase your lane width from 10 feet to 12 feet.

In the end all those extra feet and yards add up, and these extra feet are needed just to keep cars going safely at 40 or 45 mph. Look in your own city, any road that has a speed limit of 45 probably is either two lanes, has a median and a little bit of boulevard grass (between 10 and 20 feet) before the sidewalk. Or it is a two lane road with ditches, or other wide grass shoulder separating it from buildings and people. These adaptations are necessary to ensure the cars will be able to maintain the speeds it needs, get rid of all or even just a few of the aspects and the car has to slow down to 30 or 25 mph (think downtown areas). Now look at how far away some of those suburbs are and you realize that traveling at 25 mph would result in trips of an hour or more to get to the center of town assuming no congestion or extra stops.

It should be easy to see that for automobile travel to be useful (over long distances at least) you need to be moving at high speeds (4o and above), but to be able to travel at these high speeds you need to create roads with design features that take up lots of space. As urban areas require density and the conservation of space these two are at fundamental odds with each other. When I return to this topic I will look at the other space issue of cars, the far more problematic issue in regards to proper city development.