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.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
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.)
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.)
Friday, May 14, 2010
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.)
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.)
Saturday, May 1, 2010
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)