| PERI DOXHS | ||||
To AKMA's Seabury-Western Home Page Email me at Seabury AUTHENTICITY PREMISES Voice, Authenticity, Style, Politics Faculty and Administration of the University of Blogaria  Prof. of Hyperlinked Humanities, Primus Inter Pares David Weinberger Provost and Vice Chancellor of Imaginary Affairs Frank Paynter Wealth Bondage Registrar Halley Suitt Dean of Memetic Engineering and Reader of Thoughts Kevin Marks Research Professor of Markup Cryptology Phil Ringnalda Murasaki Shikibu and Sei Shonagon Foundation Professor of Early Japanese Literature Jonathan Delacour Abraham J. Simpson Chair of Desultory Conjecture Steve Himmer Clued Professor of Micro-journalism and Women's Studies Jeneane Sessum Prof. of Digital Psychometry Eric Norlin Christopher Locke Prof. of Comparative Kim Novak Ray Davis Ho Chi Minh Chair in Vietnamese Studies & American Poetry Joseph Duemer Section 508 Prof. of Web Accesibility and Useability Mark Pilgrim Professor of Haemophagy and Laputan Linguistics Naomi Chana Harley Davidson Saddle of Comparative Literature Tom Matrullo Prof. of Melanesian Hermeneutics Alex Golub Prof. of Linguistics Dorothea Salo Zimmerman Professor of Music and Poetics Mike Golby Senior Lecturer in Tlonian Area Studies and Chaplain A. K. M. Adam Szarkowski Chair of Photography Jeff Ward Prof. of Analytic Philosophy and Korean Area Studies Stavros Alfred E. Newman Foundation Chair in International Blogging Relations Shelley Powers Prof. of Gluation and Scissorology Mark Woods Professor of Folklore & Mythology Renee Perlmutter Crone-in-Residence, Purveyor of Eclectic Mysticism�??�?� and Professor of Rhetorical Ritual Elaine de Kalilily Prof. of Fractured Philosophy Tom Shugart Director of Music, Blogaria School of Divinity Tripp Hudgins House Band Shannon Campbell Audio-Visual Guy Josiah Adam Campus Cat Dizzy, at Allan Moult's place DAILY BLOGS The Usual Posse Doc Searls Dave Rogers Victor Echo Zulu Gary Turner Textism Jordon Cooper Elke (Sisco) Zimmermann sacra doctrina Mike Sanders ZINES The Ekklesia Project Fellowship 
Member of the JOHO Curling Team  
|
Saturday, February 02, 2002 ( 9:27 AM ) Kierkegaard: "If I want to keep myself in faith," Climacus writes in Concluding Unscientific Postscript, "I must continually see to it that I hold fast the objective uncertainty." Right. Now, the author of the article cited above, Erin Leib, continues, "In building faith out of doubt, Kierkegaard made the absence of God look like the presence of God. He constructed a theology wherein one has full faith precisely where one does not have full faith. This, to put it mildly, is slippery, and lends itself to a theological demagoguery. For engaging with possibility is not the same thing as asserting definitively. Entertaining marriage is emphatically not the same thing as marrying. The dialectical lover and the dialectical thinker lived and died a bachelor after all." Well, to an extent; I'm no Kierkegaard expert, so I can't make a definitive claim about his success at getting his rhetoric just right. At the same time, Leib's position seems to oversimplify the theological sublime to which Kierkegaard aims. Those for whom "faith" or "presence" excludes an appreciation of "the objective uncertainty," and who thereby dismiss Kierkegaard as having weak faith or impaired faith (are these not the "knights of faith" whom he so pointedly interrogates?), miss the point that "faith" itself can well include the recognition of how improbable the whole venture looks from outside, that is, the recognition of "the objective uncertainty." Now, the tawdry theologians of uncertainty make a virtue out of doubt, and I don't believe that that was Kierkegaard's path; he can hardly have advocated the virtue of doubt when he ascribed such transcendent importance to obedience to God's counter-ethical demand. The pivotal line, the line so thin as perhaps not to be there, takes the possibility of intelligent doubt seriously enough to acknowledge that faith is not necessary, that atheists, agnostics, and those whose faith differs materially from "our" faith (whoever "we" are) are stupid, perverse, deranged, or in some other manner out of touch with plain manifest reason. That doesn't make faith "unreasonable" nor does it constitute "doubt" as a virtue--but it demands humility of faith, and offers doubt the respect that we ourselves would ask for our faith. Permalink -Main Page- Thursday, January 31, 2002 ( 5:54 AM ) George Bush heard my rant from the other day and hammered home my point with this speech. "Not only will our country be better, but we will show the world that values--universal values--must be respected and must be adhered to"--or else, presumably, we'll bomb the dickens out of anyone who doesn't respect the universal values that W stipulates. Now, if you have to threaten people in order to make them adhere to values that you're claiming are universal, how does that work out? It sounds to me as though they're not exactly universal values under those circumstances. "Universal values, except for the people we disagree violently with." Now there's some good clear thinking. Permalink -Main Page- Tuesday, January 29, 2002 ( 9:28 PM ) David Weinberger gets what jillions of folks can't see: that it's only to be expected that religious disagreements may go all the way to the roots, even when the disagreement seems to involve really nice and friendly people. I suspect the Dalai Lama is a snazzy guy, probably beats the dickens out of many of my bishops for sophistication and profondeur, but so far as it's been given me to understand the world, Buddhists just have the deal wrong. Nicely wrong (when they're not using government military power to coerce native peoples into submission), but they still miss an important boat. It doesn't bother me to say this because, as far as it's given me to understand Buddhism, a good Buddhist has to think that I've misconstrued the nature of the universe. And rightly so. Not that this means Buddhists and Christians can't get along, can't agree on things like "It's better not to slaughter indigenous peoples to shore up the nation-state," can't play football (the world kind, not American football) (not that a Buddhist couldn't play football, though I don't understand why they'd want to). They will just disagree about lots of important things. And again, that should be okay. Especially when Christians (and here I'm picking on my sisters and brothers because they have a claim of accountability on me and I on them) remember that they're supposed to turn the other cheek, endure suffering rather than inflict it, be wronged rather than wrong someone else, and so on. Again, Weinberger wonders how the very idea of universal truths works: "Finding a universal ground for all religion reduces us to mouthing abstractions so vague as to be meaningless and ignores what is most distinctive and most important about each religion." My way of putting this in an argument with a colleague who believed fervently in universal truths was, "I'll agree that we believe in universal truths when the truths in question are so universal that you'll let me tell you what they are." Of course, Max wouldn't let me define what the universal truths were; he wanted both universality and the whip hand in defining the universal truths. Does that smell fishy to anyone else? "You have to believe in universal truths, and let me tell you what they are." This kind of arguing often comes from people who slag the writers who taught me a lot about thinking (Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, Irigaray, that bunch) for complicity with the forces of reaction and fascism--presumably because these theorists don't subscribe to the dogmas of universal reason. There! Got that off my chest. Still haven't found a copy of "Alive (For Once in My Lifetime," though. By the way, David Weinberger ascribes the aphorism, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted" to Dostoevsky; a little Googling, though, would have suggested that this expression doesn't appear in the most common translations of Dostoevsky's works, though the phrase "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" appears in John Fowles's The Magus and William S. Burroughs ("Apocalypse," there assigned to Hassan i Sabah, the Old Man of the Mountain), and, most memorably for me, Jim Carroll on his Catholic Boy album ("Nothing is True") (I'll bet you can find that on the Internet). Permalink -Main Page- Sunday, January 27, 2002 ( 5:12 PM ) I should add, in the name of honesty, that I also get pedantically vexed by people with tin ears and short attention spans, who can't tell the Cure from the Furs, or the Pretenders from the Proclaimers, or They Might Be Giants from any other band with pretensions to being amusing. Likewise those who can't spell "Psychedelic." Permalink -Main Page- ( 3:27 PM ) It's interesting to observe the tides with which particular artists wax and wane in popularity in the cyberworld of the Gnutella, Napster, and Hotline networks. I happen to be very enthusiastic about the Pyschedelic Furs. I am both a fan and an advocate; I relish the listening/croaking-along experience, and I admire the music as compositions, arrangements, and performances. They're a pretty well-known band, right? They've inspired some covers, their single "Pretty in Pink" was adopted as the title of a movie I never cared to watch, and they've reassembled recently to release a live album featuring a new single. But the P2P networks seem never to have heard of "Alive (For Once in My Lifetime)," though the number of tedious make-fun-of-Osama jingles and 'N Sync blockbusters seems limitless. In a recent Gnutella search, only four Furs songs came up, three of them versions of "Love My Way." Now, lots of factors enter into how far the Gnutella system searches, how many hits it returns, but all the same it seems clear that the Psychedelic Furs occupy a lot less bandwidth than I would have thought. Permalink -Main Page- All times are local. Local times may vary. Minutes do not expire. A. K. M. Adam That which we have not yet bothered to imagine is not therefore impossible. |
He seems like a nice guy. Has he written any books? Would he come speak to us?
|
||
