2005/03/01

Half-response

Apparently my other one did finally go through, so I just took down the duplicate. Anyway, I wrote this up on March 1st, so I'm backdating this to then; I'm just posting it (in-progress) in case anything else happens to my computer. Turns out the crashed harddrive didn't destroy this (it did eat some other GS310 project files, but thankfully I was done with them, more or less...)

Elshtain, though of course arguing with her own style, is essentially in agreement with the likes of Richard Deem, Dallas Willard, and other Christian critics of our contemporary culture, and so also pushing in the same direction I attempted to in my paper. She is at odds with the hollow consumer-individualist scheme of our day right from the outset of her introduction (p. 4). Elshtain is hopeful, but not within a continuation on our present course; rather, hopeful in the possibility of changing course even in the bleakness of our plight, i.e., what I labelled "[o]ur terrible world," and what she began chapter one looking back from: "the end of this bloodiest of centuries" (p. 7).

Bonhoeffer's framing of freedom as a relationship (p. 15) is interestingly put and accurate, but, I would say, he is not talking about free will as such (neither is Elshtain when she fleshes it out later on p. 86) in the way that I did: In a strictly experiential sense, we appear to be able to make our own choices. Bonhoeffer is operating on a higher definition of freedom as something intrinsically good, and in that way, his statement, "No substantial or individualistic concept of freedom can conceive of freedom," actually fits well with what I wrote about the ludicrousness of being one's own god (defined as the object of one's devotion, or, in other words, the one to whom one gives one's freedom--but this giving is still apparently an individual act of free will, otherwise Bonhoeffer would not have bothered writing to try to change people's lives.)

He continues, and Elshtain picks out his contrasting picture of sexuality in the fallen world, which smacks remarkably of Rand's description of sex as a primal, almost hateful act of domination (as opposed to the mutual celebration suggested by Wojtyla's Genesis exegesis) in Atlas Shrugged, which coincides with Elshtain's later point about our culture normalizing sin. Although I did disagree with certain interpretations of Genesis throughout the rest of the chapter, none were too consequential; having said that, I tended to warm more to Wojtyla's interpretations, precisely because they were more hopeful.

Elshtain makes an interesting link that I neglected to emphasize. I outlined self-deification as a problem and economic systems, being things of utility, as non-solutions, but she probes their combined effects on our ethical constructions, such as undermining the intrinsic value of human life and inverting many of the saving graces yet sanctioned by society (p. 51).
Her chapter on sloth, which seems to have a Heideggerian ring to it insofar as sloth is something akin to falling prey, goes much deeper and beyond the scope of my essay, but I liked what she did with it nonetheless. Thereafter Elshtain also laments the monsters our self-deifying society seems poised to create, and the loss of integrity that has lead us and been circularly magnified by our following it to this point.

That's all for now. Off to discrete math class not-so-discretely for me.

Kev

2005/02/04

Near the end of JBE...

Apparently posting by e-mail doesn't work, but it doesn't bounce, either. Anyway, here was one I sent on February 4th and tried resending today to no avail.

I'm in the final chapter of Who Are We?, and, quite frankly, I agree with many of her criticisms of Northern/American society--at least of those I could understand. I only recently hit a few points at which I would bother to put up a counterargument: she is too harsh towards online communities. On the other hand, I acknowledge that growing up, I was much too much of an enthusiast of them. While I accept now that they are no substitute for real, flesh and blood, local communities, they still play a vital role alongside them in connecting the otherwise
alone-in-their-fields from around the world and creating other important bridges that otherwise simply could not exist.

Other bits along the way I disagreed with in the underlying assumptions (surrounding feminism, evolution, and others I've forgotten by now) but
could respect what was being done via them.

It's taking me longer to get through Jonathan's book, Bad Samaritans, because it's my "when nobody's watching TV" book downstairs at the moment, and apparently this means it gets less time than JBE's, being my "bussing to school" book.

Kev

-----------------------------------
Kevin Field, Ridiculous Man�
"Give us this day our daily bread."
-----------------------------------
Food for thought:

"No one gets too old to learn a new way of being stupid."

2005/01/12

Tack-on...

One more thing I jotted that I forgot to mention: the point discussed
at our meeting about Jesus--coming not for political revolution but
effecting it anyway--that tied in more with the overall theme of my
paper than I remembered to point out. It was actually a perfect
example of what I was trying to say: if you seek political change, or
economic change, or religious reform, or societal change, or whatever
else, as an end--*the* end--in itself, and neglect the heart, it is
bound not to work all that well. On the other hand, if you do as Jesus
did and go straight for the heart from the outset, you get political,
religious, societal, and where they intersect with it, economic change,
all as free sides. Not only that, but they will align with the purpose
behind the change of heart all the better.

Kev

Who Are We? Critical Reflections and Hopeful Possibilities

So I've only re-read the introduction so far, and it was good. But
while I was doodling in class last week, a thought came to me about the
themes of the original paper, so I just wanted to sketch it out here
before I forgot what it was about: Theocracy within a democracy runs
parallel to communism within a system of capitalism, which runs
parallel to servitude to Christ within a system of free will (i.e.,
reality, at least as it appears to us, etc.) In each case the dominant
/outer system allows freedoms which can be used for good or for evil,
and the inner system is one that is chosen, involving an abdication of
certain rights in return for the fulfillment of a higher good, which,
in most cases, tends to turn the pleasures one has a right to pursue
until one is sick of them into true blessings worthy of all thanks.

More to come.

Kev

2005/01/03

The journey continues

I'm going to try posting by e-mail so I don't have to log in. Isn't
technology wonderous?

First off, some apologies. I started reading "Who Are We?" waiting for
my ride home as the holidays began, and after that, the whole thing
fell by the wayside. I guess not thinking about things doesn't make
them go away after all! I knew that.

Sometimes I can think on my feet. It seems to always be about two
hours after I needed to, and such was the case with my meeting with
Len. Unfortunately, I didn't take notes, but here's what I remember of
the things I needed to deal with:


  • the individual-centric nature of my paper recommending against
    individualism
  • some people disagree that we have free will
  • the distinction I raised between communism and capitalism despite
    GS101 lectures seemingly to the contrary
  • what happened to the group in Acts
  • responses ("I think") along individualistic lines
  • something about Soto and Guatemala


Starting with that last one, I was thrown off by that at the beginning.
Soto wrote about Peru (his homeland) in the book I read, and our group
went to Mexico. If that was a test, merely raising my eyebrows
probably didn't convey the right answer.

Working backwards up the list, I think the question had been, how do I
know that all native North Americans didn't go or aren't going to Hell
for lack of belief in God's Son, to which I responded with something
like "I think that wouldn't be fair, given that they didn't have the
opportunity to know about Him at the time." When I said, "I think," I
was actually plagiarising. I don't have many truly and uniquely
original thoughts. This was actually something that can be confirmed
in the Bible, had I thought about it a bit longer. To those who are
given much, much will be expected (parable of the talents), and in
general, God being fair is certainly a repeating theme. That said, I'm
not judging the natives, but in the same way, I don't think the
Europeans should have, either, for the same reason. Paul talks about
judging only within the church anyway. I can't remember how this whole
issue related to the main discussion unfortunately. :|

The early church in Acts doesn't survive in the form it was in, not
because the way they shared all their possessions was unsustainable,
but because God had other plans. He scattered and strengthened the
church via persecution so it would take hold over a wider area and
spread the Word to more people.

I took the wisdom of GS101 into account on the last page in
acknowledging the very point that was brought up. A system where
economics is God looks like the capitalism and communism of the
twentieth century. But a system that doesn't exist, because God alone
is God, is the system seen in Acts. Everyone gave up their possessions
and shared with everyone else as they had need. This I called
"communism" and tried to say so in a footnote. That is, it's a
framework in which the idea of possession is given little value,
whereas in capitalism, the idea of possession is an inalienable right.
What makes the distinction between the two disappear in either case is
that the twentieth century versions see the effects of evil desires
played out. In the USSR, the communism looked like American capitalism
because it was. Possession was still what counted, otherwise there
could be no notion of or reality to giving museumfulls of gifts to
Stalin, for example, or public servants being better off than peasants.
True communism, as I said, can work within legal capitalism, because it
involves giving up rights--but it all depends on the heart.

Free will has been the subject of many debates, so I suppose I should
not have stated it as a fact and used it as a premise without some
argument for it. I simply have never heard a very convincing argument
against it, especially given a Christian framework. Even without one,
though, no system of law, good and evil, reform, or meaningful life can
make sense without some notion of choice, which implies free will. I
know that good and evil I argued from the other direction, so that
would be circular by itself, but I have yet to meet someone who
believes that we have absolutely no free will and acts with absolute
consistency with that belief (never disciplines his/her children or
pets, has hope, thanks anyone, curses anyone, nor attempt to improve
his/her surroundings). At the very least, that we have the illusion of
free will is indisputable, otherwise no language would have the word
"choose" in its dictionary, and for the reason of the other
contradictions given above. Within a Christian framework, then, there
are many examples to support free will, such as God being just in
punishing the Israelites for their poor choices. I think CS Lewis
explained it well when he pointed out that God must logically have
existed outside of space-time to have created it, and although he
created it knowing exactly what kind of world it would be all along
(including all of our choices), so that in the overall, mind-bogglingly
enormous "big picture" of all of Creation He in some sense made our
choices for us, but that in any fair sense, we are still the ones
making our own choices at each moment while God looks on, seeing all
time at once. He said, to watch a man commit a crime is not to make
him commit it. In other words, as far as we, in our limited
perspectives, are concerned, we have free will, and that is enough for
the purpose of theology.

As for the individualism, I should explain in more depth than I had
room for in my paper, but much of it hinges upon what was said in the
previous paragraph. I certainly believe in community and wish our
society was more like those of the ancient world and various societies
around the world today (such as most mediterranean and oriental
cultures); however, people are still autonomous even while they are
members of communities. They choose to stay alive and act within the
boundaries and framework of the communities they are in. Groups work
because they strengthen and are strengthened by their individual
members. It's Paul's familiar body analogy again. However, that was
beyond the scope of my paper in my opinion, which was just to redirect
attention to God where it belonged, rather than trying to save the
world through means that ignore God or are God-optional for the sake of
the paradoxical religious tolerance pushed from so many paths in our
popular and academic culture.

I hope this clarifies my meaning a little bit.

Kev


-----------------------------------
Kevin Field
"In all your ways acknowledge Him."
-----------------------------------
Food for thought:

When in doubt, do what the President does -- guess.

When in doubt, tell the truth.
-- Mark Twain

When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson