Liturgical West (A)
Where water and fog meet
There are few borders:
Ships slice on ribbons of mist
Ethereal in the morning light,
And groggy cranes raise their necks on the outskirts,
Titans saying their praises above curling fogs,
Sleep still in the eyes of the reverent rows of Bridge-lamps
And the sodium stirring in the glass.
Saint Francis smiles, fog draped over her shoulders,
She emerging from primordial cisterns,
From when the Spirit hovered over the face of the mystery,
There where the Spirit grins.
Liturgical West (B)
Behold humanity curling
To the rim of the bay, industious;
She tries so hard to pervert
With her steel girters, tacky, illustrious,
Only to watch the calamity, the subversion of subtle Grin in her porticos.
Liturgical West (C)
Iron rising and
Planks spooning through mysteries:
Ironic, beauty abiding.
-r
30 December 2008
15 December 2008
'Masculine Principle'? - Part 1
These are the things I think about in the rain while packing air filters into a golf-cart. Various conversations inform the thoughts, and my heart seeks to differentiate and structure the thoughts in such a way to make sense of them. While I'm so much more comfortable making general statements, for skepticism's sake I start with myself.
I'm one of the first of a sort of refined cultural prototype, the product as has been in demand: a somewhat masculine man, masculine by nature and in spirit, but also prematurely domesticated and generally emasculated. The resulting years have been a late- or second-adolescence, something that was never informed by my sub-culture and so never pursued but intrinsically felt to a boiling point. This has been an ongoing reality, not 'climaxing' in any sense; it is suppressed and then climaxes from time to time. This is not a new insight or revelation for me; there are very real, underlying reasons for my gravitation toward apocalyptic poetry, British spelling, pastoral ministry / theology over a corporate career, and so forth.
Some have referred to 'it' as the 'masculine principle.' I'm not sure I like the terminology because of its empirical and extrinsic undertones; the 'masculine principle' is actually something of a mystical, embodied, natural nature that I can only take something of a stab toward - of course, part of my inability to describe is most likely intimately wrapped up in my immaturity and emasculation in relation to the reality. The so-called 'masculine principle' - at least as I feel it in my particular bones - is something of a need for clear differentiation, a need to draw distinguishing lines in the world, to operate within a hierarchy, to clearly know one's and others' particular roles in the world; it is a desperate need to be needed, for one thing, but also to contribute uniquely and/or meaningfully to the family and society, to know that one's forceful testosterone-driven urges can be channelled into activity that can be appreciated or - ideally - desired.
Obviously, this is not a 'principle' unto itself. The need to be needed, the need to have one's testosterone-driven urges affirmed in positive action, implies that there are other parties that fulfill and affirm this need. It is also just as true that some of these 'other parties' - particularly and most importantly a woman - have needs and desires of their own that are complemented by masculinity. But as to the 'other parties' in a societal and sub-societal construct: what happens to role-seekers in a confused hierarchy that offers two unsatifactory roles - androgeny or brutality?
-r
I'm one of the first of a sort of refined cultural prototype, the product as has been in demand: a somewhat masculine man, masculine by nature and in spirit, but also prematurely domesticated and generally emasculated. The resulting years have been a late- or second-adolescence, something that was never informed by my sub-culture and so never pursued but intrinsically felt to a boiling point. This has been an ongoing reality, not 'climaxing' in any sense; it is suppressed and then climaxes from time to time. This is not a new insight or revelation for me; there are very real, underlying reasons for my gravitation toward apocalyptic poetry, British spelling, pastoral ministry / theology over a corporate career, and so forth.
Some have referred to 'it' as the 'masculine principle.' I'm not sure I like the terminology because of its empirical and extrinsic undertones; the 'masculine principle' is actually something of a mystical, embodied, natural nature that I can only take something of a stab toward - of course, part of my inability to describe is most likely intimately wrapped up in my immaturity and emasculation in relation to the reality. The so-called 'masculine principle' - at least as I feel it in my particular bones - is something of a need for clear differentiation, a need to draw distinguishing lines in the world, to operate within a hierarchy, to clearly know one's and others' particular roles in the world; it is a desperate need to be needed, for one thing, but also to contribute uniquely and/or meaningfully to the family and society, to know that one's forceful testosterone-driven urges can be channelled into activity that can be appreciated or - ideally - desired.
Obviously, this is not a 'principle' unto itself. The need to be needed, the need to have one's testosterone-driven urges affirmed in positive action, implies that there are other parties that fulfill and affirm this need. It is also just as true that some of these 'other parties' - particularly and most importantly a woman - have needs and desires of their own that are complemented by masculinity. But as to the 'other parties' in a societal and sub-societal construct: what happens to role-seekers in a confused hierarchy that offers two unsatifactory roles - androgeny or brutality?
-r
04 December 2008
The Univocity of Being
'The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking . . . the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.'
-Albert Einstein
I have trouble breaking things into 'units'; I see wholes and even complexities in the individual 'units', and so I strive to not over-simplify the units while also bearing true testimony to the interconnectedness. For example:
Even in a universe of nebulae and RNA, the machine gun is a complex device unto itself. There are chambres, inter-related mechanisms that depend upon one another, and of course the ammunition which consists of uniform but individual shells; some machine guns incorporate a gas piston while others operate on direct impingement. And so on, ad nauseum. Each individual element could clink away harmlessly unto itself, but in the context of the whole, each element almost mystically comes together in an efficient whole.
In World War I, the machine gun set the tone for military 'engagements.' Human beings would cross large plains - 'no man's land' - in the hope of crossing before the machine gun nests could/would mow them down; such charges were largely unsuccessful though mechanically necessary. The machine gun and the tank foreshadowed the bright future of human warfare.
The machine gun did not appear out of thin air, clinking away harmlessly unto itself; the machine gun is one mechanism in a whole that almost mystically operates within the systemme of a whole. It arose out of numerous technological advances, but more basically out of theologies/philosophies and social movements that allowed certain actions and restricted others and participated in large and invisible realities. Simply put, the machine gun is the fruit of a tree, a node of a larger organism that is embodied in the node of humanity who in fact is a node of, interacts with, and participates in larger organisms.
The same philosophies in the Enlightenment that ultimately contributed to the advent of the Industrial Revolution fueled the philosophy of utilitarianism and efficiency-as-good that produced the machine gun, the assembly line, and the German/British soldier in the trenches at the helm of the machine gun nest mowing down others. The protestant rejection of the Real Presence contributed to the socio-political reality of Europe/America that led to the Enlightenment which led to the machine gun. The univocity of being in Dun Scotus and the theological wordings of the 'neo-Franciscans' contributed to and largely set much of the tone for the Renaissance which coincided with in some sense and fueled the protestant Reformation. The rejection of the Real Presence reintroduced a potent version of the understanding of the 'spiritual' divorced from the 'physical' which contributed to the neo-Gnosticism of the Enlightenment which in turn led to the reinterpretation of 'secularity' which in turn led to the Industrial Revolution which led to the machine gun which led to the secular government's military spending diverted toward weapons research in the machine gun among many other technologies. . . .Ends-justifies-the-means emerges in a culture where virtue can/has collapse(d) as a discourse, which in this case relates to the divorce in protestantism and the secular culture it birthed, which leads to the choice to use the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, killing myriads of human beings including the majority of the Catholic population who had been evangelising the island nation.
. . .We now have the ability to do so much and know so much and (we say) be so much. We have clean nuclear energy and electronic social networks and better machine guns and advanced medical procedures that save lives who would be lost in previous ages and new philosophies that feed from the old philosophies. But I perceive a confusion and a continuation of the chains that have been mystically feeding upon themselves, in recent centuries but new forms of the old human condition: we drink organic green tea for our health and then take birth control pills; we donate money to charities and then continue living in sin. A teenager commits suicide because of an oppressive reality that participates in the hopelessness that comes with the gradual deconstruction of modernity that historically needed to happen but still affects a life.
Here, I am not concerned with expressing the 'opposite', which is the continuing reality and 'solution.' -That is, the Incarnation and Real Presence of our God who is our salvation. Good is the Being in everything; evil is not an ontological reality. But an evil action will still murder your mother - and that will effect your life dramatically. In the same way, Christ's in-breaking into the world was, is still, and will be the continuing evidence of God's loving Sovereignty, yet we live in what is often called a 'post-Christian' era.
Here, we deal with things like this: Is it stupid to say that all our life-extensions and purchasing powers and technological leaps are distending humanity? On the other hand, is it 'witchcraft' or heresy to perform a heart surgery that saves a human's life? What is Babel? Where did it begin, where does it break into being? How do we speak about Babel? How do we engage ourselves in the Reality of Christ our Lord, who reveals the paper-thin claims of sovereignty that Babel makes for itself?
But, primarily, here is where I run into trouble in articulation. I see Babel. I can taste it and see it everywhere. And I can see God's judgment presently and in its eventual coming, its particular wrath against our culture. Yet how do we, with human eyes and hearts and minds, describe the invisible and demonic principalities and powers? Where do we draw the lines on the manifestations, around the manifestations? are all these things amoral or good or evil? In some sense, all technology is humanity's response to God's curse of labour; but is all technology therefore evil/sinister?
Technology is only one among many things at work within the aims of the invisible principalities; but it is something tangible that I can address . . . I think.
-r
-Albert Einstein
I have trouble breaking things into 'units'; I see wholes and even complexities in the individual 'units', and so I strive to not over-simplify the units while also bearing true testimony to the interconnectedness. For example:
Even in a universe of nebulae and RNA, the machine gun is a complex device unto itself. There are chambres, inter-related mechanisms that depend upon one another, and of course the ammunition which consists of uniform but individual shells; some machine guns incorporate a gas piston while others operate on direct impingement. And so on, ad nauseum. Each individual element could clink away harmlessly unto itself, but in the context of the whole, each element almost mystically comes together in an efficient whole.
In World War I, the machine gun set the tone for military 'engagements.' Human beings would cross large plains - 'no man's land' - in the hope of crossing before the machine gun nests could/would mow them down; such charges were largely unsuccessful though mechanically necessary. The machine gun and the tank foreshadowed the bright future of human warfare.
The machine gun did not appear out of thin air, clinking away harmlessly unto itself; the machine gun is one mechanism in a whole that almost mystically operates within the systemme of a whole. It arose out of numerous technological advances, but more basically out of theologies/philosophies and social movements that allowed certain actions and restricted others and participated in large and invisible realities. Simply put, the machine gun is the fruit of a tree, a node of a larger organism that is embodied in the node of humanity who in fact is a node of, interacts with, and participates in larger organisms.
The same philosophies in the Enlightenment that ultimately contributed to the advent of the Industrial Revolution fueled the philosophy of utilitarianism and efficiency-as-good that produced the machine gun, the assembly line, and the German/British soldier in the trenches at the helm of the machine gun nest mowing down others. The protestant rejection of the Real Presence contributed to the socio-political reality of Europe/America that led to the Enlightenment which led to the machine gun. The univocity of being in Dun Scotus and the theological wordings of the 'neo-Franciscans' contributed to and largely set much of the tone for the Renaissance which coincided with in some sense and fueled the protestant Reformation. The rejection of the Real Presence reintroduced a potent version of the understanding of the 'spiritual' divorced from the 'physical' which contributed to the neo-Gnosticism of the Enlightenment which in turn led to the reinterpretation of 'secularity' which in turn led to the Industrial Revolution which led to the machine gun which led to the secular government's military spending diverted toward weapons research in the machine gun among many other technologies. . . .Ends-justifies-the-means emerges in a culture where virtue can/has collapse(d) as a discourse, which in this case relates to the divorce in protestantism and the secular culture it birthed, which leads to the choice to use the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, killing myriads of human beings including the majority of the Catholic population who had been evangelising the island nation.
. . .We now have the ability to do so much and know so much and (we say) be so much. We have clean nuclear energy and electronic social networks and better machine guns and advanced medical procedures that save lives who would be lost in previous ages and new philosophies that feed from the old philosophies. But I perceive a confusion and a continuation of the chains that have been mystically feeding upon themselves, in recent centuries but new forms of the old human condition: we drink organic green tea for our health and then take birth control pills; we donate money to charities and then continue living in sin. A teenager commits suicide because of an oppressive reality that participates in the hopelessness that comes with the gradual deconstruction of modernity that historically needed to happen but still affects a life.
Here, I am not concerned with expressing the 'opposite', which is the continuing reality and 'solution.' -That is, the Incarnation and Real Presence of our God who is our salvation. Good is the Being in everything; evil is not an ontological reality. But an evil action will still murder your mother - and that will effect your life dramatically. In the same way, Christ's in-breaking into the world was, is still, and will be the continuing evidence of God's loving Sovereignty, yet we live in what is often called a 'post-Christian' era.
Here, we deal with things like this: Is it stupid to say that all our life-extensions and purchasing powers and technological leaps are distending humanity? On the other hand, is it 'witchcraft' or heresy to perform a heart surgery that saves a human's life? What is Babel? Where did it begin, where does it break into being? How do we speak about Babel? How do we engage ourselves in the Reality of Christ our Lord, who reveals the paper-thin claims of sovereignty that Babel makes for itself?
But, primarily, here is where I run into trouble in articulation. I see Babel. I can taste it and see it everywhere. And I can see God's judgment presently and in its eventual coming, its particular wrath against our culture. Yet how do we, with human eyes and hearts and minds, describe the invisible and demonic principalities and powers? Where do we draw the lines on the manifestations, around the manifestations? are all these things amoral or good or evil? In some sense, all technology is humanity's response to God's curse of labour; but is all technology therefore evil/sinister?
Technology is only one among many things at work within the aims of the invisible principalities; but it is something tangible that I can address . . . I think.
-r
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)