Ooh, boy! Only I can get excited about this. But a friend and former colleague with a science background sent me this link to the public lectures of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.
Subjects covered include natural laws and probability, Einstein, the Big Bang and more. For those moments in life when one's thinking drifts towards pure contemplation of ultimate causes.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
No Exit for Three Idiots
The news today is that the new axis powers continue their "cooperation." Putin, Chavez and Ahmadinejad. The political murderer, the "president for life" and the Holocaust denier.
Hosting each others' ships and planes, and talking about "technology transfers."
These three dearly deserve each other. Just like the three characters in Jean Paul Sartre's "No Exit."
Who will screw whom in the end is anyone's guess. But character is destiny.
Hosting each others' ships and planes, and talking about "technology transfers."
These three dearly deserve each other. Just like the three characters in Jean Paul Sartre's "No Exit."
Who will screw whom in the end is anyone's guess. But character is destiny.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
The Hidden Heroism of the Soul
I'm dashing off a quick thought this morning before class, based upon my experiences of recent days down at Robert Moses beach.
Why is it that so many people wander to the beach, or the mountains, a lake or the woods for solace?
What is it about landscapes and horizons that connects with us? I don't know.
But it has occurred to me recently that when I walk across a woods, or along an empty shoreline, that I am looking within life itself. And seeing my own soul. These natural, beautiful places point within, to deep and vast vistas of internal human drama.
And I wonder, like the physical landscapes created by all the force and violence of nature, can all that beauty of a windswept soul remain hidden forever? Will all that wonder, and desire to be seen and understood, be lost to history?
Or, is there something in nature, and in the order of things that demands that those vast landscapes too will be revealed someday, for all to contemplate and share in wonder?
Why is it that so many people wander to the beach, or the mountains, a lake or the woods for solace?
What is it about landscapes and horizons that connects with us? I don't know.
But it has occurred to me recently that when I walk across a woods, or along an empty shoreline, that I am looking within life itself. And seeing my own soul. These natural, beautiful places point within, to deep and vast vistas of internal human drama.
And I wonder, like the physical landscapes created by all the force and violence of nature, can all that beauty of a windswept soul remain hidden forever? Will all that wonder, and desire to be seen and understood, be lost to history?
Or, is there something in nature, and in the order of things that demands that those vast landscapes too will be revealed someday, for all to contemplate and share in wonder?
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Adding a Dark Layer to Prayer?
I can't explain exactly why, but I have had a hard time praying for quite some time. It's because my view of God is so much darker than before.
I still hang on to the belief going back to the Book of Job that God's ways are not my ways. There seems no other way to explain it all, short of atheism.
But in the past I would have thought of God as an unknowing bull in the china shop of my life. He just goes about his business, never mind the damage. (That's a theologically unsound view by the way, even if it seems to explain life. Because God is supposed to be all knowing.)
Okay then. Add in my life experience (and inner doubts) and there is new dark context to this belief about God's ways. God's ways seem to do more than just ignore my ways. The all knowing being, I think now, must also surely know that He adds pain to my way. That "His ways" frustrate me sometimes. The he makes a mockery of my projecting myself into the future, simply because of what He "allows."
* * *
Lately, a thought has occurred to me about a new dimension that should be part of my prayer. I don't know why, since it seems masochistic. But, it seems when I pray for something in my life, I should meditate on all the people in the world suffering similar experiences to my own. And acknowledge that it would be manifestly unfair of me to expect any kind of relief when God allows, and has allowed for centuries, so many others to experience the same pains and losses without relief.
(Is God making this obvious to me, or is it Satan whispering it in my ear?)
The act of asking, considered in this light, is ridiculous. Why should I expect any help? I shouldn't.
And yet, I always do. Why?
I still hang on to the belief going back to the Book of Job that God's ways are not my ways. There seems no other way to explain it all, short of atheism.
But in the past I would have thought of God as an unknowing bull in the china shop of my life. He just goes about his business, never mind the damage. (That's a theologically unsound view by the way, even if it seems to explain life. Because God is supposed to be all knowing.)
Okay then. Add in my life experience (and inner doubts) and there is new dark context to this belief about God's ways. God's ways seem to do more than just ignore my ways. The all knowing being, I think now, must also surely know that He adds pain to my way. That "His ways" frustrate me sometimes. The he makes a mockery of my projecting myself into the future, simply because of what He "allows."
* * *
Lately, a thought has occurred to me about a new dimension that should be part of my prayer. I don't know why, since it seems masochistic. But, it seems when I pray for something in my life, I should meditate on all the people in the world suffering similar experiences to my own. And acknowledge that it would be manifestly unfair of me to expect any kind of relief when God allows, and has allowed for centuries, so many others to experience the same pains and losses without relief.
(Is God making this obvious to me, or is it Satan whispering it in my ear?)
The act of asking, considered in this light, is ridiculous. Why should I expect any help? I shouldn't.
And yet, I always do. Why?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Music's Blessing: It Can't Be Misunderstood
A week or so ago, I posted a "tweet" to Twitter (gosh, I hate even saying that) suggesting that Music and the Mind by Anthony Storr was interesting, but contained no major revelation for me.
I wish to recant that statement (tweet - ugh). Storr recounted an observation by the author Marcel Proust that in the absence of language, which is inherently problematic due to its ambiguity, vagueness, etc. music might have provided an effective way for mankind to communicate.
I have been thinking about this idea for about a week now, and wishing it were true. Music provides me with such solace. But language always fails me in explaining myself. It is subject to misinterpretation. (That is probably why I have always been so enamored of the "principle of charity" in interpretation. In fact, I wrote about it in my other blog.)
I have often imagined that heaven is a place where musical celebration would take place all the time. Perhaps, if Proust is right, it is the very essence of the afterlife. Works for me.
I wish to recant that statement (tweet - ugh). Storr recounted an observation by the author Marcel Proust that in the absence of language, which is inherently problematic due to its ambiguity, vagueness, etc. music might have provided an effective way for mankind to communicate.
I have been thinking about this idea for about a week now, and wishing it were true. Music provides me with such solace. But language always fails me in explaining myself. It is subject to misinterpretation. (That is probably why I have always been so enamored of the "principle of charity" in interpretation. In fact, I wrote about it in my other blog.)
I have often imagined that heaven is a place where musical celebration would take place all the time. Perhaps, if Proust is right, it is the very essence of the afterlife. Works for me.
Labels:
afterlife,
Anthony Storr,
heaven,
Marcel Proust,
music
Monday, March 2, 2009
Thoughts on Completing "No One Sees God" by Michael Novak
Following up on the promise made in a previous post, I have finished Michael Novak's "No One Sees God: The Dark Night of Atheists and Believers." Finally. It's a worthwhile, if somewhat slow read for people like me, who are struggling to understand the darker sides of life and religious faith.
Some concerns to start: The book meanders (Novak acknowledges this) and begins with a pious tone before polemics. Not a good way to start the book in my estimation. You lose the unbeliever. But that is not likely to be the reading audience of this book, I think.
In the current atmosphere of aggressively polemical atheism and constant exposure to the reality of evil through the mass media, I would have preferred that Novak begin the work in a more direct, logical format. Some more trivial arguments (such as that Christians report having more satisfying sex than atheists) could have been left out.
Additionally, Novak is such a happy warrior for faith that he may not recognize how his pious tone fails with non-believers. Overall, the book feels like it is written, especially in the beginning, for those who are already highly conversant with the Judeo-Christian tradition.
That aside, there are things to recommend the book. Including some provocative ideas. Here are a few random highlights for me:
Platonism: It is powerfully evident that Novak relies heavily on Platonic "eros" or constant striving for truth as a fundamental drive in the universe, one which explains science itself. Having taught such eros for many years now at local colleges, I can say that it is intoxicating and makes one interested in seeking the terminal point of all knowledge and levels of being. However, one must have a certain cast of mind to accept this argument, and Novak could have done some more work to explain that eros, in Plato's divided line, his reliance on mathematical forms as the spur to his own ideas, etc. This might have been helpful in adding significance to his argument.
God the Novelist. Often times Novak refers to God as an author-like figure, with a taste for drama. Indeed. This idea bothers me (it seems insouciant about evil) and provokes me. I have found myself slipping into my usual meditations on evil and suffering and rather than thinking of God as uncaring, this idea makes me think of God as deeply involved in the unfolding of the story. But, it also makes me think of God as somewhat bipolar, who is likely to "allow" crazy things to you just for his own kicks of a good story. This is an idea I am thinking about a lot lately.
Secularism Crumbling. In the concluding chapters of the book, Novak provides a valuable overview of the origins of "secularism" in Christianity. He notes the tensions which have arisen within modern, militant secularism, challenged from within by the likes of Nietzsche, Derrida, etc. And, the risks that secularism taken to its nihilist extremes might energize fascism. Additionally, I was unfamiliar with many of Irving Kristol's arguments against secularism and will be sure to look into those more.
Constructive Dialogue. When I attended Fordham University for my graduate philosophy degree, Jurgen Habermas's name was much bandied about. I had other concerns at the time, but Novak has stoked my interest, insofar as Habermas, not a believer, is yet an active proponent of dialogue with belief, and recognizes that certain important concepts within the unbeliever's lexicon are heavily dependent upon their religious origins. This struck me as a jumping off point of a Socratic dialogue between belief and unbelief, where certain key terms seen darkly must have their meaning clarified by a healthy metaphysical answer. Additionally fascinating to learn, the acknowledgments of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) in dialogue with Habermas about the "toxicity" that religion can generate, and how it must be purified in dialogue with the secular.
The Two Faces of Belief. Darkness within faith is not the product of reading the "wrong books." Such as when I have read and taught David Hume, for example. Novak calls for a healthy respect for and dialogue with atheism because we see in atheists another side of ourselves. If we are honest. From Novak's appendix of favorite "dark" biblical passages, to the Via Negativa of the Pseudo-Dionysios to the Dark Night of John of the Cross, there are strains of darkness within religious faith. We need more such resources in a modern form. And I felt a certain sense of relief at reading Novak's acknowledgments of this aspect of faith and his call for an open discussion of it.
Perhaps we will yet see progress in our lifetimes.
Some concerns to start: The book meanders (Novak acknowledges this) and begins with a pious tone before polemics. Not a good way to start the book in my estimation. You lose the unbeliever. But that is not likely to be the reading audience of this book, I think.
In the current atmosphere of aggressively polemical atheism and constant exposure to the reality of evil through the mass media, I would have preferred that Novak begin the work in a more direct, logical format. Some more trivial arguments (such as that Christians report having more satisfying sex than atheists) could have been left out.
Additionally, Novak is such a happy warrior for faith that he may not recognize how his pious tone fails with non-believers. Overall, the book feels like it is written, especially in the beginning, for those who are already highly conversant with the Judeo-Christian tradition.
That aside, there are things to recommend the book. Including some provocative ideas. Here are a few random highlights for me:
Platonism: It is powerfully evident that Novak relies heavily on Platonic "eros" or constant striving for truth as a fundamental drive in the universe, one which explains science itself. Having taught such eros for many years now at local colleges, I can say that it is intoxicating and makes one interested in seeking the terminal point of all knowledge and levels of being. However, one must have a certain cast of mind to accept this argument, and Novak could have done some more work to explain that eros, in Plato's divided line, his reliance on mathematical forms as the spur to his own ideas, etc. This might have been helpful in adding significance to his argument.
God the Novelist. Often times Novak refers to God as an author-like figure, with a taste for drama. Indeed. This idea bothers me (it seems insouciant about evil) and provokes me. I have found myself slipping into my usual meditations on evil and suffering and rather than thinking of God as uncaring, this idea makes me think of God as deeply involved in the unfolding of the story. But, it also makes me think of God as somewhat bipolar, who is likely to "allow" crazy things to you just for his own kicks of a good story. This is an idea I am thinking about a lot lately.
Secularism Crumbling. In the concluding chapters of the book, Novak provides a valuable overview of the origins of "secularism" in Christianity. He notes the tensions which have arisen within modern, militant secularism, challenged from within by the likes of Nietzsche, Derrida, etc. And, the risks that secularism taken to its nihilist extremes might energize fascism. Additionally, I was unfamiliar with many of Irving Kristol's arguments against secularism and will be sure to look into those more.
Constructive Dialogue. When I attended Fordham University for my graduate philosophy degree, Jurgen Habermas's name was much bandied about. I had other concerns at the time, but Novak has stoked my interest, insofar as Habermas, not a believer, is yet an active proponent of dialogue with belief, and recognizes that certain important concepts within the unbeliever's lexicon are heavily dependent upon their religious origins. This struck me as a jumping off point of a Socratic dialogue between belief and unbelief, where certain key terms seen darkly must have their meaning clarified by a healthy metaphysical answer. Additionally fascinating to learn, the acknowledgments of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) in dialogue with Habermas about the "toxicity" that religion can generate, and how it must be purified in dialogue with the secular.
The Two Faces of Belief. Darkness within faith is not the product of reading the "wrong books." Such as when I have read and taught David Hume, for example. Novak calls for a healthy respect for and dialogue with atheism because we see in atheists another side of ourselves. If we are honest. From Novak's appendix of favorite "dark" biblical passages, to the Via Negativa of the Pseudo-Dionysios to the Dark Night of John of the Cross, there are strains of darkness within religious faith. We need more such resources in a modern form. And I felt a certain sense of relief at reading Novak's acknowledgments of this aspect of faith and his call for an open discussion of it.
Perhaps we will yet see progress in our lifetimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)