Subversive Absolute Christianty

@Deckard,

Deckard;113016 wrote:

Is this waking up to reality or is it sleeping to dream? Who can handle the mundane? Who can truly glorify it? For those who claim to glorify it only cover it with symbols. Heaven in a wildflower, infinity in the palm of your hand. Goo goo g'joob! Because the wildflower was not enough? The finite life line in the palm of your mortal hand could not be faced? Pump it full of meaning like a pig pumped full of antibiotics. The lipsticked pig of reality. The virus of boredom mutates and so more anti-boredom is pumped in and it gets into the milk and the water supply and who knows what its doing to our kids. Who will teach us to face our boring existence? Who will dare to stare into that abyss, that abyss that never really stares back though wish it would, though we make believe it does. Who will teach us to face the fact that the dream is over. What boring messiah, what rough beast, its hour come around at last.

Behold! The Last Man Cometh!

Bildung supra bildung supra bildung. Man makes history to flee from death. The woman knows and flows and goes merrily down the drain. All of us are both forces? The grip and the slip. Self-love and the forgetting of self in the beauty. Is the last man that man who's lost "that loving feeling"?

Can we help pumping full of meaning? Is non-meaning also something we pump? Chris Farley asking T.S. Eliot: "Is that true? That the fire and the rose are one?"

@Reconstructo,

Nietzsche prophesies the coming of the Last Man in the prologue of Zarathustra even before mentioning the Three Metamorphoses.

If you recall in the second metamorphosis the Lion battles the Dragon "Thou shalt". It does occur to me that there is something of the Lion in the Last Man and something of the Dragon in Zarathustra. The Last Man is not the burden loving camel, nor does he seem innocent enough to be a child.

Can be revolutionary to say: "I have discovered happiness. I have nothing to prove. I do not want to be a hero." Perhaps the Lion says something like this (and means it) and then sheds his skin to become the child.

Quote:

All values have already been created, and all created values- do I represent. Verily, there shall be no 'I will' any more. Thus speaketh the dragon. -From Zarathustra

@Deckard,

Deckard;113148 wrote:

Can be revolutionary to say: "I have discovered happiness. I have nothing to prove. I do not want to be a hero." Perhaps the Lion says something like this (and means it) and then sheds his skin to become the child.

Nice. I think that's it. "Maturity is to regain the seriousness of a child at play." Something o' that. Nietzsche also talks about how a woman can make man's big plans and performances seem like follies. Nietzsche himself was a part time Dragon of Thou Shalt. Of course he was a Vortext, too. The Child ties back into Jesus: you must enter the kingdom of heaven as little child. Or the perhaps the Kingdom of God is the inner child. Which ties into religious paintings. But down with christ. any other would work as ill. (Worstward Ho? A crazy Beckett text....). Also the child often plays at being the hero, but with a detachment. A child with his g.i. joes. Perhaps the child is playing god. His characters do all his striving for him.?

I suspect that a person is a needle that moves across a spectrum, or perhaps an alternating current. Sometimes we really do transcend the need to prove anything. Other times perhaps we dream of staining the sheets of time, or at least the curtain of the present. The self is one of those illusions that comes and goes, I think.

@Reconstructo,

I am reminded of Huizinga. I'm thinking of this in the context of the original post as well as other posts. The subversiveness of the spoil-sport.

Quote:

The player who trespasses against the rules or ignores them is a "spoil-sport". The spoil-sport is not the same as the false player, the cheat; for the latter pretends to be playing the game and, on the face of it, still acknowledges the magic circle. It is curious to note how much more lenient society is to the cheat than to the spoil-sport. This is because the spoil-sport shatters the play-world itself...He robs play of its illusion

- Huizinga from Homo Ludens: a study of the play-element in culture

Is this what made the people shout "Give us Barabbas!"

@Reconstructo,

Sometimes I think inventors of new concepts are spoil-sports. Just when a sport gets good at the game, the spoil-sport makes up a new rule. Sort of like home-rules for monopoly. The first step is seeing the rules as they stand as contingent rather than necessary. Of course, it's not something one must do, by any means. You've got that kid in Dead Poets Society who exercises his right not to walk, which is just another walk. He paints that lightning bolt on his chest.

Then you've got Byronic irony. A person plays up the rebel but part of them knows better or simply differently, sees thru this, experiences this as mask. How much spiritual-progress begins as a power play and evolves into something else? I first liked philosophy for dialectic/sport of argument-rhetoric. Got caught up in more exciting things. Before long the game is not winning arguments but writing good tropes. (Twist and Shout!). Yet another part of the self-fiction is detached, doesn't care. Wants to sleep, daydream, snuggle the wife. To say the "self is an illusion" is to trip on a trope. Perhaps it's just as much an illusion that the self is an illusion, and so on. "I am the truth" is not unlike "zero equals zero," for what am i and what is truth? to conjure with words certain feelings that make life good. pills do it in other ways. food and sunshine have their claims.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;113175 wrote:

Sometimes I think inventors of new concepts are spoil-sports. Just when a sport gets good at the game, the spoil-sport makes up a new rule. Sort of like home-rules for monopoly. The first step is seeing the rules as they stand as contingent rather than necessary. Of course, it's not something one must do, by any means.

"Changing the game" is the work of the spoil-sport but only if the majority of the game players are not down with the new rules. Refusing to play and playing a different game from the rest of the players amounts to the same thing.

Personally, I find that the ones who follow the rules too closely or obsessively and play the cop to everyone else are more annoying than the spoil-sports. The spoil-sport who refuses to play often eventually becomes the referee. At least I remember this happening once or twice on the grade-school playground. Point being, both the ref and the spoil-sport don't actually play the game.

@Deckard,

Deckard;113531 wrote:

. Point being, both the ref and the spoil-sport don't actually play the game.

They are like the opposite boundaries/limits of the game, perhaps? Is the spoil-sport the anti-referee? Do you referee and the spoil sport play their own different game, against one another?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;113581 wrote:

They are like the opposite boundaries/limits of the game, perhaps? Is the spoil-sport the anti-referee? Do you referee and the spoil sport play their own different game, against one another?

Well, I suppose we shouldn't make too much of the ref. Furthermore, not everything is a game. Not all social phenomena can be thought of as games.

Even if we are talking about games or things that are comparable to games not every game has a niche for a referee. However, it is always possible for someone (spoil-sport) to refuse to play a game (saying otherwise would be bad faith).

The ref if s/he is around is more concerned with cheaters than with spoil-sports. The social pressure to continue playing the game is the true adversary of the spoil sport. Maybe my mentioning the ref just confuses things unnecessarily or uninterestingly.

@Deckard,

Deckard;113634 wrote:

The social pressure to continue playing the game is the true adversary of the spoil sport. Maybe my mentioning the ref just confuses things unnecessarily or uninterestingly.

Well, it's all metaphor, right? So maybe the social pressure is the ref. I don't think either one of us is caught up in a bad way in this mental-model. I feel like its all a stack of metaphor on sense-data. Mix that with feeling and that's life?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;113635 wrote:

Well, it's all metaphor, right? So maybe the social pressure is the ref. I don't think either one of us is caught up in a bad way in this mental-model. I feel like its all a stack of metaphor on sense-data. Mix that with feeling and that's life?

Yeah, I'm not sure why I said that. I thought the referee was a red herring but maybe not.

OK, Jesus, the word made flesh, the law made flesh, came to officiate (kick out money-changers, give the new law etc). He is more like a referee than a spoil-sport. On the other hand, to the Pharisees and Sadducees he was more of a spoil-sport for not being willing to play their game.

It's like the old saying goes: One man's spoil-sport is another man's referee.

@Reconstructo,

What do think about Greek Tragedy Masks? Is Jesus just another mask ? Is there a primal "heroic" energy that we respond to? How do we feel about hubris? Is art founded on the presentation of the exception? the excessive character?

Of course some art isn't, but much art seems to be. Is there a hero behind all heroes? A primordial hero goo? Is exuberance beauty?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;113672 wrote:

What do think about Greek Tragedy Masks? Is Jesus just another mask ? Is there a primal "heroic" energy that we respond to? How do we feel about hubris? Is art founded on the presentation of the exception? the excessive character?

Of course some art isn't, but much art seems to be. Is there a hero behind all heroes? A primordial hero goo? Is exuberance beauty?

Too many questions. I'll just look at one. Jesus as mask? Again, I'm holding the Jesus as having a distinct personality.

Do Jungian archetypes leave room for personality? I guess (not sure) that the fully formed personality is the goal of individuation but should personality be a goal at the end of a long process of individuation or rather should it be something that is recognized as present from the start?

Quote:

(definitions from the wiki)

personality: A set of qualities that make a person (or thing) distinct from another.

archetype: An original model of which all other similar persons, objects, or concepts are merely derivative, copied, patterened or emulated; a prototype

Was Jesus a mask? No. Did he wear a mask? Maybe.

@Reconstructo,

Jungian archetypes are never experienced directly but must be inferred. They become associated with particular content. For instance, behind Buddha and Christ is the same Archetype (the Self). That claim is a matter of interpretation of course. For Jung, archetypes were numinous, emotional. The symbolic Christ is more important in this regard than the historical, except that the historical functions symbolically.

It occurs to me to mention badges, like the ones cop's wear. A badge is a symbol of power. The pope's hat is also a symbol of power. nietzsche wears the mask of Dionysus to get worked up. "Not me, but Christ within me" says Saint Paul. You put on (or in) the mask (or cartridge) and blammo. Potent emotions. Like a drug. Christ is a drug. Buddha is a drug . This is only one metaphor for them, not an exclusive metaphor. But jesus is man that walks on water. buddha under the bo tree (symbolic?). I this case ignore the real human behind the myth and examine the myth, the miracle as the symbolism of power and totality. Acc. to Jung, Christ and Buddha point man to a greater fullness of experience. The ego is shriveled. It's been whipped and trained. As we grow older we integrate previously unconscious elements into the conscious psyche. I view myth thru a Jungian lens, I suppose.

@Reconstructo,

We're just talking about different levels of interpretation here. I'm actually talking about the literal level and you're talking about the typological and I think I may be talking about the literal which is weird because I'm usually on the typological side.

Traditionally, medievally, the four levels of interpretation were

literal
typological
tropological
anagogical

I am insisting on a literal personality
You are insisting on a typological mask.

The anagogical is the most interesting one.
We may find common ground at the anagogical level.
I think we may both be striving for the anagogical in different ways.

Jewish exegesis "Pardes" also has four levels.

Peshat - plain
Remez - hints (allegorical)
Derash - inquire (perhaps moral as in the moral of the story)
Sod - secret (mystery)

@Reconstructo,

Yes, anagogical! I looked it up. That's what it means to me, all of this religious tradition. Christ walking on water is an analogy. Water is the mess of life, the contingent. Or water is the dark inner ocean of self. To walk and not drown is to conquer this element. Other such interpretations of symbolic miracle.

It's the old old story of superman, ascension, transcendence. Myth takes a narrative form, rich with objects. These translate well. The object does the speaking, not the word. Of course the tradition includes abstractions as well: "way, truth, light...."
I think these super-man stories are stimulants, technology for morale....

@Reconstructo,

You really like the drug analogy and I'll recognize it is a good one. HAve you seen "What the bleep do we know?"? The scene at the wedding with all the different hormones and chemicals. A similar scene could be added to the film with a crowd of people listening to an evangelical preacher at a mega-church.

Still the drug metaphor is a metaphor.

If we lean one way the drug metaphor collapses into a materialist explanation of the religious experience. (hormones endorphins etc)

If we lean the other way the drug metaphor collapses at which point one may have an ineffable spiritual experience.

@Deckard,

Deckard;114006 wrote:

You really like the drug analogy and I'll recognize it is a good one. HAve you seen "What the bleep do we know?"? The scene at the wedding with all the different hormones and chemicals. A similar scene could be added to the film with a crowd of people listening to an evangelical preacher at a mega-church.

Still the drug metaphor is a metaphor.

If we lean one way the drug metaphor collapses into a materialist explanation of the religious experience. (hormones endorphins etc)

If we lean the other way the drug metaphor collapses at which point one may have an ineffable spiritual experience.

I didn't see that scene, no. I know I've been hammering away with the drug metaphor. And I admit it is dangerously reductive. Perhaps I'm trying to stay on the fence here. To see the brain from inside and outside alternately. Your points about the metaphor are good points. I agree.

We are forced to use words, like "transcendent." It's great word, but difficult for some. Whereas anyone who's ever gotten truly high, on the potent sort of stuff, will immediately be able to relate to techniques/realizations that put one over the top. I happen to know more musicians than readers. I 'm sure this is a factor in my metaphor choice.

Here's a question: what if we could view with some perfect instrument the brain-states of mystics and drug-users....I wonder what objective differences would manifest, and what would be similar. Perhaps there was a time when the effects of drugs were described with church metaphors? Ah, but psychiatry has changed all that. We are a drug-drenched USA.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;114135 wrote:

We are forced to use words, like "transcendent." It's great word,

Hey, if there is such a thing as immanentizing the eschaton maybe there is such a thing as transcendentalizing the genesis. Hmmm, is that what Hegel was trying to do?

@Deckard,

Deckard;114164 wrote:

Hey, if there is such a thing as immanentizing the eschaton maybe there is such a thing as transcendentalizing the genesis. Hmmm, is that what Hegel was trying to do?

I'm on expert on him, but I don't think he was transcendentalizing hard-core at all. You know, he wanted to be rigorous, do "Science." (Note the capital -- but then it's German, all nouns are capital -- but then Kojeve translated that way...and then the guy that put it into English..hmm). But I've mostly studied Kojeve and then some generalizes of old H. Also a biography. H knocked up one girl (who was married) then married another. "immanentizing the eschaton" is a good phrase. I had to look it up. It seems to fit.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;114168 wrote:

"immanentizing the eschaton" is a good phrase. I had to look it up. It seems to fit.

seems to fit what?

I'm not sure if transcendentalizing the genesis makes any sense but I like the phrase so I say it sometimes.

Reconstructo;114135 wrote:

Here's a question: what if we could view with some perfect instrument the brain-states of mystics and drug-users....I wonder what objective differences would manifest, and what would be similar. Perhaps there was a time when the effects of drugs were described with church metaphors? Ah, but psychiatry has changed all that. We are a drug-drenched USA.

I think drugs get too much credit. I've done some and had some cool experiences, some of them even starring Jesus and friends. But I'm always bothered by the idea that the drugs get the credit for that stuff. Was it real? No just crazy drug experience or was it? I hate having the ambivalence. I can honestly say that my best, most clear, most sound, inspiring, creative thoughts have come to me when sober. With an emphasis on the the clear and sound part. Many of those are church related. I'm not much for the Dionysian approach but not much of for Apollonian either. Is there a third option?

Also could you restate the original post. The "subversive" part is clear enough but can you say a little more about the "absolute" part?

Philosophy Forum

Subversive Absolute Christianty

Quick Links

My Account

able2know