Occurrences outside this virtual reality have rendered the Ante-Occidents unable to continue their positings. Since we will more than likely never come together as a group again with this blog on the agenda, consider this the end. Again the West and its utilitarian powers claims victory.
Best,
The Ante-Occidents
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The Active in the Making
Again, I come before you not as a prepared mind, but as a jumble of mindless ramblings. As such, I beg your empathy and know you will call me brother. Enough of the purposeless allusions, let's get to the point:
Schopenhauer says in his first part of "The World as Will and Representation" that to consider the object as separate and prior to the subject is a false assumption. Indeed, the object comes simultaneously with the subject yet "presupposes" it.
So what the hell is he talking about? Basically this, the object is the representation of the subject, and yet exists as the very subject itself in its entirety. That is to say, the representation of a thing contains the thing in its fullness. Why? Because, according to the Schop, objects exist because of the active will of the subject; subjects exist as continuous emanations and participations in ACTIVE will.
In a painting (or some of my friends here might think of an icon), the image is said to represent something. Yet, Schopenhauer claims that that representation contains the fullness of the thing represented. Why? Because both the original subject and the representation of it both exist because of the same emanation of will. Because neither the subject nor object can exist without being active separately and active in their participation with each other (object drawing from the will of the subject and vice versa), the subject is pure action exertive and the object is pure action receptive.
Here is the problem: understanding. I have not yet read enough of the Schop to know what he thinks of when he says "understanding", but I do know that the knowledge of the existence of the subject fully within the object representing it presupposes an understanding of the subject itself. The issue here is that Schopenhauer clearly points out that all subjects are pure energia and no essence. Those in the Eastern side of the world would say that this cannot be, as one can never understand God outside of his energies, his actions. In other words, his fullness, his "being" as Schopenhauer calls it, cannot be known by man. While Schopenhauer gets a lot of points very close to the mark, I believe here is one where he goes a bit to the far side of his point. Yet, my problem is that I have not yet come up with a philosophical argument, though I know someone else already has and I just haven't read it, to counterpoint the argument for pure energy as being!
If I can figure out a simple way of explaining it, maybe I will apply it to my gradually forming definition of the "making" of words. What I have so far is this: in creation, everything is always in motion; the motion defined here is constant movement of the active will in supporting objects (or representations); words themselves are nothing but representations of the subjects (thoughts, physical things, images, etc.); language is made up of words; thus language is constantly subjected to the active supporting will of the subject. Conundrum: two opposing subjects actively projecting their individual wills upon the same phrase, thus creating opposing representations out of identical objects. The solution is not always that there is a faulty premise in one speaker's projection.
Well, I will leave it at that for today.
Schopenhauer says in his first part of "The World as Will and Representation" that to consider the object as separate and prior to the subject is a false assumption. Indeed, the object comes simultaneously with the subject yet "presupposes" it.
So what the hell is he talking about? Basically this, the object is the representation of the subject, and yet exists as the very subject itself in its entirety. That is to say, the representation of a thing contains the thing in its fullness. Why? Because, according to the Schop, objects exist because of the active will of the subject; subjects exist as continuous emanations and participations in ACTIVE will.
In a painting (or some of my friends here might think of an icon), the image is said to represent something. Yet, Schopenhauer claims that that representation contains the fullness of the thing represented. Why? Because both the original subject and the representation of it both exist because of the same emanation of will. Because neither the subject nor object can exist without being active separately and active in their participation with each other (object drawing from the will of the subject and vice versa), the subject is pure action exertive and the object is pure action receptive.
Here is the problem: understanding. I have not yet read enough of the Schop to know what he thinks of when he says "understanding", but I do know that the knowledge of the existence of the subject fully within the object representing it presupposes an understanding of the subject itself. The issue here is that Schopenhauer clearly points out that all subjects are pure energia and no essence. Those in the Eastern side of the world would say that this cannot be, as one can never understand God outside of his energies, his actions. In other words, his fullness, his "being" as Schopenhauer calls it, cannot be known by man. While Schopenhauer gets a lot of points very close to the mark, I believe here is one where he goes a bit to the far side of his point. Yet, my problem is that I have not yet come up with a philosophical argument, though I know someone else already has and I just haven't read it, to counterpoint the argument for pure energy as being!
If I can figure out a simple way of explaining it, maybe I will apply it to my gradually forming definition of the "making" of words. What I have so far is this: in creation, everything is always in motion; the motion defined here is constant movement of the active will in supporting objects (or representations); words themselves are nothing but representations of the subjects (thoughts, physical things, images, etc.); language is made up of words; thus language is constantly subjected to the active supporting will of the subject. Conundrum: two opposing subjects actively projecting their individual wills upon the same phrase, thus creating opposing representations out of identical objects. The solution is not always that there is a faulty premise in one speaker's projection.
Well, I will leave it at that for today.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Aesthetics and Associated Mental Humbug
Recently I have been quite busy with the move, new job, and strangely uncharacteristic attempts to become slightly more organized. Because of this, I have tried to lay off much of my self-applied pressure to continue regular posting. However, each night as I lay down to sleep, certain thoughts persist in preventing me from doing so, no matter how tired I may be. As these thoughts, though they are in no way formalized, pertain to the general strain of thought displayed in my postings (sans the Olympics babble), I will do my best to hash them out in a semi-understandable format.
Point one of my basic ponderings is the idea of instability in human nature. Perhaps it is an effect of my naiveté, but I have rarely thought of human nature as being transient at best. Yet Gregory of Nyssa writes, “Existence itself originates in change” and, “The created nature cannot exist without change.” This, of course, is because “nothing comes from nothing” and things came to be as a result of change (a point upon which all people agree, whether ex nihilo or from preexisting matter, all things begin as change, hence “begin”, not just “be”). And, according to Newtonian Laws (Chase correct me if I’m wrong), things in motion tend to stay in motion (though these laws do not necessarily apply to metaphysics, accept the allegory). Thus, to approach a study of human nature, or the nature of anything created or deriving from a created thing, one must approach it with the concept of constant motion. Though I already had thought that language was constantly changing (though not evolving), my thoughts have been much involved with how much different things (language in particular) change in reaction to things or in action towards them, or a combination, or whatever (very Hegelian I know).
As you can tell, my thoughts are very scattered and incomplete, but my next point is along the same lines: all of my “Signs and Metaculture” series was supposed to pertain to the representation of things (examining words like Metaphor, Mimesis, Ekphrasis, maybe Reification, etc.) yet I have also recently discovered Theodor Adorno’s “Aesthetic Theory” and can’t help but look for everything to have an inherent contradiction, vis-à-vis, “Art can only be understood by its laws of movement, not according to any invariants. It is defined by its relation to what it is not.” Of course, I know next to nothing about aesthetic theory (having read little of Kant, less of Hegel, and maybe 30 pages of Nietzsche, without tapping much into the 20th century at all), but Adorno’s desire to describe the relation of Art to society, determining in the process that Art is neither the sublimation of society alone nor the mere representation of it, convinces me that Language and signs, in their act of representation, may perhaps participate in the same particular fluidity to which human nature is subject. Though none of this plays out empirically, I am trying to process the relation between the necessarily human act of “making” that I promised to discuss, and the reflection of the transient nature of the “maker”.
Lastly, I put forth a call to anyone who can suggest further reading on “Ekphrasis”, as I can find very little on it and don’t have access to university thinkers right now.
Until I can figure out a regular schedule, I remain yours, my 2 ½ faithful readers!
Point one of my basic ponderings is the idea of instability in human nature. Perhaps it is an effect of my naiveté, but I have rarely thought of human nature as being transient at best. Yet Gregory of Nyssa writes, “Existence itself originates in change” and, “The created nature cannot exist without change.” This, of course, is because “nothing comes from nothing” and things came to be as a result of change (a point upon which all people agree, whether ex nihilo or from preexisting matter, all things begin as change, hence “begin”, not just “be”). And, according to Newtonian Laws (Chase correct me if I’m wrong), things in motion tend to stay in motion (though these laws do not necessarily apply to metaphysics, accept the allegory). Thus, to approach a study of human nature, or the nature of anything created or deriving from a created thing, one must approach it with the concept of constant motion. Though I already had thought that language was constantly changing (though not evolving), my thoughts have been much involved with how much different things (language in particular) change in reaction to things or in action towards them, or a combination, or whatever (very Hegelian I know).
As you can tell, my thoughts are very scattered and incomplete, but my next point is along the same lines: all of my “Signs and Metaculture” series was supposed to pertain to the representation of things (examining words like Metaphor, Mimesis, Ekphrasis, maybe Reification, etc.) yet I have also recently discovered Theodor Adorno’s “Aesthetic Theory” and can’t help but look for everything to have an inherent contradiction, vis-à-vis, “Art can only be understood by its laws of movement, not according to any invariants. It is defined by its relation to what it is not.” Of course, I know next to nothing about aesthetic theory (having read little of Kant, less of Hegel, and maybe 30 pages of Nietzsche, without tapping much into the 20th century at all), but Adorno’s desire to describe the relation of Art to society, determining in the process that Art is neither the sublimation of society alone nor the mere representation of it, convinces me that Language and signs, in their act of representation, may perhaps participate in the same particular fluidity to which human nature is subject. Though none of this plays out empirically, I am trying to process the relation between the necessarily human act of “making” that I promised to discuss, and the reflection of the transient nature of the “maker”.
Lastly, I put forth a call to anyone who can suggest further reading on “Ekphrasis”, as I can find very little on it and don’t have access to university thinkers right now.
Until I can figure out a regular schedule, I remain yours, my 2 ½ faithful readers!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Peace, Prayer & the Calming of Anxiety
Isn't this the story of the storm on the lake of Galilee? The Lord and his disciples are on a lake. A tempest comes up when they are out to sea. Death threatens them, the waves are huge, the winds beat against them. They fight for their lives as hard as they can, and all this while the Lord is asleep on a cushion at the prow. He looks comfortable to them. They can't bear him looking so comfortable, his indifference. In their wretchedness they turn to him, wake him up, try to force him to realise what is happening. 'Lord, do you not see that we perish?' But what are they doing by asking this question? Are they appealing to the Lord to control the storm? Yes and no. First of all they want him to share their suffering. They want him to be an anxious as they are. They think he will not help them unless he shares their anxiety. The Lord gets up, he refuses to share their panic. He keeps his own serenity. First he turns to them, 'How long must I be with you, men of little faith?' And then he turns towards the storm, and casts his own serenity onto it. He orders the waves to be still and the wind to be silent, and his own peace to come down on everything about him. The storm is still and the disciples fall at his feet. Who is he? They are still doubtful. We often make the same mistake. Instead of seeking to share God's serenity, we ask God to share our tumult. Of course he does share it, but with his own serenity.--- Met. Anthony (Bloom) of Sourozh, Courage to Pray1
I've had a rough few weeks, due in no small part to an increasingly demoralizing job hunt. Though ostensibly a search for gainful employment, on a deeper level this process has been part of an extended existential dilemma. Needless to say, I don't know what the future holds.
Of course I'm not the only one living in anxious uncertainty. The economy unravels before us, and world events betray our deep distrust for one another. As in all times, the greater struggles are the personal trials we all face with the dawning of each day, burdening our hearts, minds, and bodies.
"Instead of seeking to share God's serenity, we ask God to share our tumult." The Metropolitan's words are certainly true of me. Perhaps it's time I seek to change more than just my employment status.
1 Metropolitan Anthony, and Georges LeFebvre. Courage to Pray. Trans. Dinah Livingstone. 1973. London: Darton, Longman and Todd; Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1984.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Fluid Objectivity
Well, most of us have filled up our empty hours with our eyes glued to the TV watching the Olympics. I have heard from more than one commentator that he or she disapproves of the "harsh criticism" given by the judges or coaches. Specifically, I would like to reference the American pole-vaulter Jenn Stuczynski "scandal" in which immediately following her silver medal finish, her coach spoke to her in an "almost rude" and "definitely not encouraging" fashion.
Granted, it is great to win the silver medal, but when did it become the commentator's job to determine whether the coach is doing his job right? Perhaps in training Stuczynski had prepared to do a much higher jump than she performed. maybe her skills were higher than she demonstrated. Who knows. Either way, it is her coach's job to either give her positive or negative reinforcement as he sees necessary. When you reach that high of a stage, the difference between receiving a gold medal, a silver medal, or a bronze medal is not significant except for the fame and glory that come with them. The most important thing (or at least what ought to be the most important thing) is whether the athlete performed to the best of his or her ability. If she could have done better, more power to the coach for telling her how. Unless this is the end of her career, as it was with Laura Wilkinson, the platform diver from the US, then she always has the potential to get better. Also, if the athletes do not receive the harshest criticism at this stage of their game (from the judges and coaches), then when are they going to get it?
And what is up with these track stars changing coaches at a whim? Honestly, if a young athlete (say, in their teens) changed coaches as often as Jeremy Wariner or hired their own personal coach as Dara Torres did, then they would never have the most important part of an athletic mindset - developing relationships and purposes in life! If you want to be the best athlete in the world, the first thing you have to learn is trust, then determination, then a pursuit of excellence. These athletes have gotten too cocky and I am glad to see some of them fail miserably. I am also glad to see a coach who tells his athlete when she could have done better. Stop babying and glorifying these athletes and treat them as human beings.
I have to grant that the commentators this year have never been viewed as reliable sources for making specific analyses of crucial situations, but have instead often made broad assumptions and generalizations about anything they think they have knowledge about. Oh well, at least these games have been fun to watch.
Granted, it is great to win the silver medal, but when did it become the commentator's job to determine whether the coach is doing his job right? Perhaps in training Stuczynski had prepared to do a much higher jump than she performed. maybe her skills were higher than she demonstrated. Who knows. Either way, it is her coach's job to either give her positive or negative reinforcement as he sees necessary. When you reach that high of a stage, the difference between receiving a gold medal, a silver medal, or a bronze medal is not significant except for the fame and glory that come with them. The most important thing (or at least what ought to be the most important thing) is whether the athlete performed to the best of his or her ability. If she could have done better, more power to the coach for telling her how. Unless this is the end of her career, as it was with Laura Wilkinson, the platform diver from the US, then she always has the potential to get better. Also, if the athletes do not receive the harshest criticism at this stage of their game (from the judges and coaches), then when are they going to get it?
And what is up with these track stars changing coaches at a whim? Honestly, if a young athlete (say, in their teens) changed coaches as often as Jeremy Wariner or hired their own personal coach as Dara Torres did, then they would never have the most important part of an athletic mindset - developing relationships and purposes in life! If you want to be the best athlete in the world, the first thing you have to learn is trust, then determination, then a pursuit of excellence. These athletes have gotten too cocky and I am glad to see some of them fail miserably. I am also glad to see a coach who tells his athlete when she could have done better. Stop babying and glorifying these athletes and treat them as human beings.
I have to grant that the commentators this year have never been viewed as reliable sources for making specific analyses of crucial situations, but have instead often made broad assumptions and generalizations about anything they think they have knowledge about. Oh well, at least these games have been fun to watch.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
My First Time
I recently read part of my first issue of Touchstone Magazine (as a result of a confession--non-sacramental--to Father Patrick Henry Reardon that I had never read the publication) and read for the first time a writing sample of Peter J. Leithart. Many people have respect for this man as an intellectual contemporary theologian, though I only read a very brief comment in the beginning of the magazine. The comment that he made is somewhat pertinent to my stalled-out series on the depth of language and literary theory, so I will quote it in full:
Consensual Silence
Meaning in language depends upon consensus. The sound "cat" denotes a feline to English speakers because English speakers agree that it does. French speakers can make no sense of the sound, but say "chat" (without the "t") and everything becomes clear.
Augustine gives a near twist to this common notion. Not only do we know what words mean because a group agrees, but learning what words mean involves coming to agreement with those who use the word. Learning that "katze" means "cat" unites me, in a small way, with all the German-speakers.
This is the heart of Augustine's analysis of the dangers of superstition. If an astrologer says, "If Venus is in the fifth house, you'll fall in love," and I agree, even if I agree simply by failing to disagree, I have formed a pact with falsehood. Worse, by agreeing with the astrologer, I've entered into a league with the demons who inspired his false signs in the first place.
Confronted with a false word, there is no way to remain neutral, to let it slide. I must either enter into fellowship with falsehood or break the consensus by disagreeing and telling the truth. "No," I must say to the astrologer, "Venus doesn't mean that."
Such disagreement is a liberation. But Augustine's analysis also raises disturbing questions about our culture's mania for politeness. What kind of villainy do we tolerate when we smile and smile and refuse to disagree?
Focus on Leithart's phrase, "his false signs." Note the importance, as I stressed in the first major installment of the S&M series, of the use of the correct signs. Naturally, I would expect all readers to agree, yet be at a loss as to where they define false from true signs. If by our mere disagreement we can falsify the signs of another, fine. But if the truth or falsehood of the statement and the sign created by the string of words in the statement (note that each word is a sign in itself and put together they form a new sign...) is intrinsic to the sign and cannot be changed, then we are at a quandary--we must first know whether the sign is true or false before agreeing or disagreeing! Please wait with extreme anticipation for my follow-up on how we create meaning through the "making" of signs which should be forthcoming as soon as I get settled in my new home (though who knows how long that will be.)
Consensual Silence
Meaning in language depends upon consensus. The sound "cat" denotes a feline to English speakers because English speakers agree that it does. French speakers can make no sense of the sound, but say "chat" (without the "t") and everything becomes clear.
Augustine gives a near twist to this common notion. Not only do we know what words mean because a group agrees, but learning what words mean involves coming to agreement with those who use the word. Learning that "katze" means "cat" unites me, in a small way, with all the German-speakers.
This is the heart of Augustine's analysis of the dangers of superstition. If an astrologer says, "If Venus is in the fifth house, you'll fall in love," and I agree, even if I agree simply by failing to disagree, I have formed a pact with falsehood. Worse, by agreeing with the astrologer, I've entered into a league with the demons who inspired his false signs in the first place.
Confronted with a false word, there is no way to remain neutral, to let it slide. I must either enter into fellowship with falsehood or break the consensus by disagreeing and telling the truth. "No," I must say to the astrologer, "Venus doesn't mean that."
Such disagreement is a liberation. But Augustine's analysis also raises disturbing questions about our culture's mania for politeness. What kind of villainy do we tolerate when we smile and smile and refuse to disagree?
Focus on Leithart's phrase, "his false signs." Note the importance, as I stressed in the first major installment of the S&M series, of the use of the correct signs. Naturally, I would expect all readers to agree, yet be at a loss as to where they define false from true signs. If by our mere disagreement we can falsify the signs of another, fine. But if the truth or falsehood of the statement and the sign created by the string of words in the statement (note that each word is a sign in itself and put together they form a new sign...) is intrinsic to the sign and cannot be changed, then we are at a quandary--we must first know whether the sign is true or false before agreeing or disagreeing! Please wait with extreme anticipation for my follow-up on how we create meaning through the "making" of signs which should be forthcoming as soon as I get settled in my new home (though who knows how long that will be.)
Monday, August 11, 2008
Universes's First Manmade Electrostatic Binary Orbit
Yes I've been delaying too long making my latest and as of yet greatest post.
On July 17, 2008, I participated in a ground breaking experiment. A team from Rhodes College journeyed to Ellington Field in Houston, TX to conduct research aboard NASA's modified C9-B code-named the Weightless Wonder and know colloquially as the "Vomit Comet." Used for training astronauts, the Vomit Comet flies parabolic maneuvers simulating weightlessness for a period of approximately 30 secs. NASA's education office has a program that allows undergrads to fly an experiment on board the aircraft and experience microgravity, something few human beings get a chance to do.
Our experiment's objective was to create the world's first purely electrostatic binary orbit. In layman's, we wanted to get two graph-coated spheres roughly the size of ping pong balls to orbit around each other in zero gravity. The theory behind this is that since Newton's Law of Gravitation (which creates the planetary and stellar orbits we all know and love) is mathematically similar to Coulomb's Law of Electrostatic Attraction, electrical attraction between two objects should also create orbits. This has never, EVER, been done before with two free-floating objects.
This was not an easy task-alot of sweat, blood, and tears were poured into this experiment, along with tons of 2x4's, screws, and cash. But the NASA training we received was awesome, the experience one of a kind, and the results 100% gratifying. I have the pleasure of showing you one of our successful orbits (you can't really see me, I'm the operator on the right just out of the camera frame):
Eletrostatic Binary Orbit
On July 17, 2008, I participated in a ground breaking experiment. A team from Rhodes College journeyed to Ellington Field in Houston, TX to conduct research aboard NASA's modified C9-B code-named the Weightless Wonder and know colloquially as the "Vomit Comet." Used for training astronauts, the Vomit Comet flies parabolic maneuvers simulating weightlessness for a period of approximately 30 secs. NASA's education office has a program that allows undergrads to fly an experiment on board the aircraft and experience microgravity, something few human beings get a chance to do.
Our experiment's objective was to create the world's first purely electrostatic binary orbit. In layman's, we wanted to get two graph-coated spheres roughly the size of ping pong balls to orbit around each other in zero gravity. The theory behind this is that since Newton's Law of Gravitation (which creates the planetary and stellar orbits we all know and love) is mathematically similar to Coulomb's Law of Electrostatic Attraction, electrical attraction between two objects should also create orbits. This has never, EVER, been done before with two free-floating objects.
This was not an easy task-alot of sweat, blood, and tears were poured into this experiment, along with tons of 2x4's, screws, and cash. But the NASA training we received was awesome, the experience one of a kind, and the results 100% gratifying. I have the pleasure of showing you one of our successful orbits (you can't really see me, I'm the operator on the right just out of the camera frame):
Eletrostatic Binary Orbit
Monday, August 4, 2008
Delays
Due to an upcoming move and apparent lack of interest in the series, I will postpone the second full installment of "Signs and Metaculture" until further notice. I will, however post a brief follow-up to "S&M: 'Sign' and the 'Transcendental Signified' 1.2" as soon as possible. Please keep in mind that responses are most welcome and might help to make future posts more accesible.
Until then...
Until then...
Thursday, July 17, 2008
What is Environment?
This is a subject upon which Chase, Brandon, and Josh have much more well-formed opinions than I, but since Pen and Palette author Susan Cushman asked for responses to her article "The So-Called Environmental Crisis", and it is a fairly popular subject, I'll throw in my ambiguous two-cents.
Recently, on a trip between Tennessee and Florida on I-55, I passed what I call Nissan City, a mile-long Nissan car factory and I said to the people in the car with me, "That's beautiful," and I meant it, though I don't entirely know why. One of the reasons that I had for saying that probably has to do with my having lived in cities for almost my entire life, yet my appreciation of nature has not diminished.
To get right to the point, I believe in life. Living in the vicinity of Tokyo for a period of time, I did not look up at the sky and say, "My, what dreary smog" or at the massive amounts of skyscrapers and say, "Oh dear, how dare they impose upon the beauty of nature in such a way." That is not to say I did not appreciate nature, but my experiences in forests, semi-tropical jungles, beaches, fields, and whatever other "natural" places my life has taken me seem to have been very secondary to the experiences that I have had in densely populated areas. The experiences that I remember the most and appreciate the most are always when in communion with others.
Even while climbing mountain Mount Fuji, it was so much more enjoyable for me to have someone standing next to me as I watched the sun rise through the mist (though I must admit, that person was holding me up to keep me from vomiting due to altitude sickness).
As an English Major and Graduate student, I have learned to appreciate life in all senses, whether it be watching the grass grow around Tintern Abbey on a page or feeling the tingling sensation of a jellyfish wrapping itself around my arm, I have come to realize that these minute experiences are immensely more important than worrying about the overshadowing of the abbey by a new skyscraper bank or worrying that the jellyfish's natural habitat is being decimated by oil spills in the Pacific Northwest.
That is not to say that we need not be concerned about these things, for how can we appreciate them when they are no longer there? Yet I believe that the proper mindset that needs to be instilled in all people is not that we need to be on the constant search for ways to preserve the environment, but that we need to develop a gradual appreciation for every experience we have. This appreciation will necessarily birth a desire to preserve the origin of that experience and thereby lead to what many specifically environmentally minded people are pushing for. An acknowledgement of our place as partakers rather than mere recievers will also assist in this mindset.
I don't want to get to intellectual with this post, but I would like to add that many sacramentally minded people attempt to push the idea of "making" as an act by which we participate in the grand scheme of life. All that we touch, see, do, or experience is in some way affecting other; we are "making" a new world every time we blink our eyes, every time we think a thought, every time we mow the grass. The correct mindset for someone concerned about the environment begins with a knowledge of interconnectedness in experience (beware Westerners).
(PLEASE do not think of that last statement as in any way Chardinian (Pierre Teilhard de Chardin)! I do not here propose that all life is interconnected in every sense, as though we could affect the actions of God, or as though each thing was God and that by destroying it we were destroying part of God. Just that, if we are to consider our very life as equally important both physically and spiritually (viz. "sacramental"), then our mental, spiritual, and physical actions are all equally as influential.)
Recently, on a trip between Tennessee and Florida on I-55, I passed what I call Nissan City, a mile-long Nissan car factory and I said to the people in the car with me, "That's beautiful," and I meant it, though I don't entirely know why. One of the reasons that I had for saying that probably has to do with my having lived in cities for almost my entire life, yet my appreciation of nature has not diminished.
To get right to the point, I believe in life. Living in the vicinity of Tokyo for a period of time, I did not look up at the sky and say, "My, what dreary smog" or at the massive amounts of skyscrapers and say, "Oh dear, how dare they impose upon the beauty of nature in such a way." That is not to say I did not appreciate nature, but my experiences in forests, semi-tropical jungles, beaches, fields, and whatever other "natural" places my life has taken me seem to have been very secondary to the experiences that I have had in densely populated areas. The experiences that I remember the most and appreciate the most are always when in communion with others.
Even while climbing mountain Mount Fuji, it was so much more enjoyable for me to have someone standing next to me as I watched the sun rise through the mist (though I must admit, that person was holding me up to keep me from vomiting due to altitude sickness).
As an English Major and Graduate student, I have learned to appreciate life in all senses, whether it be watching the grass grow around Tintern Abbey on a page or feeling the tingling sensation of a jellyfish wrapping itself around my arm, I have come to realize that these minute experiences are immensely more important than worrying about the overshadowing of the abbey by a new skyscraper bank or worrying that the jellyfish's natural habitat is being decimated by oil spills in the Pacific Northwest.
That is not to say that we need not be concerned about these things, for how can we appreciate them when they are no longer there? Yet I believe that the proper mindset that needs to be instilled in all people is not that we need to be on the constant search for ways to preserve the environment, but that we need to develop a gradual appreciation for every experience we have. This appreciation will necessarily birth a desire to preserve the origin of that experience and thereby lead to what many specifically environmentally minded people are pushing for. An acknowledgement of our place as partakers rather than mere recievers will also assist in this mindset.
I don't want to get to intellectual with this post, but I would like to add that many sacramentally minded people attempt to push the idea of "making" as an act by which we participate in the grand scheme of life. All that we touch, see, do, or experience is in some way affecting other; we are "making" a new world every time we blink our eyes, every time we think a thought, every time we mow the grass. The correct mindset for someone concerned about the environment begins with a knowledge of interconnectedness in experience (beware Westerners).
(PLEASE do not think of that last statement as in any way Chardinian (Pierre Teilhard de Chardin)! I do not here propose that all life is interconnected in every sense, as though we could affect the actions of God, or as though each thing was God and that by destroying it we were destroying part of God. Just that, if we are to consider our very life as equally important both physically and spiritually (viz. "sacramental"), then our mental, spiritual, and physical actions are all equally as influential.)
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Wall-E: A Response to Evan's Critique
In his most recent post, Evan critiques the latest animated film release from Disney/Pixar, Wall-E.
He seems to think the film awful, whereas I found it just so-so. I share neither his excitement for the character of Wall-E (though he makes a good case), nor his deep disappointment with the film overall. Wall-E is of a category of films that I simply do not expect much of, one way or other.
Evan asks us to imagine Disney executives conniving together, "We have this astounding character that kids will love, a great interaction with another character, and phenomenal appeal to people of all ages. Now how can we use that to further our plan to corrupt humanity?" Yet whatever one thinks of the merits of the film, I do not believe it was wrought with ill intention; to the contrary, the film's creators probably believe they are providing a much-needed warning for our times. This is, after all, an age in which obesity and environmental awareness are considered chief societal (I daresay moral) concerns.
Indeed, appreciation of nature and concern for our environment are good. Christians ought take the notion of stewardship seriously, and we Orthodox, pervaded with the importance of the Incarnation, know to rightly respect the natural and material. Yet we also understand order, and believe that the glory of Man is greater than the glory of Nature. Nature may whisper of eternity, but Man contains eternity within himself. If the creators of Wall-E would mar humanity to defend nature, they do both a disservice.
A charitable view, however, recognizes their well-intentioned--and not invalid--concerns. The film may effect some good. But I hope the folks at Disney/Pixar will understand that some of us are jaded to such moralizing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)