Over on Kirby's blog, G. M. Palmer posted a link to Easter, a remarkable poem by Jill Alexander Essbaum. Kirby felt the poem was “very secular.” This seemed to deeply miss the point of Essbaum's poetry, which struck me as a poignant reflection on a central paradox of Easter.
As Christians, we celebrate Easter as Christ's victory over death. We declare death vanquished. Yet we know, God's victory over death is ultimate, not present. Death surrounds us, and our own mortality presses in. We proclaim victory in defeat; we celebrate in despair. The ones we love pass on, and the threads that tie us to this life grow weaker, while the threads that pull us to, and we believe through, death grow stronger.
Why? JH has lamented the lack of the surreal over on Lutheran Surrealism. Let's have some here.
Is death a social construct? I'm thinking, yes.
Peace
27 comments:
This would get the Sokal Hoax people up in knots. Nice phrasing!
Kirby,
:-). Yes, I had the Sokal hoax very much in mind when I wrote this. It seemed to me that "Death as a Social Construct" was even better than gravity as a social construct. It is simultaneously more absurd and more defensible. What's not to like?
It's somewhat amusing, Stu, for a logic guy you seem to routinely ...justify fundamentalist Christianity (KO's approach).
Now, Im not one to defend PoMO, and found the Sokal hoax a bit amusing (his crony Bricmont's quite a figure as well--neither of them conservative or religious)--yet I don't think Sokal refuted any and all forms of constructivism. A better question might be ...is ...judeo-christianity (including the j-Chr. approaches to death), a social construct?? At least some parts are--like when the big WASP church-warehouses put the angels on guy-wires at Easter.
J,
It's somewhat amusing, Stu, for a logic guy you seem to routinely ...justify fundamentalist Christianity (KO's approach).
I'm no fundamentalist, but I am most definitely a Christian, and orthodox enough to be able to confess the first three ecumenical creeds without irony or special pleading. Indeed, I have no problem with the fourth, it's just not a part of my confession's articles of concord. I am continually struck that you make the false association (Christian => fundamentalist), all the more so because it seems to me that a plausible spiritual path for you would be to embrace the one, while rejecting the other.
But I am curious nevertheless, as to what part of my argument you believe justifies the epithet "fundamentalist."
A better question might be ...is ...judeo-christianity (including the j-Chr. approaches to death), a social construct?
There's a false dichotomy implicit in your question, in that accepting a "yes" seems to involve affirming that that's all it is.
I see the church on earth as a human institution that embraces divine truth. That it does so in a flawed and imperfect way is given: whether or not it has a divine constitution, it is an institution in the stewardship of a flawed humanity. There is a dissonance between the church as it is, and the church as it aspires to be, but this dissonance does not invalidate the church as it is. Honest, constructive criticism that aims to improve the church, and bring it closer to realizing its purpose and promise should always be welcome.
Hmm. I wrote,
There's a false dichotomy implicit in your question, in that accepting a "yes" seems to involve affirming that that's all it is
True enough. True enough. But the same critique applies to the question that heads this thread, and perhaps there's a useful clarity to be found in that.
Death as a biological inevitability seems well enough established to be taken as a constraint on reasonable discourse. But that said, certainly death as we experience it, as we acknowledge it, as we remember it, mourn it, and even celebrate it. That is undeniably a social construct.
This all on the more questionable assumption that we want a rational debate, one that sharpens and clarifies our thinking, rather than just another internet food fight.
Again, you claim to value rational discussion but only with the proviso that everyone agrees to orthodox chr. premises. Same for Olson.
Churches are institutions, as are the rituals of various denominations. Rituals are social constructs. But the fact of death-- flatlined--is not a construct. The rituals attending it are.
Some rituals might have biblical support--as with...Easter. Literal readings (ie, most Prot. churches) overlook the metaphorical aspects of ..the Res., IMHO.
Im a bit of a pragmatist in regard to the tradition--church attendance/"faith" may do some good for some--even socially speaking, via charity, etc. But not for all--and that holds for Prot/Cat., or jews and muslims. A Pastor at a big Sacto. fund. church was just arrested for suspected abuse a few weeks ago. That's fairly common now.
A cost-benefit analysis of religion may not please the pious, but ...at times necessary. The problems of ecumenicalism are also another reason to value the Constitutional roots of the US, not merely protestant tradition.
btw, Olson censors/moderates my posts--as does his crony GM. So, rational discussion again prevented. So when he makes a uninformed claim like "Locke was conservative" , and I respond, "No, he wasn't i***t," it doesn't appear. No apologies.
Locke detested the royals,the Torys, the magistrates. He wanted to break up the old estates. He supports a popular vote, etc. Maybe Olson , or his cronies should start with 2nd Treatise of Civ. Govt. That Locke wanted to allow property rights to "the commons" and workers is hardly conservative: he was saying, let the farmers and workers keep their own goods, instead of working for the estates, and landlords. It's actually ...rather socialist.
There's no debate. He just name-drops people like Locke, to try and impress the gullible
J,
Again, you claim to value rational discussion but only with the proviso that everyone agrees to orthodox chr. premises. Same for Olson.
I do value rational discussion, and have no problem if people who have different religious commitments from mine are involved in the discussion. I make no such proviso, neither so far as I've seen has Kirby.
But I do have my commitments, and I think it is fair and certainly productive in terms of mutual comprehension to be up front about what those commitments are. I am an orthodox Christian, albeit with very different political beliefs from Kirby. You seem to want to hammer me into either the class of benighted fundamentalist teahadist Christians (with Kirby), or into a skeptical rationalist (like you). I'm neither. I agree with you on some (not all) political issues, and I agree with Kirby on some (not all) faith issues.
Churches are institutions, as are the rituals of various denominations. Rituals are social constructs. But the fact of death-- flatlined--is not a construct. The rituals attending it are.
Agreed. I believe that's what I said in the preceding comment.
Some rituals might have biblical support--as with...Easter. Literal readings (ie, most Prot. churches) overlook the metaphorical aspects of ..the Res., IMHO.
There's more to our religious traditions than the Bible. Odd though it may seem for me as a Protestant (and therefore from a "sola scriptura" tradition) to be making this argument against a crypto-Catholic.
Im a bit of a pragmatist in regard to the tradition--church attendance/"faith" may do some good for some--even socially speaking, via charity, etc. But not for all--and that holds for Prot/Cat., or jews and muslims. A Pastor at a big Sacto. fund. church was just arrested for suspected abuse a few weeks ago. That's fairly common now.
I think you're confusing a couple things. The first is the falibility of human institutions, which I'll certainly grant. The second is the communal aspect of Christianity (and indeed most religious traditions). If you believe, you're called to community. Anything less (in my opinion, but scarcely mine alone) is defective.
This is not to say that all such communities are healthy. Clearly they are not.
btw, Olson censors/moderates my posts--as does his crony GM.
Yes, but for transgressions of civility (at least in KO's case -- I haven't been following GM's blog), not for content. He and I discuss this off line. I'm more tolerant, but I do feel that you're far too prone to escalating rhetoric, or making ad hominem arguments. This is not helpful, either to the forum, or to you in trying to make your points.
There's no debate. He just name-drops people like Locke, to try and impress the gullible
And makes the same accusation the other way. I'm not knowledgeable enough about Locke, and there are other things that I care much more about, to serve as referee. As I've said, authorities leave me unimpressed. But I won't hold it against a good argument that it was made by an authority. It's the arguments I care about.
Stu, I'm sure Olson's tally of ad hominems (and other logical fallacies) greatly exceeds mine own. For one, he rarely substantiates/confirms any of his political guestimates with evidence, or cites articles, facts, or even a Wiki. A typical Teahadist flaw. Ask most conservatives for evidence, data, argument, proof, etc and they usually just increase the level of Limbaughphone (tho hysteria's not unknown among la gauche).
J,
I'm sure Olson's tally of ad hominems (and other logical fallacies) greatly exceeds mine own.
Oh, I've been on the receiving end of some of Kirby's ad hominems: communist, socialist, questions about the authenticity of my faith. He no longer does this with me, excepting the occasional bit of political hyperbole. And I think this is because, as with you, I've corrected him without turning around and insulting him. And I have pressed for apologies when I've felt things have gone too far.
But the ad hominems of your opponents never excuse ad hominems on your part. You know better, you should be able to place yourself above it. Calling Kirby's church a "white-trash church," or questioning the authenticity of his faith (because it leads him somewhere other than where you are) are out of bounds.
Honestly, I find it aggravating. I'm trying to make solid points with civility, and sometimes even gaining ground, and you come in, more or less on my side, and leave scorched earth between him and me, making all the more difficult to draw him over.
For one, he rarely substantiates/confirms any of his political guestimates with evidence, or cites articles, facts, or even a Wiki.
Right. But the question here is what is the most productive way to correct him? You didn't cite evidence, or articles, or facts, or even a wiki either, in response to his omissions. You just called him a liar. That was the least productive of the options that were available to you.
Let it be known your "christian" pal Olson not only has defamed me on his most recent rant (re what he takes to be "conservatism"), he has not posted my two responses (which are quite civil and reasonable in tone).
Some of us read Locke, and Adam Smith. He obviously hasn't, but just offers his usual pathos and generalizations, along with his strange little neo-con pal DeLater.
Also to be noted--Hayek was jewish. Smith was probably not a christian but Deist. Locke was considered a heretic by many, and not a supporter of the fundamentalists of the time. So it has nothing to do with Christianity, any more than KO's old beatnik boyfriends did.
Kirby Kissinger of course isn't bothered by this, or any counterarguments. Olson's not debating anything (even say, what the New Testaement might suggest about finance capitalism, and...Usury). He's doing a Limbaugh act. Or is it Meyer Lansky--perps, I strongly suspect.
I wager if we--or rather the Feds-- got ahold of KO and JADL's email accounts, they'd be headed to like a cell, maybe next to their hero Madoff. Or Leavenworth.
J,
Let it be known your "christian" pal Olson not only has defamed me on his most recent rant (re what he takes to be "conservatism"), he has not posted my two responses (which are quite civil and reasonable in tone).
I've re-read what Kirby had to say, and I don't believe you can make a charge of defamation stick, especially given the standards of the venue, and the precedent set by some of your posts. If you're going to call a man a "liar," you've handed over to him a perfectly adequate "unclean hands" defense.
As for him blocking a few of your posts, clearly he is within his rights as a moderator of his own forum to do so. I've argued off-line with him that he should be following a more rigorous all-or-nothing approach, which is to say, he should block all of your posts, or none of them. My sense is that he grew careless in recent weeks (which is how you got in again), and once he'd done so, he gave you enough rhetorical rope to hang yourself, in the sense that the postings that did get through tended to make it easier for him to justify his original banning decision to his readers. How would a reasonable third party assess this? He's let you shoot yourself.
I wager if we--or rather the Feds-- got ahold of KO and JADL's email accounts, they'd be headed to like a cell, maybe next to their hero Madoff. Or Leavenworth.
I'm doubtful in both cases. I don't agree with their politics, but simply having a conservative and/or libertarian perspective is no crime. If it were, Beck would be next to Madoff, and Kirby'd have less to say. I'm at a loss to imagine what crime you think they've committed. Second, judges look very dimly on fishing expeditions. I can't imagine that the federales would find reason enough to risk a rebuke from a judge based on what I know, or even what I can conjecture.
Your rhetoric is getting away from you, and is really counterproductive. Do you think these accusations are going to slow them down? Not unless you're willing to back them up, and I doubt you can. Do you think that they're going to convince third parties? Unlikely. Third parties will generally assume that the guy who is showing the most anger in a given debate is losing it on its merits.
he gave you enough rhetorical rope to hang yourself, in the sense that the postings that did get through tended to make it easier for him to justify his original banning decision to his readers.
No, that's more of your bogus civility and justification of a shrieking fundamentalist. Olson just doesn't know what he's talking about--he's not arguing, he's belching, Stu. I'm the logician here, and he's a fool. We are not obligated to be nice--"suffer fools gladly" only goes so far.
I doubt anyone on that site of Limbaugh imitators has read one of Locke's essays, whether from the 2 treatises, or ECHU. It's just name-dropping--the typical frat boy food-fight. There are quite a few people (not all "leftists" as Olson the paranoid thinks) who agree Olson should not be allowed to teach.
J,
No, that's more of your bogus civility and justification of a shrieking fundamentalist.
My civility is hardly bogus, nor is it without limits. And as I've said, characterizing Kirby as a fundamentalist shows a lack of nuance on your part. I think it's well established that Kirby is does not take a hard line on inerrancy (the most critical of the five fundamentals, per "Fundamentalism" in Wiki). He does incline more to literal readings, as I've noted before, but he does not limit himself to them. In particular, Kirby's ambivalence on the creationism/evolution debate places him outside of fundamentalism. I don't know Kirby's take on bodily resurrection or Anselmian atonement theory. This is something he should speak to. For the record, I'm ambivalent on the first, and decidedly against the second. I suspect Kirby accepts the virgin birth fundamental without reservation—here I'm ambivalent, believing "virgin" to be (a) an appropriation of emperor origin myths, and (b) an LXX mistranslation of the Masoretic 'almah (young girl) in Isaiah 7:14. We've argued LXX vs. BHS before, and I have no desire for a reprise—I'm just saying what I believe and why. I suspect that Kirby does accept the gospel accounts of Jesus's miracles. Again, I am mostly ambivalent. But of all the miracles, there are two that seem especially critical: the feeding of the five-thousand, and the resurrection of Lazerus. And these are the two I'm most willing to grant, with a some special pleading in the first case, and none at all in the second.
All this presents me as a bit milquetoast, but let me make some positive affirmations. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe that Jesus was his son, and Jesus is a person (in the Chalcedonic/Athenasian sense) of God. In particular, I believe that God came to live within his own creation, and experienced what it meant to be a part of that creation, and through that experience calls us into closer relationship with him. I believe that God is present in our world, and indeed that life itself is nothing less that God's breath within us, hence, the Holy Spirit as life's animating force.
But really. It is not Kirby's religious commitments that give you difficulties. It is his embracing of folks like Beck and Palin. This gives me difficulties too, although I work with it in a different way.
Olson just doesn't know what he's talking about--he's not arguing, he's belching, Stu.
I honestly believe Kirby takes a stance on the blog considerably to the right of his actual commitments. Part of this is a revulsion at liberal academic PC-ism, which certainly exists, although it is not nearly as powerful or ubiquitous as he claims. Part of it is his desire to spark discussion: there's nothing like saying outrageous things to spark debate (and page views). Part of it is a tiny bit of troll—he likes getting people to over-react. And you're falling for this—hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, and creel. At the end of the day, folks like Beck amuse him, and it doesn't matter to him so much that Beck is an idiot.
I'm the logician here
Maybe. But your arguments are misfiring. You're making claims without giving cites. You're escalating rhetoric in a way that makes it clear that Kirby's gotten under your skin emotionally. Your responses, to quote Spock, are not always logical.
There are quite a few people (not all "leftists" as Olson the paranoid thinks) who agree Olson should not be allowed to teach.
Well, don't count me among them. Poetry isn't logic. Kirby comes to the arena with an ability to challenge, and an ability to laugh. These are positive attributes for a teacher. He's won teaching awards (as have I). You'd do a lot better in these discussions if you unbent a bit, and poked fun at some of his more ridiculous positions, rather than simply going ballistic.
No, my arguments aren't misfiring at all, Stu. You haven't read my posts carefully but just react to what you think is "tone". Like Olson, you're a religious conservative, though once in a while you put on a slightly liberal schtick. It was like this on the previous post regarding ...arguments for G*d and so forth. I bring up 3-4 solid points, and Olson can't really argue with them, so he starts into his hysteria act,and dogma chanting
Literature has no standing as ...truth really. IM for eloquence and so forth but Ad Poetica has no force--then KO's barking is hardly worthy of WF Buckley or Schackaspeare. Olson doesn't sound like a lit.snob anyways (that would be Faville---maybe JADL, as the nihilistic sort). He sounds like a Robertson or Hagee, etc
IM about finished with this, here and with KO. You're merely defending Olson because you think he's a Christian. He's not even that...just a Christendomist
J,
No, my arguments aren't misfiring at all, Stu.
Well, they're not making a positive impression on anyone I know of, yourself excepted, of course. Take this as an operational definition of "misfire." If you disagree, let me know who you think you're convincing.
You haven't read my posts carefully but just react to what you think is "tone"
I've read some carefully, others not. I'll admit to experiencing the MEGO effect when you get into philosopher name-dropping. (Or, for that matter, when Kirby does.) As I've said, show me the arguments, I don't care about authorities per se.
Like Olson, you're a religious conservative, though once in a while you put on a slightly liberal schtick.
No schtick. If you characterize all practicing Christians as conservative, then the label fits. But I think this is an absurd point of view, and certainly my faith results in very different political commitments than Kirby's faith results in him. But I do bristle, and I will bristle, at claims by one person that another person's faith is inauthentic. I've given Kirby strong argument on exactly this point. And I'll argue with you too. It's not given to you, or to me, or to Kirby, to look into another person's heart, and to judge their faith.
Literature has no standing as ...truth really.
I cordially disagree. Literature is (at least often) a vehicle for conveying values. And values have as much claim to truth as mathematics does.
IM for eloquence and so forth but Ad Poetica has no force--then KO's barking is hardly worthy of WF Buckley or Schackaspeare.
Few are, although I'm no fan of Buckley. He struck me as just another eloquent proponent of wealth and privilege, who misunderstood both as surrogates for merit.
Olson doesn't sound like a lit.snob anyways (that would be Faville---maybe JADL, as the nihilistic sort). He sounds like a Robertson or Hagee, etc
JADL is a specifically Catholic apologist, with a libertarian overlay. I'd give him points for philology, but I'm not sure that literature per se is his strong point. Faville, maybe. I don't have him pegged yet. He's mostly a drive-by.
IM about finished with this, here and with KO.
Your call, of course.
You're merely defending Olson because you think he's a Christian.
This is an oversimplification. I do believe that Kirby has an authentic (if somewhat misguided) faith. And I defend you to him with much the same vigor as I defend him to you. Again, I believe you're overly committed to false binary world-view. If you want to frame Kirby as your enemy, and him you, that's your business. Don't expect me to chose sides. I'm a logician, after all: I choose arguments. If I'm not choosing yours, look to your arguments and not to some false enemy/ally dichotomy.
And oddly enough, I believe you have an authentic (if not fully self-acknowledged) faith. This doesn't mean that I expect that you'll suddenly wake up singing the Magnificat, but I do see you as someone engaged in the search for understanding God. And I respect that.
You admit you know little or nothing about Locke. So, like my points will not likely mean much. Nor will Kirby's few errors via cliffsnotes .
One, Locke opposed the Divine right of Kings. Rather important--like for both American and French revolutions. He also was against biblical inerrancy;ergo, not a fundamentalist, or as you might say, not dispensationalist. I doubt he was Calvinist (Calvin usually approved of kings/nobles, as long as they were ..calvinists)--or Lutheran.
Old boring stuff to many--but in actuality, rather important. Ie, the typical biblethumpers--or torah thumpers-- who think they have some divine mandate, don't.
Most Mericans do not understand the underlying principles of the AmerRev, which were not those of the revival Tent, or Mormons--but of Locke, Algernon Sidney, and farther back...Aristotle, Cicero (as Jefferson once proclaimed. Of course most hicks consider TJ a fiddler or plantation liberal as well, not really grasping what his rational Democratic-republican consisted of, or Madison's more Federal variety. Ezra Pound understood it, to some degree).
J,
You admit you know little or nothing about Locke. So, like my points will not likely mean much. Nor will Kirby's few errors via cliffsnotes .
Yes. And in passing, you both like to characterize the other's understanding as being only Cliff's notes deep.
One, Locke opposed the Divine right of Kings. Rather important--like for both American and French revolutions. He also was against biblical inerrancy;ergo, not a fundamentalist, or as you might say, not dispensationalist.
I'm pretty much in the same camp. I don't buy the divine right of kings, which in practice seemed to mean little more than "I get to screw you, and you don't get to screw me" for various values of "screw." I'm certainly not fundamentalist. And I don't equate fundamentalism and dispensationalism. The later is fundamentalism augmented by a nonbiblical (and loony) theology.
Old boring stuff to many--but in actuality, rather important. Ie, the typical biblethumpers--or torah thumpers-- who think they have some divine mandate, don't.
Sure. You'll get no argment from me on this. Although I've not actually experienced any Torah thumpers. You'd expect the Orthodox to play that role, but they tend to have an inward directed piety, and don't hear a call to be offensive for God. Would that our fundamentalists believed the same. Crazy's only vexing when it can't keep to itself.
Most Mericans do not understand the underlying principles of the AmerRev, which were not those of the revival Tent, or Mormons--but of Locke, Algernon Sidney, and farther back...Aristotle, Cicero (as Jefferson once proclaimed.
For once, I think you're insufficiently cynical. Yeah, the political rhetoric of the revolution was high-falut'n "natural rights of man" kind of stuff, and I don't doubt that Locke was an important source. But TJ was a slaveholder, as were many of the founders, so it comes across as somewhat sophistic in their mouths. I think the real drivers were (a) incompetent, overbearing, carpetbagging governors, and (b) a lack of opportunity for the politically ambitious locals to acquire useful power. Couple this with a British government that was overwhelmingly focussed on (a) fighting the French, and (b) stealing as much as they could from India, and there's a critical attention gap into which ambition and rhetoric can enter.
Olson's now lying--really his writing, er scrawling serves as an example of how ridiculous fundamentalist christianity really is--not to say irrational, emotional, conclusionary.
I posted something regarding Locke's egalitarian impulses. No "steins". Locke was not a Hayek, defending industrial capitalism and finance. He's an agrarian, opposed to the Tory estates. Hardly perfect--like Jefferson, Locke was a hypocrite in ways.
Really, I don't think Kirby has a coherent program, nor does his hyena-esque pal JADL. Kirby just doesn't like blacks, or hispanics, or uppity feminists, or what he takes to be "marxists." His little pseudo-arguments, and fallacies--like supporting the Democrats means supporting maoists--are right out of the Glenn Beck hysteria manual. Even as a intelligent conservative --say a Douthat (not that I approve of Douthat)--he fails.
Eirene, goodnight.
Sounds like a veiled threat, Stu-- as do many of KO's childish rants. Maybe we should get ahold of the Kirby the teabagger's email and contacts (and his chats with some of the Althouse hicks, mostly mormons and baptists) and find out what this little man's really up to.
Oy. I think that you both need a time-out and nap.
J — "Good night Irene" is a folk song classic. I have only one version (Pricilla Herdman, if anyone cares), but are 482(!!) versions on sale through ITMS, and which compares with only 393 versions of Bob Marley's "No woman, no cry." It is quite a lot. And he's not the first to make this play on Eirene/Irene: check out jh's first comment to my first post :-). My reading of Kirby's comment is that he's exasperated with you, and not willing to share a venue with you. I can't blame him. I don't know how you construct a threat out of a pun.
Actually Im being polite--Olson's an incredibly blasphemous and tasteless person, and I wager most authentic religious people (regardless of politics) would agree. Look at his most recent rant. Endless vapid generalizations, whimsy, ID politics, pathos, and the anecdotal-confessional style his beatnik palsies taught him (first person, ad nauseum). Not effective writing, whatsoever, but sort of like Jerry Lewis meets Jerry Falwell. I can't believe he's allowed to teach.
(Ive heard the old tune. Whatever.Not my cup of tea. Prefer Chopin)
Stu--
Olson's recent blogs demonstrate what a complete crackpot he really is--really his "writing" would not pass muster in basic undergraduate writing courses. (Ive given up on pointing out his juvenile simplifications and fallacies). That he is allowed in a college classroom should astound us.
He's mentally ill, IMHE. Anger is not the proper response to Olson's rants--pity is.
Maybe you could start a fund drive of a sort: Help put Kirby Olson in a mental institution today.
is the death of a blog a social construct
i mean it's sad to think a post like this would spell the end of your thoughtful presentation
but then what do i know
you may not even read this blog anymore
and thus my words are but a useless personal social construct signifying nothing full of emptiness and pathos
(-) (o)
. /
/
\_______/
jh
jh,
I do get email notifications of comments :-).
Thank you for your thoughts and encouragement. I don't think of eirene as dead, but temporarily suspended. From time to time I get an idea, but my other obligations keep me from a proper development.
Case in point. Our discussion on de gustibus has me thinking about the health of the Great Conversation. If it has devolved to chatter, where neither our past or our future is still relevant, then what is today but the dawn of a new dark age? I think the idea has legs, and in some counter-intuitive way, offers hope. But this is far too sketchy for the front page.
Post a Comment