Thursday, February 28, 2008

I Would Rather

Since last week’s response to Walker Percy was so resounding i figured we would re-commence Poiema with more of a confession. There is a necessary transparency in trying to follow the Christ that may or may not come in blog form. My good friend Jonathan has given it a start, here’s my attempt…

I would Rather…

Be funny than godly.
Use sarcasm as a defense mechanism rather than sharp frank truth
Speak a quick word, however witty or wise, than stay behind and take the time to rip my chest open
Be cried over than cry/bawl uncontrollably in sympathy
Care more of what others think than of what I know we need
Read a book in solitude about Jesus loving others than loving Jesus, others, and the book presently.
Avoid conflict with and in others meanwhile expecting others to go out of their way to make peace with me.
Have someone “Amen” one of my profound public truths during prayer than deftly hear “I AM” in my secret prayer time alone.
Seem wise than be wise (the latter takes true humility not pretension)

Thoughts?

Posted by Broun in 02:06:53 | Permalink | Comments (3)

Friday, February 15, 2008

Lost in the Cosmos Con’t

(16) The Lonely Self: Why the Autonomous Self feels so Alone in the Cosmos that it will go to any Length to talk to Chimpanzees, Dolphins, and Humpback Whales

Question: Why do people in general want to believe that chimps and dolphins and whales can speak, and why do some scientists in particular want so badly to believe that chimps can speak that they will compromise their own science?

(a) Because anyone who has invested reputation, a great deal of effort, time, and money in an experiement wants it to succeed.

(b) Because the last 300 years have seen the dethronement of man from what he believed to be his central position in the Cosmos to an insignificant planet (Copernicus, Galileo), from his uniqueness among the species as the only besouled creature and as created by God in His image (Darwin), and even from the sovereignty of his own consciousness (Freud). Only language and other symbolic behavior (art, music) seem to remain as the sole remaining indisputably unique attribute of man. If language can be shown to be within the capability of apes, dolphins, and humpback whales, the dethronement of man will be complete.

(c) Because man is a lonely and troubled species, who does not know who he is or what to do with himself, feeling himself somehow different from other creatures, both superior and inferior- superior because, after all, he studies other animals and writes scientific articles about them, and other animals don’t study him; inferior because he is not a very good animal, is often stupid, irrational, and self-destructive- and solitary in the Cosmos, like Robinson Crusoe marooned on an island populated by goats. Therefore, he would like to discover his place in the Cosmos, discover a man Friday, or, failing that, at least teach goats to talk. So anxious, in fact, have some people been to communicate with Washoe, the most famous chimp, that in an attempt to make signs for Washoe three psychologists have had their fingers bitten off for their pains. Alas for man: rebuffed again.

(d) Because a primatologist is competing with other primatologists and therefore feels alone even among his colleagues. If he could converse with his chimpanzee, he would have the best of both worlds: a) beat other scientists, and b) have someone to talk to.

(choose one)

If man cannot communicate with other creatures, he is alone with himself. Dr. John Lilly, after claiming all manner of mystical and philosophical knowledge for the dolphin and after spending years trying to communicate with dolphins, changed his profession: to the study of mind-altering drugs on the individual human consciousness. He jumped from a tank of dolphins into the tank of himself

Posted by Broun in 14:18:11 | Permalink | Comments (2)

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Lost in the Cosmos pt 3

(8) The Promiscuous Self: Why is it that One’s Self often not only does not Prefer Sex with one’s chosen mate, Chosen for His or Her Attractiveness and Suitability, even when the Mate is a Person well known to one, knowing of one, loved by one, with a Life, Time, and Family in common, but rather prefers Sex with a New Person, even a Total Stranger, or even Vicariously through Pornography

A recent survey in a large city reported that 95% of all video tapes purchased for home consumption were Insatiable, a pornographic film starring Marilyn Chambers.
Of all sexual encounters on soap operas, only 6% occur between husband and wife.
A recent survey showed that the frequency of sexual intercourse in married couples declined 90% after three years of marriage.
In San Francisco’s Buena Vista Park, to the outrage of local middle-class residents, homosexuals cruise and upon encountering a sexual prospect, always a stranger, exchange a word or sign and disappear into the bushes. In a series of interviews, Buena Vista homosexuals admitted to sexual encounters with an average of more than 500 strangers.

Question: Do Americans, as well as other Westerners, prefer sexual variety, both heterosexual and homosexual, because

(a) The sexual revolution has occurred, which is nothing else but the overthrow of the unnatural repressions and taboos of 1900 years of Christianity and the exploration of the free and healthy practices of a sexually liberated society.

(b) Humans are biologically as promiscuous as chimpanzees. It is only the cultural constraints of society, probably imposed by the economic necessities of an agricultural society, which required a monogamous union and children as a reliable labor source.

(c) No, man is by nature monogamous, as ethnologists have demonstrated in most cultures. It is Western Society which is disintegrating, to a degree remarkably similar to the decline of the Roman Empire in the fifth century, when similar practices were reported.

(d) The Self since Descartes has become stranded, split off from everything else in the Cosmos, a mind which professes to understand bodies and galaxies but is by the very act of understanding marooned in the Cosmos, with which is has no connection. It therefore needs to exercise every option in order to reassure itself that it is not a ghost but is rather a self among other selves. One such option is a sexual encounter. Another is war. The pleasure of a sexual encounter derives not only from physical gratification but also from the demonstration to oneself that, despite one’s own ghostliness, one is, for the moment at least, a sexual being. Amazing! Indeed the most amazing of all the creatures of the Cosmos: a ghost with an erection! Yet not really amazing, for only if the abstracted ghost has an erection can it, like Jove spying Europa on the beach, enter the human condition.

(e) Why go further than the orthodox Judaeo-Christian belief that monogamous marriage was ordained by God for man’s happiness, that the devil goes around like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, and that consequence modern has lost his way, has not the faintest notion who he is or what he is doing, and nothing short of catastrophe will bring him to his senses. At the height of a hurricane, husbands come to themselves and can even embrace their wives. During hurricane Camille, one Biloxi couple, taking refuge in a tree house, reported that, during the passage of the eye, they had intercourse for the first time in three years.

(f) None of the above. It has always been so. That is to say, the sexual behavior of humans has not changed. Therefore, there is nothing to explain.

(Check one or more)

These are designed to promote thought and conversation so whatever you think would be much obliged….

Posted by Broun in 17:16:23 | Permalink | Comments (1) »

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Lost in the Cosmos 2.0

C.S Lewis said there is no such thing as original thought in that we are all plagarizing from The Author. So i will continue some thought experiments from Walker Percy’s book about our modern condition..

(5) The Fearful Self: Why the Self is so Afraid of being Stuck with another Self

Johnny Carson, when questioned about his aplomb on the stage before a TV audience of millions replied: “Sure, I’m at ease up here-because I’m in control-but when I’m at a cocktail party and caught in a one-on-one conversation: panic city!”

Question: What do Johnny Carson and toher shy people fear why they are caught in a “one-on-one” conversation at a cocktail party? That is what is the worst case, the worst thing that can happen?

(a) That you can’t think of anything interesting to say and the other person will be bored?
(b) That the other person has nothing to say that you want to hear and you know you will be bored?
(c) That neither of you has anything to say and therefore the world will come to an end, or rather, something worse than the end of the world, or, as Carson would say, panic city- that is a predicament in which all options open to you are more intolerable than the end of the world?
(d) That there are only two means of escape, both of which are intolerable: either you leave, which will hurt the other person’s feelings, or the other person leaves, which will hurt your feelings?
(e) That you will be exposed, that is, that the unique unformulability, the singular nought, which you secretly believe yourself to be, will be exposed at last, the one black hole among a billion other ordinary stars?

(Check one)

Posted by Broun in 15:40:29 | Permalink | Comments (1) »

Monday, February 11, 2008

Lost in Cosmos (Or The Last Self Help Book)

Walker Percy is one of my personal heroes of faith who not only shared my hesitatingly storied Southern past but also a deisire to synthesize culture courageously in lieu of some Eternal Truths. He is most famous for his works of fiction and poetry but my personal favorite is mock self-help book that bears the name of this post and questions some of the scientific optimism of our age. I thought about sharing some of the Thought Experiments that get at some of what our modern condition might consist of only because there used to be a time when thinking actually changed people and the way we lived.

(10) The Bored Self: Why the Self is the only Object in the Cosmos which Gets Bored

The word boredom did not enter language until the eighteenth century. No one knows its etymology. One guess is that bore may derive from the French verb bourrer, to stuff.

Question: Why is it that no other species but man gets bored? Under the circumstances in which a man gets bored, a dog goes to sleep.

Thought Experiment: Imagine you are a member of a tour visiting Greece. The group goes to the Parthenon. It is a bore. Few people even bother to look-it looked better in the brochure. So people take half a look, mostly take pictures, remark on the serious erosion by acid rain. You are puzzled. Why should one of the glories and fonts of Western civilzation, viewed under pleasant conditions- good weather, good hotel room, good food, good guide- be a bore?
Now imagine what set of circumstances a viewing of the Parthenon would not be a bore. For example, you are a NATO colonel defending Greece against a Soviet assault (insert Iraqi if it helps). You are in a bunker in downtown Athens, binoculars propped on sandbags. It is dawn. A medium-range missle attack is under way. Half a million Greeks are dead. Two missles bracket the Pathenon. The next will surely be a hit. Between columns of smoke, a ray of golden light catches the portico.
Are you bored? Can you see the Parthenon?
Explain.

Posted by Broun in 16:02:39 | Permalink | Comments (1) »

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Spiritual Sado-Masochism?

Granted there are discrepancies about the defintions, perceptions, and understandings of both Sadism and Masochism (and in no way do i want to endorse them in a traditonal understanding) I want to try and redeem them in a way that might be informative and godly. So bear with me.

The 4th Stanza of one “Jesus I My Cross Have Taken” a favorite Hymn of mine starts out like this..

“Go, then, earthly fame and treasure,
Come disaster, scorn and pain
In Thy service, pain is pleasure,
With Thy favor, loss is gain
I have called Thee Abba Father,
I have stayed my heart on Thee
Storms may howl, and clouds may gather;
All must work for good to me.”

Now songs like that don’t make it to the tops of Christian charts anymore, but i am worried it might be an unsettled idea of the role of suffering. Paul says in Chapter 5 of Romans more than rejoicing in the hope of the glory of God “We rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, endurance characterm etc”. He also has the gaul to later say things like “We who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that, the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh” AND “This slight momentary affliction (read lashes, stoning, shipwrecked, snakes, hunger, nervousness about churches,) is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison.

So i can really get to a place where i love pain, disaster, misfortune, in light of these glorious truths? Have we come to love our comfort and “security” too much that we read those passages and something grates against us? This is where i will break from the traditional understanding of mascocism which for the most part could be pain for the endorphin’s sake. If pain leads us to a greater understanding of who and why we were created or as C.S Lewis says the megaphone through which God screams to us to grab our attention why are we so aversive to it? Why do americans spend millions on “pain-relief”? What is the difference in pain that is a product of the Fall and the type of pain that brings fruit (like plucking out your eye for holiness sake)

This probably is the most uncomfortable blog i have written in a while but dare we not accept the means God might use to make us like Himself. I will stand with the Psalmist proclaiming “Come Disaster, scorn, and pain..”

Posted by Broun in 15:06:29 | Permalink | Comments (1) »

Saturday, February 2, 2008

The distressing hidden irritable Christ

In having a conversation with a good friend of mine he brought up a point that has been so presumed in me for so long when he asked it (albeit over the internet) it had almost a bee-sting quality to it right past all my rhetoric and gamesmanship.

What is do distinctly different about Christianity (in practice not theory) that makes us think it should be advanced?

(This is the point where you cycle through your internal theological rolodex for the right orthodox lego but I am going to ask you to suspend that urge for a sec)

What about our ortho-praxy (doing) communicates to the world a message distinctive, beautiful, and altogether lovely? Given that in our readings of the Early Church and even Christ himself we witness great gaping disparity in how we live, (in schaeffer’s word’s) How should we then live? How are you now living? Do the examples have to be extreme (i.e Mother Teresea, St. Francis,) to communicate the depths of the truth we love? How many cups of cool water have you given out recently?

I know there are Muslims more faithful to their understanding of God as he is revealed in the Q’uran who I am also sure might wholly love others outside their own theological comfort zones. What do we do with that? At the risk of further escaping my current reality by way of a literal and cultural saint who seems closer to the heart of Christ than most I’ve met I will leave with a hauntinq quote from Mother Teresea “Dearest Lord, may i see you today and every day in the person of your sick, and whilst nursing them, minister unto you. Though you hide yourself behind the unattractive disguise of the irritable, the exacting, the unreasonable, may i still recognize you, and say “Jesus, my patient how sweet it is to serve you.”


Posted by Broun in 17:29:15 | Permalink | Comments (1) »