Am I content? Or complacent?
I've lost the drive for knowledge though I am still passionate about learning. I don't desire to be deep anymore nor do I long for a spiritual high. You might say I've become quite earthy. I'm not interested in saving souls though it doesn't mean I don't care for people.
I have simply found that so much of what passes for the Christian message is nothing short of a multi-level marketing plan, a pyramid scheme, slick marketing, the essentials compacted into a slogan, parsed to fit onto a t-shirt. The idea of 'saving souls' sound like a career occupation, one where you obtain degrees, awards, certificates and notches on a belt with a 401(k) retirement plan in tow (often in the form of a book deal).
When we start seeing minister hocking commercial wares on television, as celebrity endorsements, we'll know the end is near. After all, we've got preacher superstars who draw thousands upon thousands to their shows, er, events, er services. Book deals, fancy cars, fancy clothes, huuuuuge churches, thousands traveling the country like following the Dead, abandoning the smaller churches for the Big Top.
I used to fall prey to the same thing only my response was rebellion, criticism, judgment. Yet the fuel was still that which I criticized. I have simply tired of it. So I am pretty much living the quiet life, seeking to truly be in the world but not of it, to learn to eat with the sinners and the wine bibbers, to be a true friend, not a saint, to be found in the form of a servant and not grasp at equality with God.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Wayne Dyer and the Dao De Jing...
Ok, the front page of Beliefnet, where I hang out (as if it's cool...) and debate Christianity (and, for a while, Islam) has Wayne Dyer giving advice on 'how to go with the flow' using the Dao De Jing as travel guide. Blech. It's like the difference between real maple syrup and Log Cabin syrup on your pancakes. Sorry, but it's pretty easy for Mr. Dyer to go with the flow. After all, he's been saying the same thing for years in repackaged formulas to the same people who buy his stuff and continue to fund his lifestyle. Not knocking him; he's got a gimmick that works (and, in essence, what he says is valuable).
I think I just tire of the guru thing, this cult of celebrity in the self-help and even in the Christian world. Come to think of it, the cult of celebrity is everywhere. Alan Watts was a celebrity and his fans flocked to him, his little haunt in Caliornia the 'in' thing to do spiritually. Hell, even they way Jesus is presented today he frequently resembles a superhero more than a saviour. Or he's turned into some kind of a guru where he begins to look like - you guessed it - the individual (or group) promoting Jesus' guru status.
Jesus is antihero/antiguru if we really read the accounts of his life in the New Testament.
When spirituality, whatever form, becomes hip it ceases to be relevant.
"When everyone knows good as good, this is not good." (DDJ, 2, Cleary translation)
I think I just tire of the guru thing, this cult of celebrity in the self-help and even in the Christian world. Come to think of it, the cult of celebrity is everywhere. Alan Watts was a celebrity and his fans flocked to him, his little haunt in Caliornia the 'in' thing to do spiritually. Hell, even they way Jesus is presented today he frequently resembles a superhero more than a saviour. Or he's turned into some kind of a guru where he begins to look like - you guessed it - the individual (or group) promoting Jesus' guru status.
Jesus is antihero/antiguru if we really read the accounts of his life in the New Testament.
When spirituality, whatever form, becomes hip it ceases to be relevant.
"When everyone knows good as good, this is not good." (DDJ, 2, Cleary translation)
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Irony and Textual Argument...
We all know that the meanings of words evolve over time. A prime example is the word 'irony.' As made famous in Alanis Morrisete's song Ironic, she gives situations that are taken to be seen as ironic. In reality, according to the definition of ironic, these aren't. Coincidence, maybe, serendipity, maybe, they are more like what people used to call 'fate.'
What is irony? Well, to take off from Alanis' song, a man in fear of flying whose plane crashes on his first flight isn't irony. Irony would be a man afraid of flying choosing instead the safer route of driving who is killed by a plane crashing onto his car. Perhaps it is ironic that the lyrics in Alanis' song aren't ironic.
Another example of irony centers around the KLF. If anyone is familiar with their relatively brief but bright history, they might remember that the KLF (initials which stand for Kopyright Liberation Front, among others) were at the forefront of the copyright issue that is so explosive today. They borrowed stuff unapologetically beginning sometime circa 1987, though it was ultimately not without consequence. Their 'Chill Out' mix is a classic.
The irony is that in an effort to be subversive they became as popular as the artists and industry they were seeking to subvert. Is the irony that they became famous and became victims of the very same thing which they were doing? Is it irony if it is intentional? They set out to make a popular (in the basest meaning of the word) record by using a basic beat and really over the top meaningless lyrics sung sincerely, most blatantly in their use of Tammy Wynette for vocals. They succeeded. So is it ironic that they ripped other peoples' stuff off and here we are, twenty years, later, ripping off their stuff online? Or is that simply karma? Or were they prophetic?
Anyhow, people will fight over what the Bible says by quoting the King James Version of the Bible and then breaking down the English meaning of the word. But they are one step removed from the Old English usage of the word from which the KJV came and another step removed from the original Greek/Hebrew. So we are two steps removed from the original use of the word. Worse is when someone will argue from, say, the New Living Translation (which is but a paraphrase/interpretation moreso than a translation) and we are yet one more step removed. So we begin arguing over, quite literally, nothing, at least nothing in the sense that we are not fighting over what we think we are fighting over.
As time goes on, we begin to quote authors not close to the source but those who came later. And later. And later. I suppose that is why I will trace footnotes back to older and older sources in order to read what the original authors wrote. If I'm going to quote a recent author/scholar and am unfamiliar with his/her sources, how can I really understand what he/she is saying? There is nothing worse than arguing a point that isn't the point being made at all.
So where is the irony in this post? Probably that I am using so many words to argue about not arguing over words.
What is irony? Well, to take off from Alanis' song, a man in fear of flying whose plane crashes on his first flight isn't irony. Irony would be a man afraid of flying choosing instead the safer route of driving who is killed by a plane crashing onto his car. Perhaps it is ironic that the lyrics in Alanis' song aren't ironic.
Another example of irony centers around the KLF. If anyone is familiar with their relatively brief but bright history, they might remember that the KLF (initials which stand for Kopyright Liberation Front, among others) were at the forefront of the copyright issue that is so explosive today. They borrowed stuff unapologetically beginning sometime circa 1987, though it was ultimately not without consequence. Their 'Chill Out' mix is a classic.
The irony is that in an effort to be subversive they became as popular as the artists and industry they were seeking to subvert. Is the irony that they became famous and became victims of the very same thing which they were doing? Is it irony if it is intentional? They set out to make a popular (in the basest meaning of the word) record by using a basic beat and really over the top meaningless lyrics sung sincerely, most blatantly in their use of Tammy Wynette for vocals. They succeeded. So is it ironic that they ripped other peoples' stuff off and here we are, twenty years, later, ripping off their stuff online? Or is that simply karma? Or were they prophetic?
Anyhow, people will fight over what the Bible says by quoting the King James Version of the Bible and then breaking down the English meaning of the word. But they are one step removed from the Old English usage of the word from which the KJV came and another step removed from the original Greek/Hebrew. So we are two steps removed from the original use of the word. Worse is when someone will argue from, say, the New Living Translation (which is but a paraphrase/interpretation moreso than a translation) and we are yet one more step removed. So we begin arguing over, quite literally, nothing, at least nothing in the sense that we are not fighting over what we think we are fighting over.
As time goes on, we begin to quote authors not close to the source but those who came later. And later. And later. I suppose that is why I will trace footnotes back to older and older sources in order to read what the original authors wrote. If I'm going to quote a recent author/scholar and am unfamiliar with his/her sources, how can I really understand what he/she is saying? There is nothing worse than arguing a point that isn't the point being made at all.
So where is the irony in this post? Probably that I am using so many words to argue about not arguing over words.
Theism and Daoism...
My interest in it seems to be waning. Does that mean I don't believe it? Or is it that my old notions of it are fading? I used to think of God as this mean ogre, this judgmental, punishing "being" always out to get me. As I've healed, and the feelings of guilt with it, the idea of God has taken on a new life. Less an intellectual construct now, less a childish image of "the big guy in the sky" kind of idea, 'God' is now something real, something present, transcendent yet immanent.
It is in this construct where both Theism and Daoism coalesce because we are moving out of the realm of ideas and imagery and into the real the New Testament calls the light that no man can approach and what the DDJ calls the gateway of marvels, the entrance into the mystery.
Perhaps at this Planckish point it doesn't matter. Perhaps what matters is the path leading up to this point. Perhaps it is in the realm of the imagery that guides us to this point that matters more than the actual point itself. For if the path is wrong, so too will the point be wrong and getting to the point without a path won't happen as every point arrived at is done so via a journey.
The other thing that I have noticed is that I tire of all the debates that occur in theistic faiths. I suppose the same has been done and even is done in non-theistic faiths (Daoism vs. Confucianism, for example), but the fighting over picayune details and the divisions that have occurred in Christianity (though Islam, Judaism and any other theism is not exempt from the same thing) over these details reminds me of what the Dao says about names. As soon as things splinter and are given names, we should stop as it will only get worse.
I am a Daoist at heart in the sense that I realize the limitations and trappings (and idolatry, if you will) of names, label, ideas and concepts. Ultimately we are fighting over the words, not what they mean. We are fighting over the flower or surface and not the fruit or substance (DDJ 38).
I'm sure there are Biblical injunctions to the same effect but can't recall any at the moment.
It is in this construct where both Theism and Daoism coalesce because we are moving out of the realm of ideas and imagery and into the real the New Testament calls the light that no man can approach and what the DDJ calls the gateway of marvels, the entrance into the mystery.
Perhaps at this Planckish point it doesn't matter. Perhaps what matters is the path leading up to this point. Perhaps it is in the realm of the imagery that guides us to this point that matters more than the actual point itself. For if the path is wrong, so too will the point be wrong and getting to the point without a path won't happen as every point arrived at is done so via a journey.
The other thing that I have noticed is that I tire of all the debates that occur in theistic faiths. I suppose the same has been done and even is done in non-theistic faiths (Daoism vs. Confucianism, for example), but the fighting over picayune details and the divisions that have occurred in Christianity (though Islam, Judaism and any other theism is not exempt from the same thing) over these details reminds me of what the Dao says about names. As soon as things splinter and are given names, we should stop as it will only get worse.
I am a Daoist at heart in the sense that I realize the limitations and trappings (and idolatry, if you will) of names, label, ideas and concepts. Ultimately we are fighting over the words, not what they mean. We are fighting over the flower or surface and not the fruit or substance (DDJ 38).
I'm sure there are Biblical injunctions to the same effect but can't recall any at the moment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
