"The Resentniks"
Ok, here's a little something else from Bloom, based on the overall premise of his book "The Western Canon".
Essentially, Bloom's felt need to defend and solidify the secular Western literary canon stems from his perception of contemporary scholarship in Europe and America. According to him, the resentniks, as he calls them, are destroying the foundations of what is and will be considered great literature by relegating to aesthetics a minor role and exalting the socio-political-racial context of any literary work.
In a nutshell, he thinks great literature is often the inevitable product of the classes with more leisure time - more time to think - and cannot be diluted by a resentment of elitism. This means, not that he wants to close the secular canon, but that he wants only those texts which are aesthetically superior (a huge question in iteself) included in it.
This is the idea I find compelling and provocative: Great literature, perhaps great art in general, should not have to be a catalyst for social reform - should not have to change our society for the better or promote justice - neither in its content nor in the appraisal of its value.
(Interestingly, there is a seemingly irrepressible love of individualism and the strengthening of the self running between Bloom's lines as he expounds upon his favorite Western texts - The Pentateuch, Shakespeare, Dante, Cervantes etc.)
posted by Lian at 9:14 am
31 Comments:
I suppose that literature, in its most literal sense being composed of the written word, is a product of social elites, but I find the fact that much of what we find in the Old Testament, and especially in Genesis, is the record of a much older oral tradition. Oral tradition, while not necessarily an agent of social change, is an important vehicle for transmitting the seminal story and sxperience of its host culture. However, oral tradition can also be a powerful vehicle of hope by transforming a societies past and present into a more perfect future (this was powerfully demonstrated by the songs and stories of American slaves).
I do agree that aesthetic is very important in art, but what is considered beautiful may (or may not) morph through time and across cultures. Furthermore, the elites do not have a monopoly on what is beautiful. The most amazing art is that which is both beautiful and accessible. I also agree that art need not be a catalyst for social change. Its value may lie purely in its expressed aesthetic and the power of human emotion borne from experience that it conveys.
I would love to hear the perspective of you artists on the matter of the merit of aesthetic.
11:16 am
Pedro, I think you'll find that Bloom in particular really separates the content of a particular text with its form. For instance, he may agree that the writer of the Torah or Shakespeare were using material from oral tradition or history or whatever but it's the actual structure, wording, poetic form and character development of the work that matter. At any rate, "great" literature isn't necessarily the product only of the upper classes but it is certainly the product of a very elite literary group. Including people in this group redundantly or conciliatorily merely for the sake of being politically correct is part of the issue here.
I don't agree that the best art must be both beautiful and accessible. I think a lot of great art is accessible and in some sense beautiful - or at least, it strikes us in positively aesthetic ways that no other art can - but I also think that there is great value in the kind of art which must be almost endured to enjoy its aesthetic rewards. I would put the Bible in both categories. It is sometimes wonderfully down to earth and other times lofily trying.
10:51 pm
I want to try and take issue with the claim that the "most amazing art is that which is both beautiful and accessible", especially the accessibility part. Accessibility is, in particular, not to be predicated to the art "object" (text, painting, recording, performance, etc.) but has a lot more to do with what I -- viewer, listener, reader -- am prepared and able to accept as art. As such, almost anything new is inaccessible by default. I always use the example my experience with one of Coltrane's late (and completely chaotic) albums, "Interstellar Space". I bought a copy when I was 17. I would listen to, say, 10-20 minutes (20 minutes being the limit of my endurance for such cacophony) of it approximately twice a year. It took three or four years, but by the time I was 20 or 21 it just stopped being chaotic nonsensical noise and became completely beautiful.
Anyway, how much of the so called Western Canon is now or was ever accessible to a significant slice of the actual western populace? Beauty and accessibility are always necessarily "beautiful and accessible for x".
What about a conception of art wherein inaccessibility is a goal not because of some ostensible disdain for das volk but because of the true artistic merit (how's that for some vague and unqualified bs) of interrupting the banal flux of meaning and sense. Maybe I ruined that Coltrane album the moment that I thought I finally "got it". Maybe the beautiful and accessible are entirely onanistic categories? If you like, there is a Biblical side to this conception. We could suggest that the goal of art not to convey emotion or experience but instead to act prophetically. Not in the predicative sense, but in the sense of producing conviction. A revelation not of something ideal, but of the violence inherent in my enjoyment of the "beautiful", the "good".
Maybe there was a time when folk traditions had the ability to incorporate this "prophetic" element, but I don't think we live in that time.
In our day and age (in any?) "the people", "the masses" are too crass to be given the ultimate say in what is beautiful and what is not. "They" love American Idol and Celine Dion and think Thomas Kinkade is a great painter, etc., etc. On the other hand, a predominant taste for the banal and uninspired is exactly what creates the space for the subversive, transgressive, prophetic.
This is a bit schizo & not w/o contradiction. Please forgive my mild case of misanthropy.
4:56 am
Let me correct at least one of the typos above: I meant to say that art could have a prophetic function... "Not in the predictive sense..." (rather than that predicative sense which.... would not make any sense!)
2:56 pm
Dan and Chad,
Thanks for your responnses. I am by no means an artist or an aficionado of the fine arts (I'm not so sure that childrens fiction qualifies for that label). I can definitely see what you guys are saying. I have found that my response to specific works of art (especially music, but also to literature and film) has changed as my life experience has progressed and as my maturity has deepened. So, on reflection, your response that art doesn't need to be accessible is well taken.
I think that my earlier position on accessibility stems from two perspectives. The first is that I love to read childrens literature, many of which are, I suppose, glorified fairy tales and are thus probably considered low art. However, many of the stories retell themes that are found in the earliest human myths and traditions and thus express some of the most basic, primordial, human experiences. The second is that I am perpetually waffling between elitism and anti-elitism. Elitism may serve art well, but it has been very detrimental to the world's history in that "elite" and more powerful empires have subjugated those who they consider to be inferior, and all the evil"-isms" (racism, sexism, classism, etc.) are perpetuated upon a foundation of elitism. It is obvious that education and money grant people an inherent advantage over people who have neither. Education is especially important for capturing and espressing more complex ideas and experiences, as well as the form and structure of art. And, indeed, most of the OT authors were, indeed the societie's elites (kings, priests, etc.)
You're right that most popular art is uninspiring (Dan, your examples are well-taken). However, I think that the problem with pop art is that our "masses" (as opposed those with a rich oral tradition) have a semblance of education, at least enough to be dangerous. How often do you hear people talking about religion, politics, or both reiterate the same arguements that everyone else is using without having actually thoroughly thought through the issues for themselves?
Dan, could you try to explain your vague and unqualified bs? Why is there artistic merit in interrupting the banal flux of meaning and sense? It seems to me that art does not necessarily need to be novel (in form, structure, and content) to be legitimately be considered art (although I'm not necessarily sure that this is what you're claiming); one advantage of the elites is that they are not only able to create new forms, but they are also able to follow traditional forms. Can you guys also give me your idea of the purpose of art? What makes an artist create? What makes art beautiful? Is there ever a cultural/corporate aspect of art? How does culture affect the form and content of art, or how does art affect the form and content of culture?
12:59 am
Good discussion guys. Since I started this with Bloom let me continue to refer to what he is teaching me.
One of his major stipulations (if you will) for a work to become "canonical" is what he calls "strangeness" - that is, the ability of a work to strike us originally, startlingly, revealingly. This, of course, on a pragmatic level protects the so called canon from the litany of copy-cats, but also, on a deeper level, is perhaps the primary agony of truth in any text (Bloom would probably avoid that word out of fear of didactic literature but we need not mean moral truth) that causes men to be drawn to it again and again over centuries and through drastic cultural change.
I suppose paradoxically, this "strangeness" can be either of the Coltrane kind, to use your example, Dan, which we can never quite come to terms with, or the Biblical or Shakespearean kind which is so organically original and intuitive that we scarcely notice it becoming our natural mode of understanding the world.
I think this, although it might seem vague, is at least helpful in dilineating somewhat the difference between great and not so great art. This is why I think it's not a question of accessible or inaccessible as much as "original and true" (my term, not Bloom's) or not - or to lesser degrees etc. Shakespeare has always been considered accessible (despite the difficulty modern readers have with his language) whereas the likes of Borges and Dante (apparently) have always been for the learned who take literature as more than distraction.
By the way Pedro, Bloom, at least considers Lewis Carrol "canonical" so I definitely think childrens literature is a part of literary high art in general.
9:26 am
Chad,
Thaks for elaborating on "strangeness"; your comments really struck a chord within me. I think that I have definitely notices (as I have said earlier) that I often see common themes within childrens' literature, but I am always struck by the unique plots, settings, and characters that authors use to color these themes. I guess that's why I keep exploring the genre.
Your elaboration also satisfies my desire for art to at once be understandable and rooted in context while also morphing and developing, both in form and content.
2:18 pm
p.s. In addition to "strangeness", I would agree that originality is key.
2:28 pm
Re: accessibility & children's literature. Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, Dr. Seuss, Shel Silverstein (though Carroll more so than these others) all come to mind as pretty great literature. Is it accessible? Maybe this stuff is more accessible for children just because they haven't been prejudiced against nonsense yet. And yet, it seems to me, our greatest children's literature is highly & delightfully nonsensical, and nonsense really isn't all the accessible to most adults. The great (and greatly abstruse) contemporary French thinker, Gilles Deleuze, wrote a difficult book (which I have not yet read myself) which deals specifically with Through the Looking Glass entitled Logic of Sense, I believe. Anyway, I'm not so certain that the entire domain of children's literature (or any genre for that matter) need be considered "low" art.
For me, the words "truth" and "beauty" are not so useful when discussing art at a theoretical level, since it seems like these words lead almost inevitably into bad circular thinking: Why does this work continue to speak to new generations? Because it's true/beautiful! What makes it true/beautiful? It continunes to speak to new generations! But why does this work continue to.....? and so on, ad infinitum.
And yet, I think Bloom is probably right. Great works are characteristically able to "strike" or "startle" us for generations. This is precisely what I mean by art functioning as an interruption of normal or everyday experience (the "banal flux" as I said earlier). That is, I think that great art is not so much art that most succesfully communicates a deep truth, but rather art which draws us out of a mode of experiencing which is primarily a matter of habit, custom, knee-jerk reaction--what Nietzsche might call a "herd consciousness".
Pedro, as far as your list of questions goes, I suspect that it's all a matter of cultural constructs.
And re: elitism, I suspect that there are different kinds of elitism, some more benign than others. Do I think a little less of someone when I find out that Hootie is there all-time most favoritist male vocalist? You bet I do. Do I wish them ill in life? Not at all... really! I suspect that criticism and judgment in matters of taste is acceptable as long as it is done appropriately and within limitations.
For instance, in the wine world: one who has spent good time and energy becoming an expert on the subtle differences between wines really does have, if anyone does, great taste in wine. When this person observes that I cannot distinguish important differences between high and low quality wines, it is fair for her to accuse me of having poor taste in wine. The wine expert can't tell me not to enjoy a "bad" wine, but she can come to a somewhat non-subjective "true" (this is all relative to a certain degree, hehe) determination of a wine's quality. In the wine world, as in the art world (I would suggest), there exists a comparatively small group of individuals who have given up their lives to becoming experts, elites when it comes to matters of taste. Is this dangerous? Is it bad?
Y'all posing some difficult questions here...
3:03 pm
Your points about truth and "interrupting the banal flux" are well taken, Dan. I agree - except to say that the circularity of the whole process is, I think, unavoidable. I think truth is, necessarily, a circular concept that will always depend upon the ongoing collective interactions between the "perceivers" of that truth. In other words, the "truth" that is so well represented in great literature and art is, to me, an authentic, honest representation (don't read "realistic") of that unending interactive process which is truth.
This is, perhaps, why it can be so strange and yet so intuitive - we are always shocked to really look at ourselves from another vantage. Maybe bad art is that which reinforces the limitedness of our inescapable perspective by taking us out of that truth process.
Ha ha. Looks like I solved an age old unsolvable question in a few muddled sentences! Nobel prize here I come.
9:01 am
Yes, and elitism must never give rise to injustice. But I think we should fight the overreacting tall poppy cutters who think homogeny - "everyone is special" - is the same thing as equality. That is precisely not what social unity is about.
9:10 am
Dan,
Thanks for the elaborations on your earlier comments. I'll have to ruminate for awhile on what you've written in order t further engage. I do think you have a great perspective, though.
Now I will submit my own form of circular reasoning for your critique. You might have noticed from other postings I have submitted to Loopis Billow, but much of my perspective exists in the realm of paradox, and I spend much of my mental space trying to cope with these paradoxes. One paradox that has surfaced in this discussion is the relationship between the specialist/connoseur/elite and the masses/society/culture. I'm coming to the realization that I agree with your assessment of the elite who can appreciate certain things because she or he has cultivated a taste for them, and the fact that there is a certain amount of subjectivity inherent in such cultivation. However, I still do believe in a certain sense of beauty and aesthetic that can be more broadly (even universally) apprehended. I believe, for instance, that our reality of time/space itself possesses an aesthetic that has been recognized by most societies and interpreted differently by each. As a biblical theist, I find this aesthetic to be rooted in God's creativity in bring this existence into reality. Do not think that I am a literalist creationist; I am not. I have a great deal of regard for the literary structure of the Genesis creation narrative to not interpret it literally. However, creation is a theme that runs throughout the Old Testament and is always tied to the nature and character of God. That is, this reality is the general revelation of its artist God. I think that creation itself (assuming that my theistic presupposition is valid) could qualify for amazing art, based on this discussion. I have personally witnessed many breathtaking vistas which are utterly amazing and indisputably unique.
Humanity's relationship to nature is one of its binding commonalities, regardless of when and where human societies have existed and how they have interacted with nature. Indeed nature, itself, has been the inspiration for innumerable pieces of art. I think that I would couch a claim of a universal (though general) sense of beauty or aesthetic in this relationship of man to nature, but I would also say that the interpretation of this aesthetic is indeed subjective as demonstrated by the various cultural responses to nature.
I know that my reasoning may appear to be convoluted and subject to faulty reasoning, but I can't let go of either subjectivism on one hand and universalism on the other. Thus the paradox.
Sorry for the digression, but I felt it was important to erveal my presuppositions so you could see why I approach this conversation as I do.
Chad, thanks, as always, for allowing me the space to hurl my thoughts into the realm of written word.
9:27 am
Chad,
Great point about homogeny.
9:28 am
Pedro, a belated and brief response written under the influence of a large dose of Nyquil:
I don't think that we (as westerners) have much of a choice but to vacillate between some form of universalism and some form of subjectivism. Whether it is built into our linguistic tradition, is a result of an overinvestment in the split between subject and object (i.e., the view that the form of all experience is given in terms of a subject/I/ego who experiences an object), or whether it is, indeed, an essentially human tendency, I don't dare speculate.
Re: God qua author/artist. I think this conception has its strong points. It certainly attributes to God some of the best (IMHO) qualities of humans. But it is still very much an anthropomorphic tendency, don't you think?
And this is coming from the stonier side of this nyquil experience: Why would a God create at all? What is the aesthetic sensibility of the transcendent One?
anyhoo. can't keep my eyes open... anymore.
night night
dan
3:55 pm
Dan, "i hear what you're saying but I think you misjudge the guy."
While creating God in our own image is always a huge problem we face I think that, if we assume God is creator (which, if we're talking about God we might as well) it follows from that that his creation will contain some revelation about him intrinsically. Whether or not that is logically true is a speculative matter i suppose but I think it is theologically sound. At any rate, God is and only can be revealed through the created frame of reference since our awareness is a part of that frame. Thus he is revealed through not only his works of creation but, I think paradoxically, through the somewhat human construction of language. Really, I don't see how we can know anything about God except through some careful anthropomorphisms or other analogies.
5:45 pm
Dan,
Good thoughts. Here is my response:
Of course we view God anthropomorphically. I think that Islam is the religion that does the best at picturing God in absolute abstract terms (Allah is absolutely Holy and is thus virtually not to be apprehended). Even an Eastern religion like Hinduism that believes in blissful nonentity being the ultimate end of humans pictures a pantheon of deities which have both human and animal qualities. However, I believe it is impossible to conceive of God otherwise. This does not lessen his (her?) deity but it helps us to understand the transcendent mystery of his being. Plus, God, as shown in Scripture, definitely wants to relate to humans, and he does so, at least in part, anthromorphically. The primary example of this is the incarnation of God in Christ. Christ did not become like a human; he actually became fully man, even as he remained fully God.
As far as your ontological questions about why God would create at all, I would answer from the trinitarian position of Jurgen Moltmann. God, as trinity, is eternally relational. Thus, creation is an extension of this relationality. If this is true, then aesthetic (from this vantage) is always a relational dialogue between artist/creator, subject/medium, and viewer/participant. This is probably why most couples who get married (whether they be gay or straight) wish to have children. They wish to extend their relational intimacy to others who then become integral to that relationship.
Combining these two thoughts, and bringing our earlier discussion about the relationship between the artist's meaning and the viewer's subjective interpretation, I would say that meaning and art are co-creation. Art is essentially meaningless without both the artist and the viewer. Chad is right when he says that creation, as the product of the Creator, reveals intrinsic qualities about his character. This hearkens back to my point about Old Testament Wisdom literature. Our friend Phil has said that he loves hearing the varied interpretations that people offer for his art. This interaction creates new meaning for him, the artist. Check out his blog, elnellis. You can link to it from loopis billow.
12:05 am
Very good responses, gentleman. I can't offer a very fleshed out reply. But just some quick off the cuff reactions...
Assuming then that we can only learn about God through somewhat inaccurate, but necessary, analogies and anthropomorphisms... What then is the role of this knowledge? Taking the analogy to art: Do we interact with an artist's work in order to learn about the artist herself? Have we correctly interpreted the work when we have, for instance, gained access to that part of the artist's psyche from which she drew upon to create the work in question? Or is it something else: Have we understood the work of art when, paraphrasing Gadamer, rather than interpreting the work, "the work interprets us"?
Pedro, your last paragraph implies something surprising for me: It seems like you are suggesting that just as an interpreter's unexpected interpretation may reveal new meaning to the artist, the way we interpret God through creation/nature may reveal new meaning to God (as artist). Certainly this process makes sense amongst humans, but how does it make sense in the context of the Absolute, of a transcendent deity? Is God becoming? Is God a subject/ego which grows and is defined through the tug of war that is creation and interpretation? Is this process meaningful if we still want to maintain the idea of God's omniscience? This is interesting territory.
Puzzling about this whole mode of thinking: Humans are forced into a dual role of creation/nature/art-object on the one hand, and on the other interpreters of said art. Adding further complexity to this situation: interpertaion is creation, and is furthermore an act of interpretation which is always rooted in a tradition. We can see the hermeneutic circle we're stuck in here. In fact, hermeneutics is always circular -- but not as problematically so when we aren't talking about nature qua creative work of art.
What I would be interested in hearing about is a way that these anthropomorphic readings of God can function not as legitimate (or best case scenario) forms of knowledge about God, but instead as useful elements of a practice which leads to a knowledge that explodes our otherwise
all too human" readings of the Divine. Lest we forget that as much as the scriptures characterize the hebrew god anthropomorphically, they nevertheless are unable to speak the god's true name and are forbidden to craft physical representations thereof.
Confession: I am very skeptical of the idea of a "personal god" and the idea of a "personal relationship" with said god. I don't have a dialog with nature, or with god about nature or anything of the sort when I contemplate nature. Nature, the art-object, or whatever is entirely passive. Now if the artist walks up to me and actually talks to me about the art-object, then we can talk about dialogue. But otherwise there seems to be a massive disanalogy.
5:09 am
Dan, Here's a very incomprehensive response to some of your points (starting with the last):
I agree that nature is passive and I, likewise, do not find it spiritually enriching from anything other than an aesthetic perspective. This is why I think we come closer to "knowledge of God" (I use that phrase in the most elusive and circular sense) when we observe humanity simply because mankind, as Bronowski has said, is the only creature that "shapes his environment" - that is not passive. Mankind (created "in God's image") is capable of being a generative and creative part of the dialogue of knowledge. For me, scripture, that paradoxical language revelation, provides us, not with a means in itself of knowing God (your point about "art" and its dubious usefulness as a means of understanding the artist is well taken) but as a sort of specified point around which the knowledge dialogue can take place. Perhaps a better way to say it would be: we know God through our meaningful spiritual interaction with one another, we have meaningful spiritual interaction with one another when (as you paraphrase, Dan) we are allowing the aesthetic of scripture to interpret us, individually, corporately.
I'm not sure what mean about the Hebrew scriptures because I find them rife with the most sacred name of God (YAHWEH) as well as all sorts of physical and allegorical manifestations. The later injunctions against the use of these as well as the sacred name seem to be entirely foreign to the text itself.
I'll stop because I think I've lifted my head way too far out of the trench already without really thinking it through. I'm really enjoying this one, though.
P.S. Pedro, you make some excellent points. I am, however, noticing a tendency on your part to make seemingly random/unnecessary inclusions (eg. "her?", "whether they be gay or straight"). I'm wondering if these are contentious points for you or if you are feeling that your suppositions somehow get in the way of your argument. I don't think they do at all, so be reassured.
9:42 am
Chad,
Sorry about the random and unnecessary inclusions. The "she" was in recognition that even tha pronouns we use to describe God are anthropomorphic, and the Bible does use overwhelmingly male anthropomorphisms for God, but it is indisputable that God, who created gender, is really genderless, and can be described by feminine anthropomorphisms as well (indeed, God is in a few places pictured as a nurturing mother).
The gay/straight comment was probably equally unnecessary, but I in cluded it for tw reasons. First is that I was wishing to demonstrate the universiality of the human desire to include others in relationally intimacy, even those who might not procreate together. Second is that gay marriage is in my mind because debate on the legality of gay marriage is raging throughout the States right now. Massachussets was the first state to legaliza gay marriage, and many conservatives in Minnesota, where I live, are trying to pass an anti gay marriage amendment to our state's constitution.
Dan and Chad,
Thank you for your respons.es I plan on further engaging later this evening after I get off work.
12:48 am
chad, the tetragrammaton is written in the scriptures, certainly, but isn't it taboo to speak it unless you are a priest in the temple, and then only as part of ritualized prayer? and then there is the issue of the meaning of the name. the name which is almost an anti-name, which seems to resist appropriation. let me quote at length Richard Kerney's take on this:
The standard translation of the Exodus 3.14 passage " 'ehyeh, 'asher 'ehyeh" is "I am who am," in latin "Ego sum qui sum," and there is a long history of interpretation of this text from Philo to Augustine to Aquinas and the Scholastics and so on. The most commonly agreed reading is that it is an ontological self-definition of God: I am who am. Now as a tautological pun that is interesting. It could be a way of saying, "I'm not telling you who I am. I am who am." So the repetition could be seen as a rhetorical deflection of the answer, of any easy answer. "You are not going to get hold of me!" Well if that is true, then it is even more fitting that we translate the phrase as Martin Buber and Rashi, the medieval Jewish commentator, and others have done, as "I am who shall be," or "I am who will be," or "I am who may be." In doing so, one restores the element of promissory note, and also the conditional nature of God's manifestation in the world. "I am who may be, i.e. I am unconditionally the promise of the kingdom, I am unconditionally love, the call, invitation, and solicitation, but I can only be God, God in the flesh, God in history, God in matter, if you are my witnesses," to quote Isaiah.
Furthermore, Hebrew scholars like Buber, Rosenzweig and Rashi, point out that in the Hebrew, the verb "'ehyeh 'asher" actually has a conditional, subjunctive, futural mode. In German it is translated as "werden ." So, on this reading, God says: "I am who becomes. I am who will be, may be, shall be. If you listen to what I am saying, you will go back and liberate your people, and you will lead them into a new relationship with Egypt and the Word. But if you don't do that, and you think that you posses Me, then you've only got an ontological formula of Me as totality, self-sameness, self-love, self causing cause, self loving love, self thinking thought. You attach all that Greek metaphysical stuff to Me. That's being unfair to Me, and unfair to Aristotle, because Aristotle wasn't talking about Me. He was talking about a certain notion of form and causality which to his mind was divine. But he is coming from a different tradition, a different way of thinking, a metaphysical way, and I respect that. But I, Yahweh, am giving you a different message. Maybe I can enter into dialogue with Aristotle's God and the God of the philosophers, but don't think you can easily collapse the two, one into the other." So by not going with the standard orthodox translation of "I am who am," which can lead to the notion of a God of totality, and instead choosing the hermeneutic wager that "I am who may be," we open up that space for a different inflection in the biblical notion of deity.
Long quote, I know. But I think it gets my point across. I'm not entirely sure why injunctions against the pronunciation of the tetragrammaton coming later would invalidate them? The text is part of a tradition, not the other way around. Anyway, if I haven't given myself away as favoring negative theology, I may as well come out and say it. I heart via negativa. So I am quite taken with those aspects of theology which dwell on absence, negativity, withdrawal, etc.
I like your comment that "we know God through meaningful spiritual interactions w/ each other". Except that I would perhaps change "meaning spiritual interactoins" into "ethical interactions". However I would probably refuse to assign cognitive content to this knowledge, instead saying that knowing god just is ethical submission to another. True religion (i.e., the goal of religion, the significance of knowing god) just is feeding the orphan and the widow, seeking justice for the oppressed...
As for your comments about understanding God by understanding man, I'm still uncomfortable w/ this. Too much hangs on that one little comment from genesis (in our image). It seems to me like the word image there is a big fat wildcard for theologians to play in whichever way they like. By image do we mean a "creative capacity", "a relational capacity", "a penchant for silly puns", "reason", "power", "compassion", "alcoholism". I don't know. The text doesn't say. I personally think there is a certain contradiction expressed in the jewish tradition here. God is transcendent, other, incomprehensible (as in Job), his face cannot even be looked upon, etc. And yet, we are created in his image -- we are just like him, just flawed and miniscule versions........
okay, enough for now.
5:50 am
Thanks Dan, some great stuff for me to chew on. I'll get back to you.
9:17 am
oh yeah and Pedro, I understand much better now, why you included those parenthetical remarks. Thanks. (the gay marriage debate isn't going on here at all)
9:35 am
Dan,
That was some great commentary (both Kerney's and yours) that you threw into the mix. I really resonated with a lot of what Kerney wrote about Exodus 3:14.
I was realizing as I wrote about the interaction between art, artist, and viewer that the implication is just what you suggested: that our interaction with God somehow reveals new meaning to Him. I do not understand how this can be true with an absolute, transcendent God, but I feel that in some sense it must be. The Kerney commentary that you quoted sums up these thoughts well. That is, how can an absolute, self-defined God possibly be in relationship with humans?
My understanding of relationship is that interaction is mutual; it cannever be just one way. Even in situations whereby one person subjugates another, the one who is in control is still partially defined by and, more significantly, is shaped by the one who is subjugated. In this perspective I am indebted to the idea of a complex adaptive system (the modality of relationships and interconnectedness that is described by systems/complexity theory). Based on this understanding, the relationship itself in not merely the sum of its parts but is also defined by the interaction between the parts and becomes something more than the parts individually.
So, if God is absolute and is transcendent, how can he be involved in an evolving relationship with that which he has created? I have no idea, but I believe that it has happened. Indeed, unless you subscribe to Deism, I cannot see how it could be otherwise, especially if you believe, as I do, that God has not only revealed himself through Scripture but has also incarnated himself as Jesus Christ. Although this may all seem to be contradictory, I would submit that it is actually mystery and paradox. That is, it is not impossible, but it is unknowable. Indeed, faith must always accept mystery. Otherwise, why would faith be necessary? I think that this is the point that Kerney is trying to make when he talks about God not being merely an ontological formula.
As an important aside, I think that what makes our understanding of God's nature even more difficult is that he not only created and thus transcends the limits of space, but he also created and thus transcends the limits of time as well. This is incredibly difficult to grasp. We humans primarily experience time in a linear fashion. However, this is not necessarily ultimately true about God. I cannot possibly begin to conceive of experience and existence outside of linear time. We know that odd things happen to both time and space at the margins of our universe, but what happens completely outside time and space?
Maybe this is also the beginning of an answer to your question of how anthropomorphisms can explode our "too-human" understandings of God. I would agree that nature is an extremely general revelation about God's nature and character (and the Bible itself implies that this is true. It is special revelation - Scripture and the incarnation - that provide more significance on how nature reflects God's nature), just as an individual work of art is an extremely general window into an artist's psyche and experience. however, since art does concretely flow from an artist's mind, it must reveal at least something about its creator, no matter how general. Thus, the more we learn about nature (aesthetically, scientifically, etc.) the more we understand how little our understanding or God captures his totality. This is not a call to despair, however, but is a call to rejoice further in the mystery.
Knowing God happens on many levels, just as knowing our fellow humans happens on mayn levels. We can know God athrough his Creatino in a general way, we can know him more concretely through his self-revelation, we can know him through our personal experience, we can know him through our interactions with his image-bearers, we can know him through his incarnation, etc. Knowing him on one of htese levels will not suffice; to be in relationship with him requires knowing him on many different levels. Just as no two people (or no two groups of people) know me in the same way, so no two people (or no two groups of people) know God in exactly the same way.
11:05 am
Serendipity strikes again. Pedro, when it comes to the idea of a possible relationship to the divine, absolute, etc. I really do favor Kierkegaard heavily. And, oddly, this evenings broadcast of the Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart features a great quote by the great Danish mind himself (read disparagingly by Stephen Colbert). Link: http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=60900
However, all Kierkegaardianisms aside. In trying to find a way to preserve the absolute-ness of the divine w/o annihilating the give&take... perhaps Spinoza might be useful? I know he's a borderline atheist, and certainly a pantheistic thinker at some level. But really these are just labels. For the Spinozist world all creation is an expression or manifestation of God. Who we are and what we do both contributes to God's infinity (from one perspective) and is incapable of altering it (since all that occurs is necessary, perfect in its own way).
But it's late and I don't have a long post in me right now. More later...
4:57 pm
Dan,
I was re-readingthis paragraph in one of your earlier posts:
"Confession: I am very skeptical of the idea of a 'personal god' and the idea of a 'personal relationship' with said god. I don't have a dialog with nature, or with god about nature or anything of the sort when I contemplate nature. Nature, the art-object, or whatever is entirely passive. Now if the artist walks up to me and actually talks to me about the art-object, then we can talk about dialogue. But otherwise there seems to be a massive disanalogy."
I think that to define relationship as dialogue would definitely cause the analogy to break down. However, hearkening back to my preliminary commentis in my last post about levels of knowing, I don't think that verbal dialogue or direct communication are absolutely necessarily for or definitive of relationship. Going back to my comments about complex adaptive systems, these systems (and relationships can be construed as a type of CAS) always involve interaction on multiple levels. I would hardly say that in my example of subjugator and subjugated that there is any meaningful dialogue or communicaiton, yet each is shaped by the dynamic of the relationship. A similar thing happens with humanity and nature (environment). We obviously affect nature by our interaction with it, but we don't often realize that our social structures are also affected by this interaction. Here's an interesting paper on the subject: www.santafe.edu/research/
publications/wpabstract/200108042
Thus, a relationship with a personal God may (as I have already said) exist on multiple levels, including but not limited to personal communication.
I'm sorry, Dan, I'm not very philosophically literate. My knowledge of Kierkegaard and Spinoza is limited to passing reference to both in my undergrad intro to philosophy class and to occasional refernce to both in my reading. Do you have any suggestions for reading that would clue me in on Spinoza's thought?
12:54 am
p.s.
That was a pretty funny clip.
12:57 am
Pedro, I don't know much about complex adaptive systems. But it sure sounds like what I've read of Hegel (definitely a philosopher I don't really understand), specifically his master-slave dialectic, which shows exactly the way in which the master's self is defined positively and negatively by her interaction with the slave. Positively because her sense of mastery is based on the subservience of the slave, on the slave's explicit recognition of her /as/ master. Negatively because in enslaving another being the master has negated the possibility of the voluntary recognition of an equal... In other word, the subject/consciousness is an ongoing dialectical process which necessarily involves other subjects/consciousnesses.
So, I think it is safe to say that we have some sort dialectical (or we could even say process based) relationship to nature, since nature is, so much more than it is the object of aesthetic consideration, something against which we struggle. But w/o a radically immanent God, it is hard to say for me how this relationship to nature brings us, as such, closer to God.
However, the idea of meaning/interpretation/sense (say, as it figures into one's attempt to know and understand the divine) as a struggle with or against God is an idea we haven't (have we?) spoken of yet. What, after all, is the significance of Jacob's wrestling with the angel of the Lord?
As for Spinoza, I can't think of anything terribly accessible... You might look for something secondary, like Routelage's intro series, I hear the one on Spinoza is good. (I read the one on Deleuze and enjoyed that very much.) For Kierkegaard, /Philosophical Fragments/, /The Sickness Unto Death/, or /Fear and Trembling/ are all good places to start. /Fear and Trembling/ is a particularly beautiful text, in my opinion.
Out of curiousity... what is the Biblical precedent for wanting to view God as being affected by us, changing and growing because of his relationship w/ his creation?
2:59 am
Dan,
Thanks for the recommended readings. I'll have to check some of them out in a week or two. I'll be pretty busy during the next few days because my wife and I aremoving this weekend, and of course Easter is the apex of Christian celebration.
My short answer for a Biblical precedent for wanting to view God as being affected by us would have to its narrative of Christ's incarnation. A Johannine reading would be especially informative, for John explicitly claims that Christ is God and the creative power of God. he also talks quite a bit about love and the place that love has in powerfully shaping relationships (see both John's gospel and his epistles).
Preliminarily, I would not go so far as to claim that the God becomes something that he was not before, but that his relatoinship with his creation makes him somehow more fully God (again, I believe that relationality is an ontological aspect of his essence as manifested through trinity).
Interestingly, Paul also talks about the church as being "in Christ" and the body of Christ. This may be taken metaphorically, but it seems fal more likely that there is a substantive qulity to these descriptions.
2:18 pm
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
2:38 pm
Although nature shapes human sociology and vice versa, I would not go so far as to say that this somewhat dialectical relationship brings us closer to God in a personal sense.
Again, I hearken to a biblical theology of wisdom literature to describe how our interaction with nature allows us to approach God. Wisdom literature often evokes several themes about God's character: 1) God's providence is shown through his creation (e.g., rain falls on both the wicked and the righteous); 2) God's creation lies at the foundation of our understanding of wisdom, for God is the source of wisdom; 3)Because God, in his wisdom, created our abode and defined his limits, we know that he is transcendent; 4) the broad moral attributes of God's character have been revealed through his creation; and 5) the general aspects of God's character that are revealed through his creation are interpreted through the specific revelatoin of his law (scripture).
For a good sense of how these themes are worked out in wisdom literature, read the book of Job (and notice the nature metaphors which are prolific), but pay close attention to Job 28 and Job 32-41. Also read Psalm 19. Paul gives a good description of how God is revealed through his creation in Romans 1:18-23 and how (from a biblical-theistic perspective) nature can indeed be misinterpreted. In spite of the fire-and-brimstone timbre of Paul's rhetoric inthis passage, the point that to know God only through nature is not consititutive of a meaningful relationship comes through manifestly.
You make a valid point, that God's radical immanence is necessary for a menaingful interaction with him through nature. And what else was God's incarnatino through Chris but radical immanence?
3:15 pm
Sorry about all the typos . . . I'm a terrible typer and am too lazy to reread my lengthy posts.
12:18 pm
Post a Comment
<< Home