We had (nearly by accident) some Jewish friends over to help us finish up the cheesecake leftover from Friday. We talked about all sorts of life-goings-on, and our guest asked how our church was. We explained a little (nothing terribly or anything) but before we knew it, we all were talking about how our respective religious population-segments have actually developed in parallel. It seems the Modernism has had a very similar effect: shifting the focus off of any transcendental identity/other, instead towards a logical ethical system. While we all have our stomachs turned at the thought of such reductionism, it seems our parents, or grandparents are absorbed in this perspective. (Note: I’ve been on about this before)

But a second, more interesting view has emerged among us youngsters. It seems there’s a tad bit of agnosticism afoot, mostly in reaction to a lack of differentiation between “faith” and “knowledge.” Oh, those two ideas have quite a history of clashing, but it seems in the more conservative camps, where “truth” is trumpeted, knowledge of it is playing in harmony. Earlier, older fundamentalists would speak clearly of their “conviction” of what is or is not truth.. but that was apparently not good enough. Now, conservatives “know” what is true. That’s great, because now everyone else is, well, stupid! ..eyes-rolling..

But do you see what has happened? In honest-to-goodness matters of the empirically unprovable nature (transcendent ontology), knowledge is now being claimed, instead of faith. Well, if you have not faith (only knowledge), how is it you please God? Frankly, I don’t find it surprising that people say they “know” God; I’m glad. What surprises me is how people seem to leave faith behind! Faith– the act, the hope — is what is common to all mankind. We were fully able to communicate with our Jewish friends because we both understood this basic nature of humanity & reality: that throughout history there have been varying ideas about what is transcendent, and some may be more reasonable, but none of them are provable. This equal-footing in the face of the dark, empty other-worldly void is where communication can occur with all people. Knowledge-claims are confidence-claims, and our confidence is only partly a matter of rationality; reason can hint, and can improve our will-to-believe, but belief is still willed.

It’s tough being human. We see only what we’re tuned into. Such selectivity is the basis for prejudice and violence — I face it daily in my Sociology classes. Sociology is committed to clarifying the reality of social-aggregates for the masses, but the masses first learn most of their sociological-reality before truth can get to ‘em. Tribalism sucks, objectivity is handy.. but so very rare – rare unto the point of non-existence; our inter-subjectivity suggests much to trust in.

Money (in the West) is directly tied to security. We buy expensive houses to be in “safe” neighborhoods. Rent’s cheap if there’s daily gunfire across the street. Lose a job? That’s ok, you’ve got a savings account, right? Retiring? You’ll be fine with that retirement account you’ve been feeding since you were 25.

Now take that perspective and apply it to other things hoards of money are spent on. Case in point: weddings.

Ok, so not everyone who spends lots of money on their wedding doesn’t get divorced. That’s not exactly what I’m saying. And of course daddy’s usually gonna drop as much as he can for “his little girl.” But is there a chance, and underlying view of money & worth that says, “If I have/fund an expensive wedding, maybe that’ll keep ‘em together.” That doesn’t sound right, I’m sure. Perhaps nearly mercenary too.

But instead of looking from the top-down, try the bottom-up. “Man, that wedding cost someone lots of money– ya don’t wanna go through that again..” I’d wager 2nd, 3rd & 4th weddings are less costly than the first. And even independent of re-marriage, wedding-costs go up the more reminders of it you have laying about. And it’s those reminders which can help secure a marriage (even though there’s plenty of other ones too).

Now, don’t get me wrong. Plenty of people get married for under $50 and stay together for over 50 years. Fact is, they have something going, independent of money. But for those people out there who aren’t sure they have that same something, fear can be a great motivator to do silly things like spend $30k on a wedding. I’m really writing about those silly people who never decided to think twice about what marriage really is about.

If there is any way to acquire information about the economic stratification (or at least the GDP) over the last 500 years, I would be thrilled.

Why? It seems that while there is “more wealth” in the world, there are more people of course, and I wonder if the ratio, as well as the ratios of stratification, are at all remotely constant over a long-period. In times of the nobility, town-and-countryside conditions for Europe were much like middle-Asia is today. By today’s Western standards, this is beyond poverty, yet by today’s Western standards, even kings lived without a/c, fast or reliable transit, respectably clean showers and toilets, etc. They just had gold (ok, maybe not, but they had plenty of “huge tracts of land”), and people that listened to them.

I know that any social-strat expert will say the rich are getting richer, and I don’t doubt that over the 20th century, but what and where has this been the case before? Where and when has it not been the case? Anyone, anyone??

Mediate Transcendentalism: that’s my new title for the secular approach.

Let’s start the tale at the lowest level though, and tell it through the lives of most of us: the daily worker. I hated my job in accounting, mostly because it was rote, but my interest here is in the fact that we eight would subject ourselves to each other, the boss and the working conditions.  One could explain our behavior through all means and sorts of 17th or 18th century social logic with terms like “common good” or the like. And that is my point: the early modern approach to society was one of a larger-than-self to which the selfish individual sacrifices. This “larger-than-self” isn’t fully transcendent like a Neo-Platonic God, but rather still very immanent: we see everyday those for whom we are to be sacrificing. Despite this direct vision, modern economic secularism advocates indirect sacrifice.. “for the masses, for society, for the Ideal!” not “for you” or “for him.”

The trouble I see with secularism isn’t it’s half-way transcendentalism, as if it’s not good enough, or as if it’s a poor attempt at deity-replacement or something. Rather, my complaint for any transcendental way of life is that no one really wants to be indirectly loved. I especially don’t want to be “loved” because someone, something, or some ideal is telling them to love me.. that’s the late 20th century interest in “authenticity” (thank you very much Habermas). Fully immanent love/sacrifice is direct, personal and soul-filling (and perhaps soul-emptying!!). And despite how energy-taking it may be, it is at the same time never life-energy taking. A level of confidence must exist lest sacrifice be used as a tool for selfish ends.

k. that’s all I’ve got so far..

Louis Gabriel Ambroise de Bonald.

Never heard of him until today. Apparently a highly conservative French counter-revolutionary. Aka, not in vogue today.

His significant contribution to the world of ideas is primarily in “a universal triadic logic of faits sociales which are ‘general’, ‘external’ and ‘visible.’ The universal ratio pouvoir/ministre/suject is found expressed as I/you/he, father/mother/child, sovereign/executive/subject and God/priest/faithful (Milbank, 56: ISBN: 978-1405136846).”

At modern first-read, this is preposterous. There are many more options available by which society can structure itself. Of course there are. This is one man’s motif applied in all things. A singular perspective, against and of which the late-Modern perspectivalism desires more. But let’s say there’s something to his view, instead of just reacting against it. Let’s take a non-Catholic, “Biblical” approach to this triad.

First, there are Christian New-Testament makes much more frequent claim to Jesus being our priest, and still claims that “the faithful” are ourselves all priests, as well as children of God, and furthermore representatives of God and clearly executives on this planet. That leaves us with the triad initially replaced with God/Jesus/faithful into God/Jesus::faithful. Now what of the other triads? The sovereign is never to be the head of power alone; the master is the direct, executing servant (not the indirect, apersonal, theoretical, rationally justified “public servant”). Second, in terms of family, we are left with either the ‘mother’ being pushed down into child-level, or raised up into father-level. Guess what? Jesus came down to us not to keep us as children, and certainly not just to diminish God, but to raise our own pouvoir: fathers and mothers are categorically equal. This is obvious.

Regressing for a moment, we can say that de Bonald’s triad is a rather standard-religious approach, as well as a standard-secular approach. Yes, secularism is likely more neo-religious than it would like to be. Thereby, were we to take this conservative Catholic, as well as standard-secular sociology as final in de Bonald, Christ comes and radically alters the power-structures in society, and thereby creating a wholly other and new sociology. Is it any wonder why there are Christian statements of co-equality of slaves, masters, husbands, wives, etc. This is not simply a new edition of the old; something new entirely, worthy of study, lived-ness and enjoyment. Altogether curious.

Aside:
It is not enough to say that conservatism & liberalism are the same, and thereby positivism is “the way” (As my idealistic self is prone to do!). Christian theology comes with specific content and form which finds similarity in all of them. One can always conform Christianity into any given smaller idealism, but that takes the fun out of theology.

Adulthood occurs when one produces more than he consumes. Culturally-acceptable Adulthood occurs when one’s production is of a locally accepted form.

My RSS feed gave me this gem today:

I recommend taking a larger perspective than this overly-simple graphic displays. Note that it is without any credits to actual pyschological or sociological research, as well as being an example of the “slippery slope” logical fallacy .

Rather, the “real world” is filled with people who are managed into any one (not necessarily all!) of these positions by circumstances which themselves seem overly challenging, or have proven worthless. These can be seen as personal failures. Note also that self-confidence, cirumstances/environments of empowerment are NOT on this list, nor are they suggested to be on this list. Instead, Mr. Holmes presents the beginnings of a ‘blame-game’, a triage by which to score, judge and rate workers. Those who are already succeed will continue, those who fail will continue. Mr. Holmes offers no direct or clear recommendations or means of change. Such a false-dichotomizing info-graphic leads the viewer into negative feelings of self or worse, sets a keen eye to look out for and against the “fixed” folk. Enemy-creation is hardly the hallmark of civil society, yet it is the nature of Modernist thought.

This is an entirely sad “info”-graphic, placing all responsibility for change upon the individual, who likely is by now numb and blind to opportunity, having missed prior occasions for success. I fail to see how blaming the “victim” here solves any problems or moves anyone beyond self into sociable environments. Management means helping – something that was lost in the industrial revolution’s genocide of apprenticed trade-workers. People are moved by experience more than simple frameworks, however wonderful and cleanly presented they may appear.

Most of these statements I have made are likely familiar to sociologists; a field which is likely unfamiliar to much of the outstanding public. My reccomendation: Read Mark Schneider’s Theory Primer book.

Ahh the “New Media makes you dumb” debate. The WSJ has it going, and Slashdot picked it up.

My spin agrees with both sides, in the context of actor-responsibility/meaningless-drone. That itself is a rough divide for humanity; I mean, how many of us are *fully* determined in our thought patterns? Most of us are in small ways, but not in all ways. Further, we are only as determined by what is available to us. If no one is ever forced to turn off the TV, read a book, or read a full webpage, they never will. Humanity is *that* fickle. We’ll live in the present, assuming the past isn’t consequential. The Internet has only “given the people what they want” in that regard.  To this end, Shirky did a wonderful job with the history of new media; theories are only good if they hold water across time & place.

But this consistently distracted state is in some ways my own life. I have trouble filtering out background conversations when in a restaurant, among other examples. I’m sure it’s giving rise to affective disorders (let’s not get beyond simple parole: dis-order = out of order). How can someone know what to love if there is no order or priority to in and out-flow of info, people, experience, etc.

The spiritual consequences are huge then. Jesus’ 2 commands of love God & fellow-man could be well-undermined by this novelty. That’s why I’m agreeing with a friend’s recent Facebook status: “Discipline is remembering what you love.” Discipline isn’t about saying “no,” so much as remembering, and remembering & reflecting is being killed off.

Reflection is a time-intensive activity, one which now-now-now-or-you’ll-miss-it-or-get-too-far-behind media won’t allow for, and as noted, is required:

“The researchers were surprised by the results. They had expected that the intensive multitaskers would have gained some unique mental advantages from all their on-screen juggling. But that wasn’t the case. In fact, the heavy multitaskers weren’t even good at multitasking. They were considerably less adept at switching between tasks than the more infrequent multitaskers. “Everything distracts them,” observed Clifford Nass, the professor who heads the Stanford lab.” — Nicholas Carr

This is exactly what the other side of the debate agrees with as well:

“Reading is an unnatural act; we are no more evolved to read books than we are to use computers.”–Clay Shirky

But what I like about Clay’s statement is the next line: “Literate societies become literate by investing extraordinary resources, every year, training children to read.” Resources maybe anything from mothers to educators, from $ for private tutoring to the publishing industry.. but it is always about time. My own time reading is only worth it if I spend the time to stop every other paragraph or so. Ideas need to sink in for any foundation to be placed. Who wants a skyscraper built on unset, wet concrete? That’s the best analogy I can give for what the Internet is doing: providing shortcuts for our memory, and keeping us from remembering anything. Even the act of scrolling a webpage is vague. Turning a page is much more definitive. I can’t glance-back as easily as I can scroll back & forth. (Ok, maybe not the best example..)

I suppose what this means for future information-design is clearspace. Data can also be held better when it is interacted with. Static graphs are visualization of too many numbers; interaction/overlays, compare-contrast is a beginning for too many graphs. Fickle “daily info-graphics” sent to my inbox or RSS reader only clog my mind, unless they spark interest  for further research (assuming I know where & how to research it!). I’d much rather have the data in contrast with something else, both of which are in connection with present values and personal states of knowledge. This way graphics could be delivered to my inbox for me, which overlap/redundant, and over-time help me learn and meat specified goals.

And finally for a sociological perspective. This little idea about remembering can be expanded further to include any binary-division, even gender-roles. While there’s a pressure from amongst egalitarians to “be equal” between/across genders, there is also a consequence of each gender doing everything, overburdening itself with too much. But that is still no “win” for anyone who would espouse a fascist (Modernist) sociology, where each person must fit the role assigned 100%. (I’m looking at you SB-preachers!)

Update: NYT picked this up too with their own spin that sounds like a good middle ground/awareness campaign.

Paul was a missionary. He went on missionary journeys. He wrote missionary letters; letters to those who needed to understand his mission, the gospel: Jesus.
Now, what can we say about the North American Evangelical church today? Need they hear more of first-generation “Christian living” (which to later generations sounds like moralism) or second-generation “Christian living”, which might actually be more “applicable”?

What is it a missionary does? Overtly, communicate Jesus. Secondarily, covertly, intentionally or unintentionally, they communicate “Judeo-Christian values”. Paul however, saw the *lack* of Judeo-Christian values & after preaching Christ, preached a moral system to clarify what behaviors are becoming of a Christian.
Directly, abstractly, do I agree with such procedure? Sure. I’d rather have Paul preaching morality after redemption than before, and that is what he did. Were I to sit him down and ask him if he was even preaching morality, he would never even agree to such a statement.

Now, bring in the Contemporary Evangelical context. First, the every-man has much of the Judeo-Christian ethic already (relative to the Corinithians, say), so simply: why the Pauline addiction by Evangelicals?

I suppose my question and concern is simpler: What books (generally) “apply” more to the later church than the early church? Oddly enough, how about those which were written to the 2nd generation of church-goers! Hebrews-Revelation. Such a question has already been answered, and few will doubt it.

So why then is there so much emphasis on preaching Pauline lit & not enough of the General Epistles? I admit, I love the General Epistles (potentially for their novel factor), and I’ve never heard enough from them. Practically, there is more content. And I’m not going to say a moralism cannot be found in the General Epistles; moralism exists whereever you seek for it. Likewise, “Human nature is evil: we will find something anywhere to become addicted to, to build our pride through.” True, and for that, perhaps a sufficiently changing terrain of call-and-response in preaching & personal study is necessary.

So why the divide between Jesus & Paul? And more to my concern, why the Pauline unacceptance by socially minded “liberals”, as opposed to a consistent reprimand of Christians for not being sufficiently Jesus-like (by “liberals”)?

I suppose my final stance of Paul, generally, is one of “how to be a missionary in a non-Judeo-Christian ethnos (society).” A fine missionary, showing the tenacity and patience needed, and surely we all face this in “preaching” to ourselves. Yet I suppose I find him to be an extension of the book of Acts (and for good reason!) — akin to the “Books of History” (Writings) in the Old Testament (for our example) than any pure, direct. But of course, this is way too general a statement to uphold for each and every verse; more a generic background tone for the genre than the guitar-solo in the foreground.

I think I’m confused about what I think is & isn’t faith.
There’s faith *concerning* something, faith *in* something. They must both exist to be of any ‘utility’. There are contexts in which faith is appropriate, and some where faith is not.

Yet I feel a strong compulsion to fideism, that all life is faith. Not in the sense that over-religious take it, but in a philosophical sense of pragmatism: that I’m not able to prove that you are real, but I have no real alternative than to act like you are, continuing in this world, despite my lack of “absolute” knowledge. This is a metaphysical faith — as to what is or is not reality. Yet, I am not comfortable calling all my perceptions of the observable world ‘reality’. I *believe* reality to be bigger, more inclusive of the spiritual (super-natural) (forces/personalities/plans/plots). Again, is this now outside the realm of metaphysics? This is precisely where Kant draws the line. And to some degree, rightly so. Our categories of time, space, personhood, etc are all learned (so says sociology) here from our experience/others, and there is no real reason for us to have direct ability to reason / apply direct ideas to them. Such is simply imagination. Most blog-readers will revolt, but seriously — this is precisely the consequences of Kant. This is directly what he was troubled about. Leibnitz’s Monadology-world was mostly imagination to Kant. But the best part? Kant wasn’t an atheist. He wasn’t trying to kill off religion, just, as I am, understand what faith is, what knowledge is, and where the looney-bins in the middle lie, and confuse the Truth for everyone else.

As an aside, I want to take on/clarify the nature/nurture thing. Christians of the conservative sort will often place man’s worth in being a human, using some confusing terminology of “direct creation” of God. This, oddly enough, is heretical. God is not continually creating, he stopped at day 7. He may be upholding & sustaining, but that’s not what they said. Nevertheless, an important philosophical question has been what is innate to man? The religious will say “a soul” (but that doesn’t answer the question of how much, and what kind of knowledge). The empiricist will say “nothing.” The rationalist will say “could be anything, likely plenty.” The Apostle Paul considered men to learn of God both ways, written on our hearts, and seen in creation. Sociology today will be more in-line with the empiricists of old, since we are born into a world already-started-and-on-its-way. There are cultural norms and symbols (called language) which has developed and progressed, and we merely pick it up (or are forced to learn it!). Notice how similar this is to God’s work: not creation, but sustaining. Notice also, how I don’t feel a great need to answer this question, just taking note of what is and is not readily knowable.

Returning to what is and is not faith, there is always the trouble of sociological data which tells of psychological projection: that Christians are those predisposed to “see” the world through religious eyes, like the artist predisposed to see through aesthetic eyes, and the musician, through orchestral, sonorous eyes and ears. This is a dandy position, but while writing this out, I realised, it is too dandy. It’s too easy, too simple, too comfortable. It has no prescription for change, no interest in cross-communication (of which I am entirely), and worst of all, it fearfully promotes individualism and group-ism which is always a tad too divisive for my likes. Such is the “wisdom” we hear all too often. No pre-disposition theories for me. Sad how inclusion theories rapidly turn exclusive.

So what can we say about faith? Is it “faith” for the young girl to believe Mr.Bear is drinking his tea? Is it “faith” for the dog to wait by the door, because you come home everyday at 6pm (and likewise the congregant who simply attends consistently every week)?
These two examples are often countered by what I shall hereby call the “duty of expectation.” The congregant is faithful, not just because he is *consistent* (methodological) but that he ‘expects’ ‘something’ (from God) to happen. Further (and even worse) this is meant to mean “right now.” See how this devolves rapidly to a prior position of “God is always doing something, and you need to keep watch, otherwise you’ll miss it/him!” I am fully aware that I am “missing” “the blessing” of God’s activity in this world. But understand the difference: they see God in the shadows, lurking. I see (believe) God in the forefront, maintaining all life at it’s deepest physiological/physical-chemical-particle-physics level. Christ *is* (I believe) the logos. (How’s that for a subject of an idealism/materialism debate!) Studying this world is studying Christ.. but not in a universe-as-God’s-body way. Upholding creation with One’s power & word is mightily different than essense.

Anyways, I feel like my personal-life-faith is macroscopic: I’m living out my large-scale plans which (I believe) will further God’s (Jesus’) life-work on this planet (were he still around). I also feel like my faith is at times empty and utterly blind, filled with nothing but hope. I doubt anything will happen, but I will act anyways.. or somethings I’ve given up on & don’t act anymore. If nothing happens, then so be it: resignation (and potentially bitterness). If something happens: enjoy it, run with it. This world *is* bitter. Christ tasted it’s effect (and likely affect), and did not keep himself from it.
Kierkegaard would call this resignation half-way to faith, and the truly faithful to be beyond resignation, enjoying life’s gifts even in their absense.

I’m stuck on the topic for now, but that’s the depth I’ve got so far.