Category: theologians theorists and the like

Some updates

Things have been a little busy around these parts so posting has slowed down.  I am arguably keeping pace with my Kierkegaard reading schedule (almost finished his Eighteen Upbuilding Discourses) but have not had time or energy to post on them.

Though I have abandoned my sentence-a-day translation project I have picked up on another idea.  With some renewed interest in psychoanalysis I began exploring some of the resources from La Borde clinic in France which embraces an ‘experimental(?)’  approach to mental illness.  Its founder Jean Oury is part of the Lacanian school of psychoanalysis and worked alongside figures such as Felix Guattari.  Looking at Oury’s works I noticed that none have as yet been officially translated into English.  So I got the public library to bring a copy of his work Creation et Schizophrenie.  This collection reflects a series of seminars (1987-88) in which Oury seeks to transcend “the artificial distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘pathological’.”  I am little skeptical of this language as I still feel there was a ‘romantic’ period in the development of our understanding of mental illness.  It will, however, be interesting to see how Oury develops this notion as works such as Delueze and Guattari’s Capitalism and Schizophrenia deal more with a social construct as opposed to an individual pathology.  In any event I will post my translation over at writing in tongues and note updates here.  I have just completed and posted the Preface or Averstissement.

Soren K meet Chuck D; Or, How you sell soul to a soulless people who sold their soul

Kierkegaard’s Upbuilding Discourses have not always been engaging but they have offered what I think is a helpful corrective or supplement to much of my contemporary reading.  I hope to post more on some earlier discourses but I am now about halfway through the eighteen and have come across his reflections on the soul, namely how to gain and preserve your soul in patience.

Continue reading “Soren K meet Chuck D; Or, How you sell soul to a soulless people who sold their soul” →

Did you wish . . . could you wish

Either / Or concludes with Judge William offering the transcript of sermon he received from a friend who is a minister.  William is convinced that this sermon reflects what he had been straining towards in his letter (which is what all of vol 2 is considered).  The minister has yet to preach this sermon but believes in time that he will be able to have his entire congregation understand it “for the beauty of the universal consists precisely in the fact that all can understand it.”

Continue reading “Did you wish . . . could you wish” →

The self as choice . . . the choice to impregnate yourself that is

This weekend I finished Kierkegaard’s Either / Or. A major theme in the ethical ‘Or’ of Either / Or is the role of choice.

But what is it I choose?  Is it this thing or that?  No, for I choose absolutely, and the absoluteness of my choice is expressed precisely by the fact that I have not chosen to choose this or that.  I choose the absolute.  And what is the absolute?  It is I myself in my eternal validity.  Anything else but myself I never can choose as the absolute, for if I choose something else, I choose it as a finite thing and so do not choose it absolutely.  Even the Jew who chose God did not choose it absolutely, for he chose, indeed, the absolute, but did not choose it absolutely, and thereby it ceased to be the absolute and became a finite thing.

. . .

This self which he then chooses is infinitely concrete, for it is in fact himself, and yet it is absolutely distinct form his former self, for he has chosen it absolutely.  This self did not exist previously, for it came into existence by means of the choice, and yet it did exist, for it was in fact ‘himself.’

In this case choice performs at one and the same time the two dialectical movements: that which is chosen does not exist and comes into existence with the choice; that which is chosen exists , otherwise there would not be a choice.

This strikes me as a tremendously pivotal move in Kierkegaard’s work.  The notion of ‘self’ will be picked up again with greater rigour in The Sickness Unto Death but here we must also remember that Kierkegaard is still trying to awaken, to disturb, to move.  These are not his ‘direct’ religious writings.  It is easy to see that as Kierkegaard’s work was slowly translated into German and English that these sort of passages were developed into the type of ‘individualism’ that existentialism became known for.  However, even in this section Kierkegaard has no interest in the unique individual instead Kierkegaard demands the dialectic of the individual which is both absolutely singular and universal.  In following page he writes,

Therefore it requires courage for a man to choose himself; for at the very time when it seems that isolates himself most thoroughly he is most thoroughly absorbed in the root by which he is connected with the whole.

This then culminates not in the maxim of ‘knowing yourself’ but in the admonishment to ‘choose yourself’.  Though he admits if he wanted to be clever he would say that we must ‘know’ ourselves as Adam knew Eve.

By the individual’s intercourse with himself he impregnates himself and brings himself to birth.

I’ll let my distinguished readers unpack that one.

Danger afoot

What with life and all I am starting to fall just a little behind in my Kierkegaard reading schedule.  I was hoping to keep the pace around two volumes a month.  While I am almost finished volume two of Either / Or I am not excited about pushing myself further behind the eight ball.  The second volume is picking up.  Part of the interest is the way my mind continues to move about with regards to Kierkegaard’s own authorship.  What does Kierkegaard himself mean by what he has Judge William say?  A terrible question I know but what is wonderful is that despite all the layers that have been revealed with respect to Kierkegaard’s intention and life (including his own reflections) there a remains a movement, a dialectic, inherent within his authorship that continues to aid his project.  I can only imagine the way these pseudonyms aided in his own process of understanding and development.  I am glad we are give access to the process.

About half way through this volume there is a great section on choice which in many ways frames the whole notion of ‘either/or’.  The aesthetic mode is about immediacy (no choice) or multiplicity (also no choice) but ethics becomes the beginning, the first choice; not the choice between ethics and aesthetics but the choice that there is a choice.  In any event here are a few excerpts I enjoyed.

Think of the captain on his ship at the instant when it has to come about.  He will perhaps be able to say, ‘I can either do this or that’; but in case he is not a pretty poor navigator, he will be aware at the same time that the ship is all the while making its usual headway, and that therefore it is only an instant when it is indifferent whether he does this or that.  So it is with a man.  If he forgets to take account of the headway, there comes at last an instant when there no longer is any question of an either/or, not because he has chosen but because he has neglected to choose, which is equivalent to saying, because others have chosen for him, [that] he has lost his self.

. . .

For me the instant of choice is very serious, not so much on account of the rigorous cogitation involved in weighing the alternatives, not on account of the multiplicity of thoughts which attach themselves to every link in the chain, but rather because there is danger afoot, danger that the next instant it may not be equally in my power to choose.

On being seduced

I am almost finished the first volume of Either / Or and as I have mentioned earlier it has been a more rewarding experience than the first go round in which I did not finish.  The book seems to read with two clear book-ends.  The first is Mozart’s Don Juan. Don Juan represents pure and immediate sensuality.  The highest form of this is music.  As soon as the focus shifts to lyrics then an element of reflection is immediately introduced.  The closing book-end is the Diary of a Seducer which is collection of reflections and letters in which a man seduces a young woman to engage him.  This still represents an aesthetic mode like Don Juan but is clearly now also a reflective mode.  What I find interesting about the Diary is the way in which it begins themes which will later be taken up by Kierkegaard.

Having done some earlier research on Kierkegaard’s influence on psychology and counselling much was made of his approach as ‘mid-wife’, that is, of clearing space for the individual to come to his or her own conclusions; to existentially engage the individual, to set them in motion (though without knowledge of this having been facilitated by someone).  Towards the end of his life Kierkegaard reflects on this practice as an author but already here in the Diary Kierkegaard uses similar language as a seducer.  Leading up to the proposal of engagement the seducer writes,

The whole episode must be kept as insignificant as possible, so that when she has accepted me, she will be able to throw the least light upon what may be concealed in this relationship.  The infinite possibility is precisely the interesting.  If she is able to predict anything, that I have failed badly, and the whole relationship loses its meaning.  That she might say yes because she loves me is inconceivable, for she does not love me at all.  The best thing is for me to transform the engagement from act to an event, from something she does to something that happens to her, concerning which she must say: “God only knows how it really happened.

Then later in the Diary are collections of short ‘notes’ that are to arouse the erotic (the immediate) in her.  These are notes of absolutes and totalities.

I am poor – you are my riches; dark – you are my light; I own nothing, want nothing.  And how can I own anything?  It is a contradiction to say that he can own something who does not own himself.  I am as happy as a child, who can and should own nothing.  I own nothing; for I belong only to you; I am not, I have ceased to be, in order to be yours.

It does not take much to see how these notes extend from the aesthetic to the religious.  But first it seems they must pass through the ethical.  And I am about to enter volume II.

Original boredom and solving our financial crisis

While I have not posted on Either / Or the experience of volume 1 for a second go round is better than I expected.  The problem is that it is a ‘popular’ work and so also a dated work.  Can you imagine reading Zizek’s works over 100 years from now trying to piece together the pop-culture illusions?  Either / Or is not that extreme though I am certainly feeling its distance.  One of the pieces is volume 1 begins with a reflection on boredom as the root of evil.  And because of this seeks to eliminate its evil presence.  He takes finance as an example.  Imagine trying to improve the economy by practicing economics!?  How utterly boring and therefore sinful.

The history of this [evil] can be traced from the very beginning of the world.  The gods were bored, and so they created man.  Adam was bored because he was alone, and so Eve was created.  Thus boredom entered the world, and increased in proportion to the increase of population.  Adam was bored alone; then Adam and Eve were bored togethre; then Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel were bored en famille; then the population of the world increased, and the peoples were bored en masse.  To divert themselves they conceived the idea of constructing a tower high enough to reach the heavens.  This idea is itself as boring as the tower was high, and constitutes a terrible proof of how boredom gained the upper hand.  The nations were scattered over the earth, just as people now travel abroad, but they continued to be bored.  Consider the consequences of this boredom.  Humanity fell from its lofty height, first because of Eve, and then from the Tower of Babel.  What was it, on the other hand, that delayed the fall of Rome, was it not bread and circuses?  And is anything to be done now?  Is anyone concerned about planning some means of diversion?  Quite the contrary, the impending ruin is being accelerated.  It is proposed to improve the financial condition of the state by practicing economy.  What could be more tiresome?  Instead of increasing the national debt, it is proposed to pay it off.  As I understand the political situation, it would be an easy matter for Denmark to negotiate a loan of fifteen million dollars.  Why not consider this plan?  Every once in a while we hear of a man who is a genius, and therefore neglects to pay his debts – why should not a nation do the same, if we were all agreed?  Let us then borrow fifteen millions, and let us the proceeds, not to pay debts, but for public entertainment.  Let us celebrate the millennium in a riot of merriment.  Let us place boxes everywhere, not, as at present, for the deposit of money, but for the free distribution of money.  Everything would become gratis; theaters gratis, women of easy virtue gratis, one would drive to the park gratis, be buried gratis, one’s eulogy would be gratis; I say gratis, for when one always has money at hand, everything is in a certain sense free.  No one should be permitted to own any property.  Only in my own case would there be an exception.  I reserve to myself securities in the Bank of London to the value of one hundred dollars a day, partly because I cannot do with less, partly because the idea is mine, and finally because I may not be able to hit upon a new idea when the fifteen millions are gone.

I am a feel good story; Or, What would Zizek do?

Yesterday I swung by the University of Winnipeg to pick up a copy of Zizek’s The Parallax View.  On my way back to the car I noticed a flash of colour standing out against the dirty white snow on the curb.  Lying there, as though nestled on some heavenly cloud was a bundle of cash.  There before me lay $1oo dollars staring up at me with no indication of ownership.  I suddenly found myself in some sort of poorly contrived morality sketch.  What should I do?  Some of thoughts that ran through my head;

  1. Write a note with my contact information where I found the money so that the person could tell me the amount and denomination.
  2. Donate it to some worthy cause.
  3. Go back into the University and donate it to the hippies with a booth promoting sustainable agriculture.
  4. Leave it in the snow bank.
  5. Keep it.

I waited for a few moments in the car to see if anyone was frantically running around.  I did not like any of my responses.  1-3 seemed like some ‘noble’ redemption of this sullied money . . . no good.  5 just felt wrong and right at the same time.  4 may have actually be the best option because I felt that certainly no one else would give such thoughtful consideration to finding money as I will and they would proceed immediately to 5.  In the end I decided to go in the nearest building which was the athletic building.  I went up to the front desk and told the girl what I found.  Recognizing the torn envelope she responded, “That must be Tim’s . . . I mean that was what Tim was supposed to deposit” as she pointed to their deposit box.  Hey, if she lied, good on her for the presence of mind.  In any event, as I was leaving I heard her say, “You’re so honest.”  Ahhhh, I slept well that night.

So money implies dishonesty.  As soon as money is detached from any recognizable or enforceable relationship immediate ownership upon discovery is assumed.  And why not?  Money shows no allegiance.  It does not bear the marks of enduring long-term relationship.  It is built for pure mobility.  I have to say that I am glad it seemed to return the place where it would cause some undergrad the least amount of grief.  But I can’t help but think . . . what would Zizek do?

Christ, Who Fills Everything in Every Way

This past Sunday I preached on Ephesians 4:4-16.  I wanted to draw attention to two themes in the book.  First is the abundance of language about abundance.  Believers are filled with riches, power and wealth.  Second, this is set within the context of the body of Christ which (who) fills all things.  A broad theme in my recent reading is on the notion of capitalism as that body which currently (and rapidly) seeks to fill everything.  From last Sunday’s sermon,

The basis of economic growth is of course to make more money.  This requires more resources to make products and more markets in which to sell them, and ideally cheaper labour by which to make the products.  Consider how coorporations scour the entire globe in search of resources and labour.  Consider the manner in which resources that arguably should be public are increasingly coming under the umbrella of private coorporations.  The issue of access to water comes readily to mind; the patenting of seeds for agriculture is another.  Think of ever expanding marketing we face.  Children are marketed, lifestyles are marketed, environmentalism is marketed, health and beauty, relationships, status; the list could go on forever.  The public space for gathering is now the food court surrounded by the constant refrain of the mall to consume.  High-interest money-lenders are popping up everywhere taking more money (and security) than they will ever give.  The market of money knows no limit to its desire to bring everything under its control.

Borrowing heavily from Philip Goodchild I then went on talk about how the financial crisis exposes both the power and the fragility of contemporary capitalism.  Even governments submit to its whims.  Though the ‘limits’ of contemporary capitalism are also becoming more apparent (increase in material costs).  In this way capitalism forms a mocking portrayal of an expanding and universal body which we participate in.

Also, borrowing heavily on Goodchild, I turned to the role of attention as a primary indicator of piety (whether ‘secular’ piety of religious).  To what then does the body of Christ call our attention to?  Here I returned to the Ephesians text and drew attention to what had seemed like a strange insertion for me.

[E]ach of us was given grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift. Therefore it is said, “When he ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive; he gave gifts to his people.”  (When it says, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower regions of the earth? He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the heavens, so that he might fill all things.) Eph 4:7-10

Here I drew attention to Christ’s descent.  The primary movement for the body of Christ is one of descent.  It is after this movement that ascension occurs, captivity is held captive and gifts are released.  Therefore our attention is turned to the descent.  I described this as attention to suffering and vulnerability.

This is the paradox of the body of Christ.  That in turning our attention to the vulnerability and suffering within and around us we enter in the joy of God’s grace; in feeling bound and helpless by the scope of suffering Christ binds bondage and frees us with his gifts of grace.  We are called to draw near to that strange place where we face each other, where crying and laughing become almost indistinguishable. [I thought of the description of the Cairo protests as by one participant as a ‘wedding feast’]

I had a relatively strong reaction to this sermon both positive and negative.  I ran into one group after the service vigorously discussing the implications of the sermon.  I also ran into other individuals who felt that the message was too ambiguous and loosely connected.  This sermon was part of a small series on ‘lay’ leadership.  In this way I suppose I could (or should) have been a little more ‘practical’.  However, I could not shake the notion that practicality in the church has typically meant ‘plugging into’ existing programs that are often ‘unplugged’ from pressing issues.  While the Mennonite church may have a slightly better track-record in this regard my hope is that ‘abstract’ sermons like this one can eventually build a new framework for church expression.