Peggy Noonan Part II

I have a degree in English. I've studied poetry, but never loved it. I was too impatient, it was too puzzling. Assuming my friend would feel similarly, I recall telling him that I didn't read poetry and I didn't really see that it was worth my time. He replied by saying it was the only thing worth reading. A simple yet powerful rejoinder. And it got me to thinking. Poetry is involved in providing a vision, where prose can only offer analysis. It changed my perspective. Peggy Noonan's article described poetically St. Joseph Cupertino as the best candidate for Patron Saint of the Internet because "he flew through the air, lifted by truth." That is the intention of this site (and has something to do with its name), to provide a space where faith can live, when the analyses of the world have dismissed it. She continues, "Because no establishment could keep him down. Because he empowered common people. Because they in fact saw his power before the elites of the time did." There will always be systems that seek to do away with the inviolable sanctity of the person. This site says let no man be a gatekeeper to the narrow gate of salvation. We are in a world today where no assumptions about the possibility of attaining truth are legitimate in the eyes of the elite, but as tombot has eloquently written, we do in fact seek the truth. Peggy Noonan honors that search consistently, and it is a lifting of a weight, as if one might fly.

Peggy Noonan on Humility and Charity

Peggy Noonan has challenged her readership: "Today I post thoughts blog-style. There is, however, a theme. Find it."

I would like to take a stab at identifying the theme that runs through Ms. Noonan's February 24 article I'll Link to That: Hunter Thompson, Larry Summers, Hillary, Condi and the Internet's patron saint. : It is a meditation on humility and charity, and on how the two seem to need each other. It is a meditation on each person's enactment of his or her vocation in their proper position before God in poverty of spirit, vis a vis the world, and a comparison of that saintliness with several modern day examples; the self-centered writings of a man whose cult of personality ended in failure, fatalism, and fatality; the parallelism between the worst of medieval dogmatism and the secular equivalent of it in academia; the adaptation and adoption of a Christian persona (mask) by a politician for political gain as opposed to the internal, uncalculated love expressed by St. Joseph Cupertino and the common folk who could discern a false voice from a true one; and a favorable comparison of the face of the USA shown to foreign governments by the Secretary of State in her subtle emphasis on principle over personality, (also in contrast to the politician). This is a strong and eloquent articulation of 'finding what matters' and being true to it, and of what it looks like when you miss it. It is said in faith; without faith it is found by the world to be foolishness.

She also seems to be saying that the Internet and blogging can give voice to the same spirit of peace and charity in humble service to God as that of her candidate for Patron Saint of the Internet, St. Joseph Cupertino. And she has placed love over encyclopedic knowledge (remembering the likelihood of the academic to prize intelligence over caritas, keeping her eye on the prize. Is it an accident that Ms. Noonan has written this piece at the same time the Pope has released his Apostolic Letter on the employment of technology in the Church's mission THE RAPID DEVELOPMENT OF THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II TO THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMMUNICATIONS?

You may comment on Ms. Noonan's article at The Wall Street Journal, or, you may respond to my post by sending an email to me. Also, you may wish to read more on the Apostolic letter here.

Sitting down to lunch with Christopher Hitchens

From: "Tombot"
To: "Erico"
Subject: Re: Reply to Yours
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 12:05:09 -0500

Eric,

Thanks for the email. Let me just ask you this. Suppose you were sitting down to lunch with Christopher Hitchens. And suppose that everything was going well in terms of cordiality. Then suppose that the topic turns to religion and spirituality and Christianity in particular. He learns that you are a passionate advocate of this particular religion - and you learn that he is rabidly against all of the above. How should the conversation move forward from there? What is the optimum outcome to be hoped for - assuming that things are going well to begin with? Do you seek to draw him out - hoping to identify his "false assumptions" and rigid "mis-conceptions" drawn from his own life-experience? Will it become relevant that [removed to respect Mr. Hitchens' privacy]- as in fact happened. Or do you conclude at the outset, "Look this isn't going to get us anywhere - You're not within in the zone where my understanding of Truth could become available to you. Let's just agree to disagree...Check please." This whole scenario seems to me to be very analogous to what is known as the Church "engaging with" the World. And again I go back to my previous question (which admittedly may be misplaced) -- namely - which set of assumptions do we start with -- those of the Church or those of the World? Do you begin with where someone else is at - or do you draw them into what for them is strange and foreboding territory? The perfect example would be regarding Gospel scholarship - Hitch would say - Oh c'mon - those gospels were written decades after the events - We don't know what Jesus really said. Polemics of the Early Church. A desperate political situation - Why trust the Church as an institution? Read Crossan - Pagels - Borg. Friedrickson. Orthodoxy is simply the version of Truth given by the victors. Now - I grant you - one can simply refuse to answer these challenges - but my inclination would be to WANT to address them. My anxiety simply has to do with not always feeling up to the task. But I am very curious how your conversation with Hitchens would proceed...Over to you...

Tom

Zizek on truth as a product of direct engagement with the world

From: "Tombot"
To: "Erico"
Subject: Re: Reply to Yours
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 12:45:56 -0500

Eric:

So Much to absorb - I would say more but I'm short on time at the moment - We should assemble these messages into some sort of web blog or web book... I wanted to say at least this - Zizek talks about truth being a product of a "direct engagement" with life - There's no such thing as a purely detached, disinterested truth that pretends to be "above it all" -- Objectivity requires participation - or what one might call "faith." Taking a stand, walking down a path, speaking one's mind, being what one must be. As far as that goes I think that has a sort of Augustinian ring to it - You have to love something in order to understand it. You have to go out on a limb. Now maybe what you refer to as the inner silence or serenity [prayer life?] is perhaps totally consistent with that - in other words, the ultimate form of engagement - Yes? No? Maybe Zizek and others too narrowly conceive of "engagement" as something overtly political. Social activism, Non-Conformity etc. Zizek goes on to say a whole lot of other things that go against traditional orthodoxy - yet he does invoke Chesterton to great effect. I only recently discovered this guy - and somewhat by accident - He's a Slovenian gadfly, somewhat to the left politically, who wears blue jeans and a plaid shirt all the time - on someone else that might look like posturing of a sort - but he seems to have a genuinely quirky and unique persona - Lacanian Psychoanalyst, Postmodernist, Postmarxist, Post-Christian. Christians can learn a lot by encountering these so-called post-Christians. The debate continues over the true meaning of piety - I guess when I mention the "either-or" choice of secularism/fanaticism - I'm also talking about "ironic religiosity" (Oh yes I'm Catholic, but...I know more than those ordinary folk) vs. true-believer-ship (I'm Catholic but the price I must pay is that of shutting off the bombardment of criticism from without...not engaging with it past a certain point). - One Huge Example of Which would be the Controversy over the Historical Jesus. - So I wake up in the morning with a simple question - how am I to read and understand the gospels as a so-called modern sophisticate? Ressurection? Incarnation? Trinity? Kerygma? What are the gospels telling me that relates directly to the world I experience? Is Weber correct about the "disenchanted world" that confuses money, career calling and specialization with a person's genuine spiritual vocation? Can the gospels help me to avoid entering into this dynamic? Am I perhaps deluding myself as to my own rational credentials? Before God - what is all that? Yet if I read the narrative straight-forwardly - will I be skirting the real issues (dualities/ambiguities/inconsistencies) raised by scholars, experts and other educated readers? Where does the "silent affirmation" come in? Because - I am tempted to want to speak up when someone inquires "What do you believe in and why?" You just know it when you see it - is all I can muster. But I can feel their annoyance at feeling entitled to a better answer. Over to you.

- T.S.

Girard, Lonergan, Zizek and "the wound", "the gift that nobody wanted"

From: "tombot"
To: "erico"
Subject: RE: more on Weber,
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:07:02 -0500

Eric,

Hard to know where to begin. I guess I'll have to pick up Girard again to see if I can identify what you see as the danger - i.e. his "secularizing" of certain articles of faith to make them palatable to a modern audience... Sounds like Bultmann et. al. - Certainly - the notion of scapegoating is very powerful and revealing as an anthropological insight - why not also as "buried material" that faith helps to "substantiate" - i.e. bring to the surface? I don't know enough about Lonergan to know how his conception of "human nature" (man the truth-seeker sounds okay to me) helps to clarify the truth of Christian revelation more effectively than Girard. Does it? How about Girard+Lonergan or "man the scapegoater whose guilt-ridden activity reveals the truth that he craves but doesn't want to recognize as the real treasure..." Just a guess. Scapegoating (I would think) is born of the wound and seeks to cover over the wound...The wound could be the vehicle to the treasure - but the need for self-justification via scapegoating is too powerful. And the attempt to make oneself into "God's beloved" and others into "wretched outcasts" though forever tempting, always ends in failure - in that it leaves behind the scar of wrong-doing- i.e. someone else has to be miserable so that I can feel triumphant. But the wound always returns in some new form. Happiness never turns out to be what we first conceive it to be. It was always the gift on the sidelines that nobody wanted... I could imagine someone complaining that Christianity gives us an insight that's "too hard to bear" insofar as - me and everyone else are just going to go out there again and "scapegoat somebody" - because we need our daily fix of happiness - i.e. wretched contentment. You should see me yelling at people in traffic - venting along with talk radio. Terrible drivers in Cincinnati - really! There's a book I'm reading now by a postmodernist, postmarxist, named Slajov Zizek (The Puppet and the Dwarf) - He wants to revive Christianity as the "ultimate form of religion" that still has a hold over us, but what he means is that Christianity by "laying the [mythical] truth bare" -discredits the ancient pagan religion of "closed horizons" but at the same time turns into a religion that subverts itself --and thus becomes the final form of religion. This sort of goes along with what Weber means by disenchantment and is perhaps compatible with Girard. Thanks to Christianity, the revelation that God is there for everyone [truth-content] grates against our cynical-worldly experience of politics as usual - i.e. the universe forever divided into "friend" and "enemy" - "chosen" and "reprobate" -- "us" against "them". The problem then refers to how faith is to preserve itself in the modern world without a determinate medium -- a necessarily, one-sided, social, cultural or political entity or institution. How can God be said to speak [nowadays] through only one set of people, as opposed to through everyone all at once? How can we hope to sort through various religious and cultural perspectives to arrive at what God really wants? Suddenly revelation is more tricky than ever! a.k.a. the problem of authority - liberalism - nihilism - everyone has a right to their opinion...cafeteria-catholics all...Thanks to Christianity, God became so much a part of human experience - that we can no longer envision an objective "beyond" - called Truth or Heaven or Eternity or Final Redemption or Total Escape from Time. Yet we continue to invoke other-worldly ideals of purity that seem to hover in our midst as Weber would say like the "ghosts of dead beliefs." Weber also speaks of "a prophetless time" where no authoritative voice can be heard - everything is reduced to personal preference - nothing has the definitive, irrevocable aura of a public decree from God. Because in the absence of the universal message that everyone voluntarily accepts, the voice descends into a private utterance heard by a few - yet misheard by others. [So many examples - Mel Gibson's Passion? I haven't seen it. I don't even know what to think...] Zizek makes an interesting point that the Christian dilemma is always that the Messiah has already arrived - and we missed him so "Now what do we do with ourselves?" The torch was in effect passed to us by means of the Incarnation. He thinks of Paul as the first revolutionary operative who helped to put the community of believers and their activity [the Church as revolutionary institution] front and center. According to Zizek, the historical dialectic moves from Mysterious All-Powerful Father-Figure (Worship of Power as Promise of Happiness) to Innocent Victim-God the Son (Divine Suffering as Vindication of Human Pain) to the Community of Love (Visible Church as This-Worldly Vessel of the Holy Spirit). The Church serves to break down barrier after barrier until finally its own parameters are obscured. In other words -- we create the conditions for happiness by finally eliminating the scapegoating mechanism - or what I'm calling "the political." Here's where I get confused...I don't know what Zizek would say. It is fascinating though - whether Zizek is right or wrong - that the Church remains a powerful model and symbol for postmodernists and others - when it comes to the question of how to reconcile points of view. Even more powerful than the U.N. in terms of its effectiveness - Oh yes quite. But then what to do about those traditional tensions among Christians, Jews, Muslims. It's very frustrating - but it does affirm Girard's point about mimetic rivalries....As you might gather from this email - I continue to be haunted by questions of Political Theology -- that is, the point where Politics and Theology collide. Over to You...This conversation is very helpful by the way...

P.S. By the way, this is unrelated, but are you aware of Naomi Wolf accusing Harold Bloom of harassment at Yale back in the 80's...-- See aldaily.com

Over to you,

T.S.

Max Weber - that quintessential German "modernist-conservative pessimist"

From: "tombot"
To: "erico"
Subject: An Excerpt from Modern Sociology Relating to Your Existential Categories
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:03:05 -0500

To: Eric O

In the midst of searching for a new topic - something worth writing about that has the aura of being "cutting edge" I chanced to stumble upon Max Weber - that quintessential German "modernist-conservative pessimist" - A very heavy label to carry around no doubt. He was someone who tried to be "radically honest" and [somewhat like Heidegger] fell into despair about our modern situation as representing a form of fate that could not be overcome. He's a very intriguing example of someone who wants to believe in something higher- but has no discernible, tangible evidence to go by. He clings to science - yet cannot help but admit its limitations as a substitute religion. He's great when it comes to talking about "all that spiritual energy out there with no place to go." I pass this on because something Weber says reminds me of your Enneagram-like schema of existential "coping-strategies". Listen to the following and tell me if it doesn't remind you of some of your categories:

"In the Zeischenbetrachtun or as it is known in t English translation, "Religious Rejections of the World and their Directions, first published in 1915 and then appended to the very end of the first volume of the Sociology of Religion, [Max] Weber begins to confront the most serious responses to the threatening constraints of the iron cage [i.e. our modern-day work environment as secular prisonhouse where vocational calling/narrow specialization= replacement for traditional salvation]. Weber provides a commentary on the relentless struggles waged by those dwelling within the different life orders and value spheres in their attempts to cope with the historically given world through adaptation, rationalization, manipulation, escape. [!!!!! HERE -- HERE -- HERE !!!!!!] Although other aspects of the text can be deciphered such as the influential typology of asceticism and mysticism or the implicit schema for understanding action orientations they are subordinate in importance to the great cultural theme ---- the enormous tensions among the various orders of life in confronting the "fate of our times." the search for replies and routes of escape from withn culture ---- that builds the groundwork for Weber's entire inquiry." - From Fleeing the Iron Cage


And here's another line that caught my attention:

""In Weber's terminology religious rejections of the world are characterized in terms of an ethic of brotherliness - which is a species of an absolutist ethic of pure intentions, conviction or ultimate ends. Although the ambiguous category ethicas cannot in itself be a sphere of value with its own lawful autonomy Weber's entire treatment of the religious sphere of action and valuation must be interpretaed as suggesting there are distinctively absolutist ethical paths [decidedly secular in content yet] sharing an affinity with the ascetic religious life, that some choose to follow as a way of counteracting the dilemmas of living in this world. With respect to action claiming political standing, notably syndicalism and some variants of socialism belonging here for Weber, they master the demands of inner-worldly existence by imaginatively replacing the present life-world with another world and above all by claiming to discipline the self. They represent what are in themselves apolitical ethical positions, thrust into the political realm and thus "political" in their effects but advanced with the aim of transforming that very realm and compelling it to be "moral." - From Fleeing the Iron Cage


Interesting -- Interesting -- I like this description of the conflict as one of either accepting and adapting to the political [Machiavelli - Political Realism] vs. seeking to engage and transform it [socialism - liberal progressivism] vs. needing to escape from it [ asceticism - other-worldly religion]. Does that cover all the bases -- and if so -- where does Christian theology come into play? Do the theologians speak to these issues in theology class? I ask you...

- T.S.

Somewhere between faith and doubt

Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2004 09:03:31 -0800 (PST)
From: "Erico"
Subject: checking in
To: Tombot

Dear Tom,

I trust the new year finds you and your family well. At least, I hope so.

I am doing my computer work and listening to conservative talk radio on my drives. Polarizing, clarifying. Addictive.

I have thoughts of writing my screenplay, my novel, still. But can someone who doesn't engage the world really have the perspective, the credibility, to write? That's how I see my life to some degree, I don't know how much it's true. Milton said, they also serve who only stand and wait. I struggle with this statement. I only seem to wait, caught somewhere between faith and doubt. A priest gave a sermon lately in which he said it's no virtue to sit on your hands out of politeness to others' mistaken views. Let's at least allow for a dialectic to ensue (my words). Dr. Laura told a caller that you can't let a perfection complex keep you from giving of your talent, even though it isn't perfect, or excellent. So much for my struggles.

I've been reading a fellow online, at lileks.com. Reminds me of John K. a bit. Bright, well spoken, funny, prolific. I feel like a dormant chemical compound, and when I read James Lileks, it acts as an enabler? that brings the chemicals to life, and suddenly my intellect is kick started, and I want to join in in the conversation in my limited capacity. What do you call that chemical that allows another chemical to react? How many 'ins' can I stick in a poorly constructed sentence? A failed metaphor, but oh well.

What are your prospects? How is F.? The kids? Again, I hope you are well.

Eric

P.S. C. and I were recently commenting on the one thing we wish we had happen at an otherwise wonderful wedding--a toast from Tom. Wondering what you might have said and sorry we didn't make sure it happened. Not sure if you were disappointed or relieved, or both. That's the risk when you have a casual wedding. At any rate, the casualness suited us and we were so very blessed and thankful you made the trip.

Who's in charge?

From: "tombot"
To: erico
Subject: More Stuff re Polarizing, Clarifying, Addictive
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 09:57:06 -0500

Eric

Well - what's happening in the universe? I wish I had more access to news and information. I get exposed to more children's tv than is good for me. You mentioned something about a dormant chemical compound in relation to some person you're reading on line (I've never heard of him - Does he have his own website?). What does he say that's so great? (I know nothing about him...) Are you still reading Girard? I think of all these voices out there on the web. Who's in charge? Who has real power and authority? There's sort of a radical equality attached to it all - isn't there? It's the same way in academia.. Who decides what is relevant or deep or cutting-edge? Who is in a position to sort through all of the opinions? It's no fun (for me at least) just "sharing a point of view" if it's going to be merely "accepted" as "one's reporter's opinion"(i.e. assimilated into the mass and then neglected). But - that sort of is the problem of modern life- finding an appropriate form of recognition. We're all formally recognized - but not always in a tangible way. Your Thoughts?

P.S.

I'll have to dig up that wedding toast I had written down somewhere. I don't know if it could match the one you gave. Sorry for my case of "nerves" - it was right after 9/11...

that lousy APA "conference"

From: "Tombot"
To: erico
Subject: RE: checking in
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:18:06 -0500

Eric -

Thanks for writing. We got your wonderful Christmas card in the mail - with J, L, and C- Am I getting all those names right? Sorry we didn't get ours in the mail. The last couple of months have been very hectic to say the least. I've basically been scrambling to find whatever work I can for next year. We drove to D.C. and back in late December for that lousy APA "conference" - i.e. the annual dehumanizing job fair and free for all. (I've already been rejected from the University of Colorado by the way, not to mention Princeton, Harvard, Illinois, Massachusetts, Vermont, etc.). Currently I'm hoping for something to pan out at a community college in northern California. That's my best best - but I've learned not to put all eggs in one basket. It would be much easier if it were just me as a wandering academic nomad living from broom closet to broom closet- but with a family in tow there's a lot at stake. Unfortunately - the pressures of life - surviving, paying the bills - have made me more myopic than I would have liked. (Sorry for my inactivity as email correspondent). I think a lot these days about the meaning of "success" and "failure" . I'm trying to come up with a third category - that would make failure seem healthy by comparison. Let's call the third category "avoidance" - something I know a lot about. I feel lousy about having failed so often in philosophy - but my failures at least have demanded some effort. My "avoidances" are much more problematic. What's done is done. I avoided many golden opportunities in the 90's and now I'm paying the price. So - 5 years after ABD I'm at last trying to send out things for publication - and it's a sure bet that some of what I send out will be rejected - but there is a feeling of satisfaction from saying "at least I tried." I know that sounds cliche - but it's part of my new year's resolution to turn avoidances into failures and perhaps a singular, erstwhile failure into a small success. I would recommend you sending out that "message in a bottle" (screenplay, chapter 1 of novel) to whatever recipient you deem appropriate. You will likely get a response of some sort that will prove invigorating. I'm tempted to do the same myself - I have much to say about the pretensions of life in academia... Over to you...

-Tom