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.
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.
posted by erico at 6:19 PM
5 Comments:
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 21:37:27 -0800 (PST)
From: "Erico"
Subject: Re: Reply to Yours
To: "Tombot"
Hello again, Tom. First, the news. C. is expecting our *fourth* child. Whoa. The shock has worn off a bit by now. C. was stunned, as it is a long and demanding time, as I'm sure you know. We are doing well, now.
I don't know much about Lacan, except David
F. told me a number of his patients commited
suicide. That's not an endorsement of his methods.
Candidate for ironic religiosity: Anna Quindlin (see her Newsweek article this week)
Candidate for true believership: Pat Buchanan
I think the question about choosing a side in the
philosophical debate, secularism or fanaticism, is my faith struggle writ large. Take the message of Jesus, with his insights into violence, his call to love neighbor and enemy, by interpreting the meaning of the miracles, but leave behind the miracles, leave behind the 'Christology from above', *or* take the God of Israel entering into history in the ultimate way by sending His Son, who died for our sins and rose from the dead on the third day and will come again at the last day. Could it be that philosophical inquiries
are so intense because these are the issues behind
them? One's own faith position? Whether a
secularist, atheist, or a believer, the question is
before him.
I think there is so much more that can be said when
one is questioned about one's faith than that "I know the truth when I see it". You don't do yourself
justice. But that is certainly one reason I have been so intensely, personally interested in the argument over whether objective truth may be known, (Augustine,
Lonergan, Kant, et cetera) and how God may reveal
himself. Especially in the post enlightenment world,
so sure of itself without God.
Ultimately the questioner has to be seeking the truth
and not being an accuser. Meaning, just as we have
been discussing, that one has to be implicated in the
argument, one has to have something at stake.
Defenses must drop. Else no prophet will be accepted
in his own village, no miracles will be possible where there is no faith.
Contrast this to Stephen Dedalus who decides he is an
athiest because he would believe in God if he woke up
every morning for a month and told himself God exists.
There's an interesting argument to work out.
The reason I am focusing so much on traditional
religion is that the faith is a call to a deep prayer
life, a deep relationship with Jesus. Not a theory,
or a policy. The reason I am saying things said a
thousand times before, and said better, is that
suddenly they hold meaning for me, in their
simplicity, whereas before they may have remained
opaque. Nameley, Humility. Poverty of spirit.
The author who wrote the unbearable lightness of being, Milan Kundera, wrote about writing, and avered the purpose of the novel is to do what only it can do. He would meditate on certain words that he wanted to reveal in their existential meaning, through the play of a novel. Suddenly a world of meaning opens up beyond the everyday use of the terms.
Regarding the post-Christian Zizek having something to teach Christians, I am reminded of something attributed to Dostoyevsky, that the Christian should not be too harsh in judging the athiest, and especially in these times. That there may be something honest and searching in their position, in opposition to the ironic believer and the true believer. the keen spirit that detects hypocrisy, complacency.
But again that person, if they are in an honest
position before the void, is in fact waiting to have
that conversation with the Christian. To hear the
word. It is difficult to say when they become
poseurs. I would suggest it is close to the time when
they adopt a position toward the world, and enact it (the Possessed), as opposed to the tormented soul contemplating suicide.
I fear my words are becoming less focused, more
general, as the conversation draws out. I am reduced to having to adopt and adapt what you have given me from Zizek and Lacan and Max Weber to fit what it is I want to say, because I simply haven't read them, and
cannot enter the conversation on their own terms. That may in fact be a blessing, now that I think about it, since I don't have to bow before their intellects but may be bold enough to offer my own judgment. But I do agree that posting this thread as a blog, preserving it, would be worthwhile.
Thanks again, and God bless
Eric
From: "Tombot"
To: "Erico"
Subject: Re: Reply to Yours
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 10:19:21 -0500
Eric:
Congrats on the good news. Any names picked out? Wow - You sure have more stamina than I do. We are just now finding that much-hoped-for "breathing space" with our two little youngsters. I forgot to ask if you had moved already since I remember you talking about it way back when. I will need to write down your new address. Regarding our dialogue, I think it would be healthy to write out an extended answer to the question: "What do you believe in and why?" [with the proviso: will our respective answers sound "scandalous", "eccentric", "untenable" or "rational", "restrained", "cautiously de-mythologized" - "palatable" to a modern audience?] I guess that's what this whole conversation isreally about. We seem to be moving in the direction of writing all this down - the words perhaps will write themselves. I agree that an "answer" can and should be given - something more than simply "you'll know the Truth when you see it," - I think this latter formulation is intended to underscore the need for a proper spirit of receptivity vis-a-vis the Truth - Maybe better to say, "You'll know it only if you are ready for something you were'nt expecting." In thinking about the importance of being a "witness" to the Resurrection - it seems to me that it has a lot to do with breaking out of the existing mold... a confirmation of something old - along with something new attached. Yes - the Messiah has arrived - but he's someone very different from what anyone had expected. Wasn't the original prophecy something like `The King will Rule, establishing peace and justice over all the Earth - and (best of all) punishing our enemies once and for all!' - Instead the message comes back: The Almighty has abdicated His throne and as a result has been rejected on a cross as an anonymous peasant - along with many other anonymous peasants. What can all this mean? That's got to be quite a shock to the existing psyche...Yet - when the remnant considers the matter amongst themselves, the ripple effect takes over. Illumination: Power is purified along with self-justifying ambition. We no longer hope for divine vengeance - God on our side -helping to crush our enemies. Our sense of hope/gratitude is now made inseparable from the path of humility and accountability. The world is less melodramatic and thus genuinely redeemable. Salvation and Revelation in effect fly below the radar screen. Less fireworks, more subtlety. We worship Truth in its purity - as a "someone helpless and vulnerable like ourselves" -- not as deus ex machina sent to destroy the oppressor (Roman Empire, et al). The "rejected stone" becomes the "cornerstone" - that to me is the essence of Christianity. The pagan mythological order seems to reflect a sort of complacency about our worldly predicament [i.e. the power game]. We tell ourselves it's the gods and fate - nothing we can do about it. Christianity talks about breaking out of this "confining narrative" - but not through overt revolution. Not even through gnostic strategies of rebellion. Rather through something akin to "obedient contemplation" - seeing the world anew -thoughtful participation - faith as interpretative transformation. Pagan theodicy could not really speak to the interiority of Human Desire per se. The internal/external divide is the source of the tragic. Yet With Incarnation/Crucifixion/Resurrection, the emphasis on a necessary transformation of Desire/Expectation is striking. To be happy - our desires, [expectations, aspirations, dreams, ambitions] must be purified into a new set of concerns. But not as something whereby we "subjectively" re-write the terms of our own existence - rebuilding the universe all over again according to our immediate demands. This is where Zizek as Hegelian makes a fatal blunder. Christianity is for him simply what the community of believers decides to create for themselves in the absence of the Big Other. (ditto Lacan) Hegel's objective truth as universalized conventionalism. Authentic Christianity, by contrast, seems to require an objective locus of concern - the Truth is here - with a definite point of entry. It is always something shocking and unnerving - but at the same time - exhilirating. I don't think anyone - not even the surliest of Biblical scholars could eliminate that portal. Over the you...
T.S.
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 11:10:23 -0800 (PST)
From: "Erico"
Subject: Re: Reply to Yours
To: "Tombot"
Hi Tom,
Regarding the subtlety of truth, and my prior
elaboration of truth as coming out of silence, it is
from this position that i can find respect for the
opposing side of a political argument. If truth is a unity, and the world is fractured, multivalent, dual, then of necessity each person can only approach truth from one side or another, and each person is liable to find himself on one side or another for understandable reasons, and we must affirm that each side is inadequate, but is also a path that may lead to
proximity with truth. The further you get from the
truth, the louder the shouting from both sides gets. Sort of like the geometric 'asymptotic lines' that remain the horizon, or limit, toward which a parabola approaches but never gets to touch. There is even an equation by which two parabolas mirror each other, each approaching the line from the opposite side of the asymptotic line. And analogously you could talk
about truth as a stable state, and the further you get from it the reverberations begin to grow sympathetically, like those old movies that show
suspension bridges wobbling violently back and forth
in the wind, prior to breaking.
Perhaps I go on too long ...
One thing I notice about your ruminations, if I may be so bold, is that you seem to have ever before your eyes the skeptic who may be listening in, or whom you may even be addressing directly. So, in writing down 'what I believe and why', there is a restriction that we bear in mind how another may take it, e.g. "will our respective answers sound "scandalous",
"eccentric", "untenable" or "rational", "restrained",
"cautiously de-mythologized" - "palatable" to a modern audience?" I consider whether the purpose of the proviso is to try to move beyond subjective experience to something that may be shared communally, publicly, ie reach for objectivity, or whether we are rying to make a case that a group of intellectuals might approve of. I am far less interesed in the atter. Because I am a snob and look down on them.
But also because there is some truth to saying, "Do
not throw pearls before swine." I recognize that such a position of defiance may not be so open to you in
your position as philosopher teaching at an academy of higher learning. A third intention may be to be able to guage how many assumptions we share with "the world", to look at ourselves objectively to see where faith needs to grow, where we need to be challenged. But what was your intention, I cannot come to a decision.
Regarding the rest of your mail, I agree with just about everything you said.
Eric
From: "Tombot"
To: "Erico"
Subject: Re: Reply to Yours
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2004 15:31:34 -0500
Eric,
You're exactly right - I AM hyper-conscious of how "Christianity" is playing out in the real world - and among the intellectuals - since so many of them are obsessed with getting rid of it. At the very least, I want it to be taken seriously as a compelling life-option - rather than dismissed as some wildly antiquated, irrationalist fantasy. I'm obssessed with the question of relevance in the here and now. But to gain a foothold as it were - to jump-start the conversation - do we begin with our own set of "scandalous assumptions" or those of our skeptical interlocutors with whom we seek an audience? What I would hope to do is to show how Christianity is always something other than the stereotype of what people (including ourselves) take it to be; the very essence of Christianity requires that we go beyond the de facto consensus (filled as it is with stereotypes and reductionisms). I don't like hearing this great religion "batted around" and "distorted" ... But it almost seems to be of the nature of something so radically open (hence vulnerable to abuse) to become a "play-thing" for all of us. Zizek and other postmodernists are important, I believe, because they are helping to re-discover (albeit indirectly) the aura of fascination surrounding this strangest of faiths that simply will not go away.
P.S. You're right about intellectuals/academics - the ivory tower functions by means of an elaborate system of ritualistic conformity - it is very much like lemmings trying to keep pace with their own self-exulting visions of Enlightenment.
Tom
>From: Eric Ortwerth
>To: Thomas Sheehy
>Subject: Re: Reply to Yours
>Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:13:10 -0800 (PST)
>
>Hi Tom,
>
>Right after I hit the send button I began to doubt
>that I ought to have called attention to what you call
>your hyper-consciousness of how Christianity is taken
>by the world and intellectuals. Because I didn't want
>you to take it as a criticism. But after I sent it, I
>thought I ought to give you the chance to respond
>before I said anything else about it. I am now glad I
>did press send. An intellectual defense of
>Christianity may be your call, your vocation. It
>seems to be your project, not chosen but simply
>discovered. But it may also be a stumbling block, and
>cause you anxiety. That's why I say that what is most
>compelling is what comes from a position of humility,
>poverty, and aloneness before God. My motto is: "If
>you are hoping to win the approval of the world it
>will only break your heart", as fascinating as a
>conversation with Christopher Hitchens may be. I just
>read an interview with him on frontpagemag.com and in
>it he takes the line that it is religious belief
>itself that is most dangerous to peace and stability.
>Such a tired idea. He lumps in Jerry Falwell with
>Osama Bin Laden. His higher viewpoint is openly
>marxist. It seems to me that the intellectual academy
>has passed him by, british enlightenment atheism is
>old hat by now, isn't it? Much more avant garde to be
>defining your own reality, to take atheism as a
>jumping off point into 'your own thing', [removed for privacy], the
>cutting of ties between a word and its referent,
>deconstructions of other people's views, the free play
>of the imagination, Carlos Castaneda on peyote, the
>sciences as builders of the sepulchre for a dead god,
>on which the strange and the unfettered dance freely.
>
>Excuse me, getting a little poetic there. With
>Prometheus unbound, there is little reason to care for
>your fellow man. Not that you might not still feel
>sympathetic, at least for a few generations, it's just
>that it's a matter of taste. I do respect Hitchens'
>enduring position of sympathy for the oppressed and
>victimized, but I wonder whether he takes that
>position for granted, as if it were self-evident? If
>you kill God, and his prohibitions, I would much
>rather and much more likely respond as Conan the
>Barbarian did in answering the question, "What is best
>in Life?" "To drive your enemies before you, and hear
>the lamentations of the women."
>
>This calls to mind Girard's analysis of the
>Judeo-Christian revelation of God as the one who sees
>the victim, "I hear your brother's blood crying out
>from the ground." Western civilization was "infected"
>with this perspective and its growth can be traced
>through western history. So, to think that it can
>just be taken as a given is somewhat self-justifying
>and self-deluded. British rationalism is founded on
>the goods brought about by Christ's sacrifice. They
>are, as C.S. Lewis pointed out, involved in cutting
>down the tree limb upon which they are sitting.
>
>Girard also has a great line about how the so called
>intellectuals are so dismissive of religion and the
>common people who practice it, yet it is the great
>truths that common people intuit in religion that the
>intellectuals miss entirely. In short, religion
>speaks of important matters to us, matters of life and
>death.
>
>I'm sure Hitchens is far more nuanced than I give him
>credit for. But those who are dismissive are not
>likely to hear you when you speak, you just speak
>because Jesus said, "Let those who have ears to hear,
>hear."
>
>Moving on, I think I will try to create some space
>where I will be able to write down "what I believe and
>why." I'll probably wait until the time is right,
>rather than try to force it, so that 'it writes
>itself'.
>
>Eric
Post a Comment
<< Home