I found a series of fictional advertisements in the style of political negative campaigning against various “candidates”. Most amusing.
Kierkegaard in ‘08
Descartes Attack Ad
Down with Hume
AC1
Update: Found two more Kant related spoofs: Kant: The Motion Picture and Kant Book Review.
“But I don’t even believe in Jebus!”
A classic quote from the Simpsons, where Homer, forced into missionary activity for his failure to honour a donation to a PBS fundraiser, takes the path of Peter and denies belief.
Rowan Williams (now Archbishop of Canterbury) once said of the Simpsons it “is one of the most subtle pieces of propoganda around in the cause of sense, humility and virtue.” and continuing in his review of a book “The Gospel According to the Simpsons” says “Mark Pinsky manages to decipher the code without deadening the humour which is quite an achievement.”
All comedy, indeed all narratives and utterances and communications are according to the postmodernists codes.
And in that very Simspons quote above (biblically inspired and borderline sacrilege) lies the essence of the coding in humour. Who would have thought (I didn’t until recently) that Jebus was actually the name of the city of Jerusalem before King David conquered it?!
The theological value of the Simpsons lies in its ability to do three things in particular. It presents the Simpson family as a religiously observant family (note this does not make them saints) and thus reflects the reality of life in America and other parts of the world. Secondly it conveys a variety of moral dilemmas in its storylines (without being preachy or even committing to one particular worldview). Finally it treats institutional religion with the same satirical criticism as it treats all institutions - the “Church” has its faults just as does freemarket Capitalism, but it does not propose the abolition of religion nor promote Communism.
Laughing about religion is important - particularly in the abrahamic religions where humility is presented as a virtue. But is it possible to go too far?
I think the problem lies in an inability to decode the Gospel (if you are Christian) and an unwillingness to read the text existentially. Jesus as the scriptures point out is human, and a part of humanity is humour. But few people seem to talk about Jesus in the vein of a comedian or teller of jokes.
Why is this? Well three possibilities. Some of what Jesus says or some of the Gospel narrative is serious (Crucifixion is particularly difficult to satirize without arousing cries of insensitivity - irrespective of the religious aspect to Crucifixion it is one should imagine a fairly painful and nasty thing to have happen or to witness). Some of the humour that Jesus uses is perhaps lost in transcription (you had to be there to get it), lost in translation, or simply lost in encoding for the modern reader. And of course some religous believers amplify an aspect of their religious heritage to the dimunition of another (thus the divinity of Jesus is preciously guarded by the morally sensitive, but his teachings to turn the other cheek, his dire warnings of the persecutions suffered on his behalf are forgotten).
I think the first and last point are the most relevant regards causing and taking offence and as has been discussed on this blog ad nauseum there is certainly room for a little leeway on both sides. One can cause offence but one can also seek to be offended and self-censorship (the only kind that has any worth) can be practised by all parties.
Elton Trueblood an American Quaker theologian wrote an interesting book called Humor of Christ (sic) on the subject of a joking Jesus. He suggests that indeed some parts of the Gospel narrative are intrinsically unfunny and that it may be rather difficult to find any humour in certain parts of the narrative. But he says it is a misconception (often peddled by humourless Christians) that it is all to be taken seriously and that there was no comedy at all in Jesus’s teachings.
He describes Jesus’s humour as being ironic, sardonic, and on occasions where needed sarcastic. Thus the inconsistent Peter (he of the prophesied denials) is nicknamed “the Rock”. The parables are full of sly, wry and absurdist and surrealist imagery, beam and mote, gnat and camel, camel and the eye of the needle (to mention just a couple of examples). Trueblood concurs with my suggestion (or vice versa) that there is probably also a great deal more humour that has been lost in translation.
I certainly will need to re-analyze many gospel texts in order to see if there is plenty more humour available. Matheww 24:28 for example is cited as an example of Jesus’s self-deprecating humour. Describing his ability to draw a crowd he says “Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.”
However as Pinsky argues a joking Jesus is not the same as a Jesus joke and perhaps it is at this juncture we must return to the problem of offence (caused and taken). Trueblood offers perhaps the best descriptive advice on the matter when he says:
” The only kind of laughter which can be redemptive is that which goes beyond scorn to recognition of a common predicament.”
It is for that reason that I have always found Father Ted funny, and find much in the Life of Brian that is virtuous. But it is that thin balance between laughing amongst ourselves (both believers and unbelievers together) at the hypocrisy, or idiosyncracies of those persons or institutions that hold themselves up as a paradigm of virtue, and the more sinister scornfulness that seems a predicate to prejudice of the most vulgar kind. How many ‘attacks’ on Islam are less about the religion and its values than about the cultures that have embraced it?
I guess I havent really added anything new to this debate. After all what price freedom? But perhaps I would repeat my old adage that the concept of “rights” is really a concept about competing values. The right to freedom of speech is put in peril next to the right to freedom of religious belief, or freedom from persecution. Once the debate turns to “rights” inevitably the argument becomes circular.
Well now I need to wrap it up - before this post becomes circular. Clearly some notion of balance is required but wherein can one find the common denominator that everyone of belief or nonbelief can adhere to and agree with? My only suggestion humbly proffered - but pessimistic of already - is a retreat from notions of objectivity and the embrace of subjectivity.
Being lazy and not writing reviews. Speaking of language, this made me laugh: NZ judge orders ‘odd’ name change
AC1
I have returned from holiday and I have been busy reading.
Yes Man by Danny Wallace
After enjoying his previous book “Join Me”, I was looking forward to a new series of adventures of Danny. He vows to say YES to every opportunity or suggestion that presents itself. This temporarily leads to his new appreciation of life and to enjoy embracing opportunities. After a time this reverses to a weariness of this irresponsible life style.
‘…I don’t want to be like I was, but I’m so sick of saying Yes. All it does is tire me. It was supposed to help. It was supposed to be exciting.’
Ian put his pool cue down, and nodded, sadly.
‘What Yes giveth,’ he said, ‘Yes also taketh away.’
Danny begins to question the value of Yes and the existential value of his project.
What was I doing with my life? I mean, really? What was the point in all this? To waste six hours of my day on a train? To wake up confused and bewildered in a Dutch hotel room? To severely annoy my ex-girlfriend? What was I gaining from this, really? Apart from a car and some mild abuse?
He does find new energy to persist saying Yes to life. It begins to become instinctual and effortless.
…I wasn’t saying Yes because I was playing the Yes game. I’d all but forgotten about that. I wasn’t saying Yes to prove anything to myself any more, or to Ian, or to anyone else. I was saying Yes because I wanted to. I was saying Yes because all of a sudden it was coming naturally.
The book ends with a transition away from “Yes” to a more settled and mature way of life. To gratuitously quote Nietzsche, he would have approved of Danny’s embrace of life:
“Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy Yea unto life” Zarathustra
but probably would not have agreed with saying Yes to all opportunities. Sometimes No is necessary.
“All-satisfiedness, which knoweth how to taste everything, that is not the best taste! I honour the refractory, fastidious tongues and stomachs, which have learned to say “I” and “Yea” and “Nay.” To chew and digest everything, however- that is the genuine swine-nature! Ever to say YEA that hath only the ass learned, and those like it!” Zarathustra
The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster by Bobby Henderson
The Gospel is a parody and reductio ad absurdum against the Intelligent Design movement. The core argument is if religion can be taught in schools and given legal protection, then this spoof religion, featuring the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) as God, is equally deserving of the same benefits.
I think we can all look forward to a time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one-third for Intelligent Design, one-third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one-third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
The book takes several of the classical arguments (First Cause, Ontological, Design, Logical arguments) and adapts them to suit the FSM. The fact that their logic is flawed is presumably intended as a criticism of the original arguments. There is also an amusing spoof of Genesis featuring the FMS as a very incompetent, slightly insane, ego-maniacal creator God. One or two sections are intended as an improvement of Christian values. The Eight “I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts” basically reduce to “be tolerant of others”, “have a good time” and “don’t be religiously pretentious”.
All in all a good read for people interested in the Intelligent Design movement.
I will write a review of Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig when I have a chance.
Anti Citizen One
This weekend saw an enormous fire break out at the Universal Film Studios in Los Angeles. Now apart from the ecological impact, and the possibility of losing some valuable film material this really isnt a story liable to interest me. They are sufficiently rich to be able to rebuild.
News Article here.
However in amongst the details of the story came my quote of the week, from Los Angeles City Councilman Tom LaBonge who offered these words of wisdom:
“It looked like a disaster film”
Ok, I could comment on how ironic this would be, but I realised this has a more serious side to it (intentionally or not). Jean Baudrillard postmodernist philosopher who spent years writing about the real and the hyperreal, signs and signifiers, simulacra and simulation, once had something interesting to say on this matter. I had always found it interesting but had found practical examples elusive.
In arguably his most famous work Simulacra and Simulation he proposes that modern technological man has slowly but thoroughly replaced reality and meaning with symbols and signs. And that mans experience of the real, is more often than not these days an artifical experience of a simulated reality. The signs of culture and media create our percieved reality. Baudrillard goes so far as to suggest that we have got to a stage where we have lost contact with the real, so reliant are we upon these simulacra.
A pop-culture reference to this work could be found in sci-fi film The Matrix (though Baudrillard thought it was a distortion of his ideas).
Anyway it seemed worthy of comment that not only is it ironic that one should describe a devestating fire at a film studio as being like watching a disaster movie - but perhaps this is an example of the linguistic shift away from the real that Baudrillard was on about. The fire wasnt described as being a disaster (which it was), but as being like a disaster movie, which is only a simulation of the real thing. The “real” thing, was so “realistic”, it was just like the “realistic simulation” of the “real” thing we are so used to seeing on our movie screens!!!
Perhaps I am doing a terrible injustice to the poor politician who was hired as a rent-a-quote, but it does all remind me of another Baudrillard quip once made concerning America.
“Disneyland helps us to forget that the rest of America is essentially a theme park.”
More people need to be aware of the dangers of fan death. I cite the cromulent Wikipedia as a reliable source of this phenomena….
Beware! Beware!
AC1
William of Rubruck was a Flemish missionary and explorer. In 1253 he set out from Constantinople to convert the Tatar Mongols. In 1254 he met the Khan. He provided an account of his travels and the events that occured and it is considered a masterpiece of medieval geographical literature.
Whilst in the Khan’s court he was asked to debate Buddhist and Muslim scholars in order to discern whose Faith was the true one. A judge was appointed to consider each case. A large crowd gathered and as was common to this culture vast quantities of alcohol were consumed. Here follows a brief overview of the debate, if only all theology and philosophy of religion was done this way!
“No side seemed to convince the other of anything. Finally, as the effects of the alcohol became stronger, the Christians gave up trying to persuade anyone with logical arguments, and resorted to singing. The Muslims, who did not sing, responded by loudly reciting the Koran in an effort to drown out the Christians, and the Buddhists retreated into silent mediation. At the end of the debate, unable to convert or kill one another, they concluded the way most Mongol celebrations concluded, with everyone simply too drunk to continue.” —Jack Weatherford, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, p. 173
Just a quick and not too serious observation on the song “A Boy Named Sue” by Johnny Cash. The protagonist, Sue, is victimized because of his name and and he swears to get revenge on this father - this is slave morality.
He does track down his father, fights - wins - and has his father at gun point. His father tells him:
“Son, this world is rough
And if a man’s gonna make it, he’s gotta be tough
…
And it’s the name that helped to make you strong.
…
But ya ought to thank me, before I die,
For the gravel in ya guts and the spit in ya eye
Cause I’m the son-of-a-bitch that named you “Sue.’
Essentially the father argues that Sue’s identity is not simply not the “good” and “bad” parts but the totality has to be considered. Without Sue’s tough life, Sue would not have surpassed his father at all. Victimhood as a label (self applied or assigned) is subjective. People can choose to view things in any way they choose - that can be in a positive (master morality) or negative light (seeing yourself as victim). (”From the Military School of Life - Whatever does not kill me makes me stronger.” FN)
It also illustrates the usefulness of enemies. Without challenges in life, we might would be forced to remain sedentary. Without some opposition and risk in life, life would be pointless. We should not seek to eliminate enemies because that would be unnecessary - we can benefit from them (but not through their intent, obviously). Would G W Bush still be in power without terrorist enemies? They certainly benefited someone.
If Sue was not called Sue or If Sue killed his father, it would have rejected this idea completely. And it would not have been a cool song!
“Happiness is the exercise of vital powers, along lines of excellence, in a life affording them scope.” (The Greek Way, 1964) - although will to “happiness” is perhaps misleading. There is sometime broader than happiness that we strive for?
Anti Citizen One
I will file this news item under loss of freedom and humour I think…
“Supermarket staff refused to sell alcohol to a white-haired 72-year-old man - because he would not confirm he was over 21.” BBC
Its a mad, mad world.
AC1
Recent Comments