tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1035342043847348767.post4779306170654414810..comments2023-11-05T04:26:23.559-08:00Comments on diegetics: Alternate Lives and Virtual Realitieserek.tinkerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12455767415590191328noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1035342043847348767.post-52462634620467713172008-11-17T14:14:00.000-08:002008-11-17T14:14:00.000-08:00Erek-The difficulty I have here, and continue to h...Erek-<BR/>The difficulty I have here, and continue to have, with your thinking is that all of this speculation, and abstract speculation at that. We absolutely can’t know very much about the. Ehrenfield has a really good book, called the Arrogance of Humanism, in which he points out that the big problem with the world of the mind (Humanism/Enlightenment) is that it moves faster than it can be tested. That is, results come in much later, and future generations have moved on – they no longer even understand what to be looking due to the lag time. http://www.amazon.com/Arrogance-Humanism-Galaxy-Books/dp/0195028902 Our gray cells actually change very slowly, but we have forced ourselves to compute complex, essential, life/death problems in split seconds. Is it any wonder we are going insane? Older forms of thought provide a way of dealing with this, which is what they were intended to do all along. As far as God’s attribute of dark wisdom is concerned, there is no reason He can’t accomplish good at the same time that evil occurs – this is what is astounding to the rational faculty, and dismaying to thought – the fact that He uses our sins doesn’t mean there wasn’t a better way to do it to begin with. God will never fall off His throne, but we can surely do things the hard way. So, we have to do what we know is right in our conscience, even if it is mistaken (Saint Paul talks about this). Jonathan’s Corner http://jonathanscorner.com/tms/ has experimented with the idea of difference within varieties of the Good, without the supposedly necessary presence of evil. Is there a way to come up with creative solutions to problems, on the political level, where everybody wins?Matthew C Smallwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08234878138545287306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1035342043847348767.post-48965124691083657662008-11-09T14:53:00.000-08:002008-11-09T14:53:00.000-08:00As for the action of 'the soul'. The fact is that...As for the action of 'the soul'. The fact is that there is a real and true and objective reality. What the state is concerned with and has control over is how you acquire your food, how you organize with people around you. Your soul is free to act within any system. The outward system is merely a manifestation of the freedom of the soul. The system today is no more or less free than it has been in the past. Freedom is a buzzword devoid of any real meaning. Another bone for people to fight over. "I am the true champion of liberty!", "No, I am the true champion of liberty!"<BR/><BR/>It doesn't matter, eat your vegetables and try to talk some sense into the hotheaded youths. The world is as it is. God is not in danger and never was. Any narrative that opposes the ultimate truth will fall as fiction.erek.tinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12455767415590191328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1035342043847348767.post-87075128168327276072008-11-09T14:49:00.000-08:002008-11-09T14:49:00.000-08:00Actually I thought that your comments about Said w...Actually I thought that your comments about Said were fabulous. <BR/><BR/>Where I think you and I differ the most is in how the turning point was achieved. Said, and his ilk were given power by people who sought to diminish the distinction between their own worldly ends and Christianity's spiritual ends. <BR/><BR/>In otherwords, 'The Church', became synonymous with 'The Faith'. During the Enlightenment people rebelled against 'The Church', and many of its core assumptions. <BR/><BR/>You say that people can use technology under different beliefs and ethics. While that is true hypothetically, it clearly is not true in how it played out. It was 'The Church' that played the antagonist to enlightenment values. As a natural consequent of believing the entirety of the old narrative to be the 'Christian' narrative, people had to rebel against the Christian narrative. <BR/><BR/>It has always been my contention that it is not Christ people are rebelling against but, 'The Church', which has struggled throughout history with it's localized European pagan accretions. <BR/><BR/>In the future Christ may be salvaged, but the cultural values that are being discarded, might not. <BR/><BR/>As you say, there is no reason why Christ cannot be relevant in a technological era, but even what you call the anti-narrative is encapsulated by a greater narrative of which your pro-narrative, and Said's anti-narrative play Protagonist/Antagonist. <BR/><BR/>Said does have a relevant and valid point. That a bunch of ignorant Europeans marched in and just ran roughshod over local cultures, not even bothering to seek what was valuable in those cultures beyond a materialist perspective. <BR/><BR/>A good book on the subject is "Missionary Conquest" by George Tinker (no relation)<BR/><BR/>Said is merely a backlash against the profound disrespect shown by Europeans for the cultures of the colonies. The colonies thus said, 'No our culture is valid, it does have something to offer.', and the presentation was that either they abandon their traditions in favor of Western tradition or they engage in a perpetual war. Progressive Multiculturalism has tried to reconcile differences, unity in plurality, to limited success. <BR/><BR/>The root of the problem comes in directly with the notion of the 'anti-narrative'. The very idea that there is a 'true' narrative and an 'anti-narrative' causes all sorts of problems. Everyone brings out their inner pagan and assumes that they and their culture have a better access to the true narrative. So instead of Gods today we have the battle of the truer narratives. My narrative is truthier than yours. <BR/><BR/>The reality of it is that the true narrative encompasses all possible narratives, the real and the fictional. The competing narratives you refer to are actually competing meta-narratives contained within the one true narrative. The narrative that if one is to accept that Jesus Christ is real and actually rules, then it is his narrative. <BR/><BR/>The problem is that Progressives are railing against a false Christ, and Conservatives are standing up for a myriad number of false Christs.erek.tinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12455767415590191328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1035342043847348767.post-87575854254694139382008-11-09T14:37:00.000-08:002008-11-09T14:37:00.000-08:00Actually I thought that yourActually I thought that yourerek.tinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12455767415590191328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1035342043847348767.post-28116058980541843312008-11-08T05:50:00.000-08:002008-11-08T05:50:00.000-08:00Erek-Your me+circumstances= life is exactly the fo...Erek-<BR/>Your me+circumstances= life is exactly the formula Ortega y Gasset proclaimed, literally (I forget how it reads in Spanish, a curse of older age). y Gasset addressed this in the "Revolt of the Masses". <BR/>Please forgive the long comment about Said - the point is that "what happens when a majority (51%) choose to live in enforced community"? And if our tools determine social paradigms of thought, couldn't it also limit the individual response which we both agree to call "soul" and think is valid? <BR/>Just trying to make sense out of the traditional/progressive divide. It still seems worthwhile.Matthew C Smallwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08234878138545287306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1035342043847348767.post-1477127181573374322008-11-08T05:35:00.000-08:002008-11-08T05:35:00.000-08:00Erek-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_SaidSaid ...Erek-<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said<BR/><BR/>Said openly said that the “deconsecration” and “demystication” of Europe was the desirable, prime goal of true subaltern studies (post-axiological, post-imperial anti-narrative). To do this, one had to potray the Raj as a force for evil in the world, not only in a hypothetically modern time, but even in its own. A subjective sense of oppression becomes the leading motif. This is the starting point, and the prior oppression under native rulers, or the existence of female mutilation or suttee (abolished under the white devil rule) is immaterial to the point of the new narrative, which is the achievement of power at the expense of the death of the resurrected hero-god which Europe dimly worshipped.<BR/><BR/>Modern theorists like to portray the decline of Christianity as inevitably part of a vast historical process (which they can adequately and truly discern, although they don’t believe in “knowledge”). In reality, it is the other way around - the rejection of Christianity is anterior to the historical process, which then “shades” towards secularism both as an outworking, and as a self-justification. There is no necessary reason why the application of technology could not be governed by different ideals and belief systems. The limiting factors are conditioning, concepts of justice, systems of governance, and free choice. To a great degree, it is a perfect illusion - “We have no choice but to abandon God and to construct a totally conditioned society.” This is the “progressive” ideal, which is now replacing the liberal one.<BR/><BR/>The postcolonial process is simply a reflection of this. Radical barbarians, such as Said, begin with the rejection of European Christianity (the liturgy and the dogmas), and end up in revolt against imperalistic premises. That the unfortunate over-expansion of Europe could generate a legitimate backlash does not explain the lengths which Said (and others far worse) go in order to perpetuate the idea that the Western canon is completely illusory. They are reasoning from an immanent historical process, with bias against the concrete (reflected in Gnostic underpinnings that go with global liberalism), and with the assumption that they can channel the Zeitgeist accurately. Ultimately, it boils down to the fact that they hold the reins of power now - there will be no Gandhi-like appeal to the bar of their conscience for relief from their consuming anti-narrative. It is now simply a matter of implementing their goals.Matthew C Smallwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08234878138545287306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1035342043847348767.post-42100450995053056072008-10-25T22:33:00.000-07:002008-10-25T22:33:00.000-07:00All valid concerns. However, there is one aspect ...All valid concerns. However, there is one aspect of it. The Freedom itself is involuntary. We HAVE to make a choice because the choice wasn't made for us by the circumstances of culture. <BR/><BR/>Something I have seen is that with this interconnection there is a greater level of community at least around me. I often feel remiss in my inattentiveness to the needs of people I know who are in dire situations because I do know about what is occurring with them.<BR/><BR/>A young friend of mine is recently battling with cancer, and an outpouring of support of people that we know from the underground party scene in New York has been going her way. She has received lots of cakes and other sweets by concerned friends trying to help her gain weight after the chemo. <BR/><BR/>I find myself generally emotionally distant even though I try not to be. Would that be any different if I were in an enforced community? <BR/><BR/>Community is good and I have a very broad community of people who I could seek help from and who if they sought help from me I'd help. The issue though is that there is an emotional distance that I am not sure is a function of the cultural medium in which I exist or not. I think it probably is an intrinsic function of the cultural medium, but also because of who I am. <BR/><BR/>Me+Circumstances = my life<BR/><BR/>That is true regardless of the way community coheres around me.erek.tinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12455767415590191328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1035342043847348767.post-12726141175059501522008-10-25T22:18:00.000-07:002008-10-25T22:18:00.000-07:00"The process of modern life is intrinsically tied ..."The process of modern life is intrinsically tied together by virtual worlds. No longer do we live with our physical neighbors. I spend more time with the members of my corporation in Eve Online than I do with the people whose doors are next to mine in the hall."<BR/><BR/>Erek,<BR/><BR/>To what extent, and under what conditions, is this a welcome development?<BR/><BR/>What you call "virtual" community one might call "elective" or "freely chosen" community; what you call "real" community one might call "involuntary" or "given" community. Involuntary physical proximity traditionally defined community to a large extent. However, even traditionally, the contrast between the involuntary bonds of family, class and nation and the voluntary ties of friendship and (more recently) profession, has been much noted.<BR/><BR/>How much freedom to choose the bounds of one's community is desirable? How do we tend to use such freedom, and does the optimal amount of it depend on our use of it? By the operation of institutionalized free choice, my home and workplace are so located that I need never see a poor person. The poor are hidden way in ghettos, the old in nursing homes, the dying in hospitals and hospices, the deranged in asylums. My moving to Utah (Massachusetts), I could enjoy all this insulation and further insulate myself from ever seeing a Democrat (Republican)! By passing my leisure hours at Daily Kos or New Republic Online, I can replicate the same effect -- but it is the same effect, not a different effect for being achieved "virtually" rather than "physically." And is this wholly good?<BR/><BR/>Insofar as one is not free to choose the bounds of one's community, one must cooperate to solve communal problems. Insofar as one is free to choose one's community, exit substitutes for voice, and one can seek to insulate one's self from problems that do not afflict one directly. Insofar as community can be chosen, it tends to contract in ways that are convenient in the short run, but perilous in the long run.<BR/><BR/>In medieval Christendom, one's community was subject to hardly any individual choice: social and physical position were rigidly determined. Family, village, class, nation and faith were givens, not variables. However, ultimate loyalty was owed to a Church that was at least aspirationally, universal as the parable of the good Samaritan reminds us.<BR/><BR/>Greater individual freedom is good it itself. But greater community is also good in itself, and insofar as freedom undermines community, it can be perilous. Greater individual freedom derived from material technologies therefore may prove sustainable only if accompanied by greater community derived from culture and from social technologies (i.e., "institutions") that either limits or offsets its misuse.<BR/><BR/>Whether the culture of medieval Christendom was "more real" than ours seems an intractable question. However, it was arguably more realistic in its understanding that the bounds that individual liberty cannot sustainably overstep are determined by communal culture and institutions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com