papers, naivite, questions, frustration
Thank you to all my friends who called, wrote, and sent packages to wish me happy birthday. And to everyone who came over Sunday night to celebrate and eat good food. I'm officially 23, and officially the owner of a large number of excellent cds.
So the paper that caused so much stress last week is finished. I'm not thrilled with the outcome, but it's finished. I'm disappointed in myself for not caring about this next paper, either-the one for the class from last semester that was, to put it nicely, my least favourite class. I've got two weeks. Can it be done? I doubt it can be done well. That's depressing.
Questions distracting me of late:
-Must we relativize the Bible in order to be culturally sensitive? Must we relativize God in order to respond to criticisms about patriarchy and ecological destruction? (Yes, this comes from a class I'm in this semester, Christianity and the Ecological Crisis)
-How long does it take to get over unpleasant events in one's past? Do we ever truly "get over" anything? How do we keep from being constantly re-traumatized, from reliving the pain?
-What does it mean to truly (and healthily) "belong", in culture in which people look for belonging in all the wrong places?
-Who defines what Christianity is? If I think the Bible and Christ are vitally important to Christianity but an ecofeminist nun in Latin America doesn't, how do I wrap my head around it? (again, that class.)
-Why am I at ICS?
-Is the word "God" inherently patriarchal? Can a masculine God save women? (class--and Stu)
-Why don't I do anything about climate change, in my own life, when it's clear that my children will be facing the consequences? Why do we continue to contribute to our own destruction?
-Can naivite sometimes be a good thing?
-Why do I have zero motivation for this upcoming paper when I've always been obsessed with academic achievement? Why am I incredibly disappointed in myself but still can't make myself work on it?
-Why do I always feel like my obligations require more time than I am given each day?
-Why is the sky blue? (Ok, that's been a source of wonder for quite some time.)
100 points to whomever can answer every one of the above questions to my satisfaction. (Chris, be careful--that would be a whole lot of procrastination...)
posted by sara without an 'h' @ 10:24 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Don't tempt me with 100 points when you know that it is going to make me procrastinate.
Here's my shot at answering, but I don't expect you to be satisfied. Also, please don't take my answering of these question to be pretentious, as if I think that I have all the right answers. Heck Sara, you know me, I'm the most ridiculous person ever. But maybe they will help you in some way.
I JUST WANT 100 POINTS!!!!!
1. It depends on what you mean by "relativize". I'd say that both God and the Bible have been "in relation" with humans, the world, and kittens. Also I think that we are going to, in some sense, decontextualize and recontextualize the Bible into our own situation in life. We are also called to continue the Biblical narrative. So I don't see this kind of relativization to be a bad thing. Also God has always been in relation, so in that sense relative. I think your concern is with patriarchal language. This is just a metaphor for God that worked well throughout history. However, when it becomes violent, when it becomes the one right way to talk about God and ignores other ways of talking about God, then we need to rethink our metaphors and not limit God to a father figure.
2. Do you want an exact time frame? I'd say that it may always flash up at moments. I think forgiveness is important. This certainly won't earn me the 100 points.
3. Read Wendell Berry. But it also looks different in different situations. There is no one right way to "belong". But there are more life affirming, more healthy, less diseased ways of belonging.
4. The Christian community, responding faithfully to the call of God and the direction of the Spirit, and living out and continuing the biblical narrative. So it's all interpreted. I don't think this is an anything goes relativism, but is instead communal. I don't think doctrines are the important thing, as if we have to believe these essential doctrines to be Christians.
5. To hang out with me, obviously.
6. I would say that the "God" is not inherently patriarchal. It just depends what metaphors you use to talk about "God".
7. Because we are arrogantly ignorant. In the face of the mysterious we act beyond human limitations paying no mind to the propriety of scale and this makes our actions destructive. We act arrogantly because our artifactual performances magnify us. But when we act beyond human limits they dwarf us and destroy the mysterious harmony that we depend upon. We have to act in such a fashion that doesn't diminish our humanity, but also doesn't diminish nature. We have use sacrificed nature in order to magnify ourselves.
8. Naivete is a good thing. We cannot comprehend everything. We must be aware of and open to the mystery, and understand that we cannot comprehend what comprehends us. I don't know if this is what you are asking.
9. Because you want to be done right now.
10. Because you are spreading yourself too thin, perhaps another reason you have no motivation to finish your papers.
11. The sky is not blue, it just appears bluely.
I think another question is this: how much should we "relevantize" ourselves when we attempt to answer the relative question (and other questions). Is it perhaps a dangerous idolatry? (Issue stated in the form of a question.)
You have children?
I would suggest that you lack motivation because you have yet to find a way to connect your passions to anything at ICS. You see, I am passionate about "relativizing" God and the Bible, thus I get excited about doing things (alright, so maybe I don't get a lot of stuff done on time, but I want to!). This, of course, may be partly due to the fact that they didn't tell you the only faculty in Political Theory was leaving until a couple of months before you came (inexcusable).
Also, I would not call it relativizing God or the Bible. It is relativizing your articulation of God and the Bible. It is a little presumptuous to assume that because it does not fit in your doctrinal schema that it is a relativization.
However, certain articulations of God may not be helpful to you. Perhaps you could argue that they are not helpful at all (for instance, I think images of God as Warrior help promote an ethos of violence, such as the Canaanite genocide). So it is not as if you ought to accept all visions of God without wrestling with them.
At the same time, never forget that your articulation of God may be unhelpful and even harmful to others. Be willing to accept a re-articulation of God that responds to a certain cultural milieu. It does not mean that you have to accept it, merely respect it as one way to understand/relate to the transcendent.
And no, I do not believe that God is inherently masculine. Really, the word is not inherently anything. God is an empty category until we fill it with names and conceptions. Really, God is a poor way to name, because it fails to point to anything (except maybe blank transcendence). God as "King" or God as "Father" may have become patriarchal (especially in some cultures and doctrines), and the people that these names have harmed may need to give them up. I believe that they can be redeemed (for myself), but perhaps not for everyone. Really though, these names have become harmful through a lack of "relativization." The theological content that has been given to the name "Father" has (for many) become an orthodox view which has stagnated and either means nothing or gives some the ability to hold power over others. The naming of God needs to remain dynamic.
Sorry, I've begun to write my next paper on your blog (without any of the academic rigor).
I think I deserve the 100 points for making this shorter than Chris and knowing that he was going use the terms "in relation" and "kittens" to your question of relativity.
Whoa, Sara. You have some hard core blog fans. I feel the need to give more input to one of your questions, which has not yet had the proper attention-
#11 Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere most of the longer wavelengths (red, orange, etc) pass straight through, especially when the sun is high in the sky.
However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules (especially blue). The absorbed light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.
As the sun begins to set, the light must travel farther through the atmosphere before it gets to you. More of the light is reflected and scattered. As less reaches you directly, the sun appears less bright. The color of the sun itself appears to change, first to orange and then to red. This is because even more of the short wavelength blues and greens are now scattered. Only the longer wavelengths are left in the direct beam that reaches your eyes.
Yup.
Miss ya Sara. I'd like to give you a call and get yer opinion on some non-sciency type things if that's alright. Talk to ya soon!
Damn, you people have too much time on your hands. As my psychiatrist once advised me, go see a stupid movie or play twister or go shoe shopping. That last bit of advice is actually from me. Sara, those questions will melt from you mind once you get your feet in some nice Manolo Blaniks. Is your class the only reason you're wondering about relativizing scripture? Also, are you wondering if naivete is good because of something I recently told you about the Greeks that you told me to never EVER explain fully? Lastly, I too was wondering when you had kids and why I wasn't informed.
I actually don't have that much time on my hands, I'm just procrastinating. I've already watched too many stupid movies, I left my Twister mat in Michigan, and I just bought some new shoes. So I have imprisoned myself within the blogosphere to write long, stupid comments for eternity.
I agree that if Sara started wearing Manolo Blahnik's these questions would melt from her mind. But these questions would be quickly replaced by new ones, such as: "Why do I put my calves through the agony of wearing five and a half inch stilettos?" and "Why don't I audition for a role on 'Sex and the City'?"
I vote Jeff gets the points. He is spot on - find something to connect with at ICS and motivation will come.
Of course, I'm starting to have a problem with that because I want my essays/thesis to be more ecologically focused than I suspect I will be able to write on. But I'll try. :)
Thank you all for your attempts to help me in my crisis.
Chris: 15 points for the effort. And a valiant effort it was! You're a crazy procrastinator.
Jeff: 5 points for trying to make me ok with relativizing God :)
Pasma: 10 points for an excellent explanation of why the sky is blue. And for calling me the other night to talk about gender roles and naivite. Good times!
If my calculations are correct, I have 32 points!
Can I get a what what?
This comment has been removed by the author.
From C.S. Lewis's THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH:
". . . But she had been conceiving this world [the supernatural realm] as 'spiritual' in the negative sense - as some neutral, or democratic, vacuum where differences disappeared, where sex and sense were not transcended but simply taken away. Now the suspicion dawned upon her that there might be differences and contrasts all the way up, richer, sharper, even fiercer, at every rung of the ascent. How if this invasion of her own being in marriage from which she had recoiled, often in the very teeth of instinct, were not, as she had supposed, merely a relic of animal life or patriarchal barbarism, but rather the lowest, the first, and the easiest form of some shocking contact with reality which would have to be repeated - but in ever larger and more disturbing modes - on the highest levels of all?
" 'Yes,' said the Director. 'There is no escape. If it were a virginal rejection of the male, He would allow it. Such souls can bypass the male and go on to meet something far more masculine, higher up, to which they must make a yet deeper surrender. But your trouble has been what old poets called Daungier. We call it Pride. You are offended by the masculine itself: the loud, irruptive, possessive thing - the gold lion, the [p. 313] bearded bull - which breaks through hedges and scatters the little kingdom of your primness as the dwarfs scattered the carefully made bed. The male you could have escaped, for it exists only on the biological level. But the masculine none of us can escape. What is above and beyond all things is so masculine that we are all feminine in relation to it. . . .' " [pp. 312-13]
Post a Comment
<< Home