CONTEMPORARY ASCETICS OF MT. ATHOS

ELDER JOACHIM OF ST. ANNE'S SKETE

HIS BEARD

We must not omit saying a few words about Fr. Joachim's rare and exceptional beard.

When he lived in America, he observed with sorrow the modernist spirit which had begun to affect even ecclesiastical matters. He saw [Orthodox] priests who thought they could function better  in society if they departed from Orthodox tradition. In that worldly atmosphere, Fr. Joachim behaved courageously. He couldn't stand to see Orthodox priests taking off their precious Riassas or cutting their hair and beard. It is worth noting that before being tonsured, he made the following prayer to the Mother of God:

"Most Holy Theotokos, when I become a priest, please give me long hair and beard, so that I will look like the priests in my country."

The Mother of God did not deny him his supplication, but fulfilled his desire abundantly. As we stated earlier, the Americans wondered at his imposing appearance and his long, full beard. When he finally journeyed to Mount Athos, an astonishing thing happened. His beard grew and lengthened all the way down to his legs - a phenomenon very rare even in his fatherland. We attributed this to the prayer he made ( to  look like a priest ) to the Mother of God. In order to move freely and restrain the remarks of others, he was forced to carry his beard in a sack tied around his neck.

In his latter years, the fathers asked him to be photographed with his priestly vestments and beard. At first he wouldn't do it, but after being asked a second time by the fathers, he gave in. The photograph was saved, and can be seen at the end of the text.

After all the excitement, however, I cannot help but to return to my thoughts about Lucretius (August 29, 08). Cartesian reductionism does not seem so different from Epicurean atomism in its deadening effect on my spirit. But even the prosaic Lucretius thought it important to think about reality. Descartes thought it more important to think about thinking. When he says “I think, therefore I am” he still believes in God, but he makes Him transcendent to thought.  He hives off theological questions. Had he left them to theologians that would have been fine, but the first rule of his method cuts short any rational discussion of the mystery of being. That is, we cannot accept mystery because by definition it cannot be known clearly and distinctly--Descartes conditions for claiming knowledge. This is not immediately obvious in the Discourse, but I don’t think Descartes hoped to fool Catholic censors; he knew they were too clever to be tricked. I suspect he was carried away by his enthusiasm, in the way the modern scientist will split an atom to see what is inside even at the risk of blowing up the world. The upshot is that theology becomes superfluous, if not superstitious talk; and I am left with an inadequate account of my being and, worse, no means to make a better one.

A second, unintended consequence arises. When he removed religion, that is our theories of everything, Descartes created an epistemological vacuum and human nature did what every nature does with a vacuum. Since Descartes, it let science slide into that part of understanding that was once occupied by theology. (Take at look at the Temple of Science in Wired). Ironically, this is the very place from which Descartes saw—and saw rightly—it needed to be extricated. Now, however, moderns act like the old instrumentalists: New theories—or old ones such as Catholicism—can be discussed so long as they do not question the authority of science on matters of ultimate truths. This is Galileo and his friend-turned-persecutor, Cardinal Barbarini, inverted.

Sunt incantata! Aplauze!

Teatrul e mai tare decat orice film.

by Archimandrite [now Archbishop] Chrysostomos

Many find, in their desire to "fit into society," a rather strange basis upon which to accuse others of arrogance. Walking down the street in the traditional garb of an Orthodox clergyman almost immediately puts one out of step with the rest of society. And it is precisely this that identifies a Christian. If anything could be said about the Pharisees, aside from their spiritual pride, it would be that they were, indeed, in the mainstream of the then contemporary religious scene. And it was, to be sure, not their manner of dress which brought Christ's condemnation upon them. It was precisely their acceptance in society, their exploitation of religion as a way of gaining social respect. And above that, their judgmentalism and wholly external grasp of the spiritual were the very things which the Christian message so fundamentally challenged. If there were modern Pharisees, it would seem to me that one might find them on the street, condemning Priests in clerical garb as Pharisaical, all the while imagining themselves humble by adhering to the social trend.

Please read the whole text here

Post Modernism within the textile world soon lost its irreverence and settled down into a large scale enthusiastic supporter of the 'heritage' style of interior decoration. Interior magazines began to produce grandiose schemes that were meant to faithfully reproduce styles from previous eras. As a result, many small homes began to take on the appearance of grand Georgian or Victorian town houses, which turned out to be a disaster. Too many designers were taking themselves far too seriously, and without the lightness of touch towards design and historical perspective, became quickly bogged down in the minutiae of the accuracy of historical styles.

If designers had managed to keep hold of the irreverence and self-mockery of Post Modernism then perhaps the era of the 'heritage' style would look rather different today.

In light of my brief exchange with Fixup on the subject of bars bereft of brakes, I felt I really had to share this snap of a generally unspectacular bicycle I spotted in Amsterdam. There are likely thousands like it but there was something about the empty square bars that, for me, just epitomised the idea of the bicycle as a modernist icon.

R:B

Florence Knoll Bassett (born May 24, 1917) is an American architect and furniture designer who studied under the likes of Mies van der Rohe and Eero Saarinen. She was born in Saginaw, Michigan as "Florence Schust" and is known in familiar circles simply as "Shu". She graduated from Kinsgwood School in 1934. In 1943 she joined with her husband Hans Knoll in redirecting Hans's furniture company more toward a modernist, Scandinavian style. After Hans's death, Florence took over as head of Knoll. In 1958 she married Harry Hood Bassett.

Florence Knoll Bassett almost single-handedly created the look of contemporary corporate interiors in the 1950s and ’60s, as founder and director of the Knoll Planning Unit, the space-planning arm of Knoll® Associates. She looked at furniture design as just one aspect of her “total design” approach to interiors. “I did it because I needed a piece of furniture for a job and it wasn’t there, so I designed it,” she said. A Google™ search indicates that one of the foremost sites for high end furniture at wholesale prices is Gibraltar. “This West coast Internet pioneer features retro, modern, and post-modern furnishings at rock bottom prices. Gibraltar offers an exceptional array of wholesale, architectural, modern, high quality items at factory direct discount prices. Gibraltar Furniture is one of the leaders in the world of Internet modern architectural products. Gibraltar sells furniture manufactured in Italy, Asia, and the USA and all sales are tax free outside of California. “This Beverly Hills 90210 store has been in business for over 50 years!

DWR offers the same 2 position piece for $5,551.00. The main difference is that the official Knoll release comes with a certificate of authenticity and our reproduction does not. This edition is a world class imported product that will be a showcase addition to any collection!

This series is an exclusive Gibraltar Furniture brand. Our entire remarkable Florence Knoll inspired credenzas feature fully welded tubular stainless steel stands. Each unit is crafted from imported ultra high quality MDF with ash veneers. Every piece is finished in a non-gloss, multi coat finish, and includes the very best hardware and drawer slides. Each unit is specially made according to exact color specifications. Therefore plan on a 12 week lead time for these extraordinary units. These are non Knoll reproductions inspired by the originals at a fraction of the official prices!

We ship factory direct so that you don’t have to pay a middle man for a mark up. This means you get the wholesale price and a great product at unbeatable prices!

Gibraltar is based in Beverly Hills California and can be found on the web at www.gibraltarfurniture.com. This firm has been in operation for five decades, and is an insider secret weapon for blue chip merchandise at warehouse prices. Yahoo reports that Gibraltar Furniture has “The best prices, models, and service of any site on the internet. This store is nirvana for people who want Bauhaus, art deco, modern, mid century, or designer furniture at wholesale prices.”

All purchases are fully covered by Lloyds of London and the Yahoo buyer’s protection plan. The Yahoo! Buyer Protection Program covers any item legitimately purchased through Yahoo! This protection covers purchases of up to $1000 for material defects and other issues.

Charles and Ray Eames designed La Chaise in 1948 for a Museum of Modern Art contest. La Chaise is suitable for both sitting and lying on. Its organic shape was inspired by "Floating Figure", a sculpture by Gaston Lachaise.

With a grand sense of adventure, Charles and Ray Eames turned their curiosity and limitless passion into creations that established them as a truly great husband-and-wife design team. Their unique synergy led to a whole new sculptural furniture style: Lean and modern. Playful and functional. Sleek, sophisticated, and beautifully simple. That was and is the "Eames look."

A Google™ search indicates that one of the foremost sites for high end furniture at wholesale prices is Gibraltar. “This West coast Internet pioneer features retro, modern, and post-modern furnishings at rock bottom prices. Gibraltar offers an exceptional array of wholesale, architectural, modern, high quality items at factory direct discount prices. Gibraltar Furniture is one of the leaders in the world of Internet modern architectural products. Gibraltar sells furniture manufactured in Italy, Asia, and the USA and all sales are tax free outside of California.” This Beverly Hills 90210 store has been in business for over 50 years!

DWR offers the same piece for $8,855.00. The main difference is that the official Vitra release comes with a certificate of authenticity and our reproduction does not. This edition is a world class imported product that will be a showcase addition to any collection!

We ship factory direct so that you don’t have to pay a middle man for a mark up. This means you get the wholesale price and a great product at unbeatable prices!

Gibraltar is based in Beverly Hills California and can be found on the web at www.gibraltarfurniture.com. This firm has been in operation for five decades, and is an insider secret weapon for blue chip merchandise at warehouse prices. Yahoo reports that Gibraltar Furniture has “The best prices, models, and service of any site on the internet. This store is nirvana for people who want Bauhaus, art deco, modern, mid century, or designer furniture at wholesale prices.”

All purchases are fully covered by Lloyds of London and the Yahoo buyer’s protection plan. The Yahoo! Buyer Protection Program covers any item legitimately purchased through Yahoo! This protection covers purchases of up to $1000 for material defects and other issues.

]]> http://narrativetheory.wordpress.com/?p=77 Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:06:10 +0000 mlminarich http://narrativetheory.ro.wordpress.com/2008/10/01/lukacs-is-too-hard-on-modernism/

Megan Minarich

Narrative Theory

Prof. Jay Clayton

1 OCT 2008

 In an excerpt from Studies in European Realism, Lukács looks to the relationship between Marxism and literary realism in order to demonstrate how realism, as commonly used, is not realism at all, but a kind of limiting reduction of the fullness and complexity of the real; he does not, however, completely write off realism as limiting reductionism, and turns to the Russian realists as exemplars of how literary realism can  “merge into an organic unity” with popular humanism and effectively be used to affect political and historical change (Qtd. in Hale 388). Lukács asserts that “ …if literature is to be a potent factor of national rebirth, it must itself be reborn in its purely literary, formal, aesthetic aspects as well. It must break with reactionary conservative traditions which hamper it and resist the seeping-in of decadent influences which lead into a blind alley” (392). The first half of this claim is, I think, extremely helpful in terms of forcing us to think critically about whether or not a text has broken formally from its predecessors and, how to really categorize it; depending upon the conclusions of the first two questions, we can then reevaluate what this text is doing in an historical or national or even generic context.  That being said, how does this complicate, as we began to discuss last week, the rise of the novel in the eighteenth century?

The second half of this passage a I find somewhat more problematic, particularly in light of Lukács’ claim in “The Ideology of Modernism” that “…modernism leads not only to the destruction of traditional literary forms; it leads to the destruction of literature as such” (Qtd. in Hale 412).  Is Lukács suggesting here that modernism destroys literature as literature or that modernism destroys literature as capable of being formally contained? Are these one and the same? If so, how does the author or the literary critic go about negotiating the line between breaking with tradition and espousing “decadent influences” with a (modernist) work?

Also, I’m curious about Lukács’ description of stream-of-consciousness narration as a “reduction of reality to nightmare,” which indicates a move away from realism (Qtd. in Hale 404).  Isn’t there also something ultra-real  (or perhaps ultra-natural—I’m not totally clear on his distinctions) about it? 

Archbishop Averky of Syracuse

_

We are living in a strange time, when all the true and healthy Christian concepts are being replaced by false and deceitful concepts, discovered often with an evil intention with the undoubted intention, naturally, of drawing people away from the right path of a truly Christian life. In all of this there can be discerned some kind of rationally acting black hand which is working to bind people as tightly as possible to this temporary, earthly life by forcing them to forget the future life, the eternal life assuredly awaiting us all.

We must be clearly aware of the kind of time in which we live. Indeed, only a spiritually blind roan, or one who had already sold his soul to the enemies of our holy faith and Church, could fail to sense the spirit of the approaching Antichrist in everything which is now happening in the world. Of what sort of genuine union of all Christians in the spirit of Christian love can one speak now when the Truth is denied by almost everyone, when deceit is in control almost everywhere, when a genuinely spiritual life among people who call themselves Christians has dried up and been replaced by a carnal life, an animal life which has nonetheless been placed on a pedestal and concealed by the idea of pretended charity which hypocritically justifies any sort of spiritual excess, any sort of moral anarchy. Indeed it is from this that are derived all these numberless "balls," various kinds of "games," "dances" and amusements toward which, despite their immoral, anti-Christian nature, even my modern clergymen have a tolerant attitude, sometimes even organizing them themselves and participating in them.

A terrible, unrelieved, hopeless unscrupulousness has taken possession of many people. The true doctrine of the faith and the Church for which the first Christians died in such tortures has become a hollow sound for the majority of modern "Christians." They neither know this doctrine, nor do they desire to know it, for they are indifferent to it.

Dull, cold indifference to almost anything which bears the imprint of ideological content and seeking in everything only one's own personal advantage. This is the character of our time.

This lack of ideological content, this unscrupulousness accompanied by departure from the true faith and the Church and by indifference to them is the basic, fundamental sin of which we, Russian Orthodox Christians, must repent.

It is not for us to enjoy ourselves, to amuse ourselves, to dance on the grave of Russia, brought down to its deathbed by us, but rather to repent in tears, really to repent, as the Holy Church teaches us, with a firm intention to change our life radically, to renew our spirit.

As salt preserves food from decay and makes it healthful and pleasant to the taste, so too true Christians preserve the world from moral decay and facilitate its return to health. But if the salt "loses its savor," as the Gospel says, i.e. "loses its strength" (in the East there actually is a kind of salt which can lose its taste), then it becomes good for nothing except to be "thrown out to be trodden under foot of men" (cf. the Gospel reading for the third day of the feast of Pentecost, Matt. 5:31-3).

How terrible this is! And we find ourselves living in such times when the tendency dominating the world is directed toward making all Christians such "salt which has lost its savor," once it has abolished the true Church of Christ derived from the Holy Apostles and thus has deprived Christians of the grace of the Holy Spirit.

This is the so very fashionable, so-called "ecumenical movement," which is based tin the position that supposedly the true Church of Christ does not presently exist on earth and it is necessary to create it anew...through the unification of all Christians belonging to various "churches" and confessional associations and organizations; this will be done by various mutual concessions in matters of doctrine and the development of a new, common system of doctrine acceptable to all and, along with it, of course, a new world view.

And the opinion, extremely popular in our times, that "it's all the same which church you go to; after all, God is one" is in agreement with this tendency.

Yes! God is one, but, you know, He also gave us one faith; He created one Church for us, not many different faiths and "churches." This is confirmed by the holy Apostle Paul when he says, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all," and so we Christians should form "one body and one spirit," as we are called to "in one hope of our calling" (Eph. 4:4-6).

If there is only one true faith and only one true Church, then as a consequence all other faiths and "churches" are false, not true. How then can anyone say that all faiths and "churches" are of equal value and that "it is all the same which church you go to."

Therefore one can and must speak not of the ecumenical unification of everyone for the creation of some new Church, but only of the restoration of union between all who have fallen away and the one true Church of Christ to which Christ the Savior Himself gave the great and sure promise that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Oh, how great now is the dulling of conscience even of those people who consider themselves believers-the clouding of their minds and hearts, so that seeing, they do not see, and hearing, they do not hear, neither do they understand with their heart, as the holy prophet said (Isaiah 9:10).

This is the "hardening of hearts" of which he spoke.

But there is in our days an even more terrible phenomenon, encountered more and more often: a more or less conscious decision, for the sake of earthly goods and advantages, to serve the coming Antichrist.

This is the most extreme degree of falling away, from which it is very difficult to arise.

The fundamental task of the servants of the coming Antichrist is to destroy the old world with all its former concepts and "prejudices" in order to built in its place a new world suitable for receiving its approaching "new owner" who will take the place of Christ for people and give them on earth that which Christ did not give them ....

One must be completely blind spiritually, completely alien to true Christianity not to understand all this!

Zeal for God, zeal for the Truth is not "phariseeism," just as "humility" before the enemies of God, the enemies of the Church, before diabolical Evil, is not the true and saving humility of the Publican, but just destructive self-deception, leading to the depths of hell.

In our times, when there are such strong doubts about even the existence of Truth, when every "truth" is considered relative and it is considered proper for each person to hold to "his own truth," the struggle for the Truth acquires a particularly important meaning. And the person who does not sympathize with this struggle, who sees in it only a manifestation of "phariseeism" and suggests "humbling oneself" before Falsehood by falling away from the Truth, should naturally be recognized as a betrayer of the Truth, whoever he might be, whatever he might call or consider himself.

For us modern Christians faith, for the most part, is being divorced from life: we do not live in full agreement with the teachings and demands of our faith. Our faith so clearly and so definitely teaches us to renounce everything corruptible and earthly and to concentrate with all our thoughts and feelings on the incorruptible eternal life awaiting us. Theoretically, perhaps, we accept this (although of late there has appeared a special current of "neo-Christianity" which does not even want to accept this theoretically, but has thought up a completely new, heretofore unknown pseudo-Christian world view aimed at binding man more firmly to an earth which supposedly has been transfigured and sanctified by Christ's coming into the world), we admit the end of the world, the Second Coming of Christ, the Last Judgment, and the future life, but in practice we live and act as if none of this is to be expected and we have only to make ourselves comfortable here on earth by providing for ourselves all sorts of good things and conveniences. We do not really want to think about the death which unavoidably awaits every one of us and we do not prepare ourselves as we ought for the future eternal life before us.

Peace!.. peace!.. peace!.. is heard now from every side: "mutual disarmament!..peaceful coexistence!.. we shall struggle for peace!.. everyone in defense of peace!.." How wonderful it would be, what a bright and joyful future it would promise for mankind if only these appeals had in mind that peace of which the angels sang on the night of Christ's Birth: "glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will to men!" (Luke 2:14); if only it were that peace which the Savior Christ promised to His disciples at the Last Supper when He said, "My peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you" (John 14:27); if only it were that "peace of God which passeth all understanding" (Phil. 4:7) which, at the Lord's command, the Apostles transmitted to the first Christians, which they were taught to seek (I Peter 3:11), and which they were encouraged to have with God and with all people (Rom. 5:1; 12:18). How gratifying it would be to hear them if these appeals came from people of whose sincerity we could not have the slightest doubt, whose words we could trust completely-from people who were really convinced that the highest good in life is precisely that peace-peace with God, peace with one's own conscience, and peace with one's neighbors in the name of God.

But alas! It is not of such peace that people are talking now. All these frequently unnatural and pompous speeches and at times hysterical cries for peace for the whole world come at the present time for the most part from people who are either far from true Christianity or are directly opposed to the Church-from people who do not live at peace with God and with their own consciences, but are filled with spite in their relations with their neighbors.

Can we believe in the sincerity of speeches about peace when they are pronounced by people who in principle deny faith in God and love for their neighbors and do not recognize the voice of conscience?

Can we believe that people are really working toward peace when with open and bold blasphemy they have declared war on God Himself and His Holy Church?

When quite recently they did not hide the fact that their aim was to "stir up a worldwide conflagration"? When they openly preach "class hatred" as the basis of their ideology and are not in the least ashamed to pour out whole oceans of blood and to exterminate millions of people just for the suspicion that they disagree with their ideology?

Can we likewise believe in the sincere love for peace of those who in their words unctuously and cloyingly preach "Christian love" and "total forgiveness," while in their actions they sow disturbances and discord and, by spreading lies and slander, create hostility and divisions, stirring people up against their neighbors? Can one in general believe that any sort of secure and reliable peace can be established on earth with the crude flouting of God's Truth, with the lies and hypocrisy which are so clearly characteristic of the life of modern mankind?

Where the Truth of God is lacking there cannot be genuine peace.

While struggling resolutely against the most minute manifestations of evil and sin in our own souls, let us not fear to uncover and point out evil everywhere where it is to be found in modern life-not from pride and self-love, but only out of love for the truth. Our chief task. in this evil time of lying shamelessness is to remain totally faithful and devoted to the genuine truth of the Gospel and to the author of our salvation, Christ, the Giver of life Who rose on the third day from the tomb, the Conqueror of hell and death.

One must know well and remember that Tolstoy's harmful doctrine of "non-resistance to evil" is completely foreign to true Christianity (by the way, this doctrine destroyed our unfortunate homeland, Russia, and plunged it into the terrible, bloody horrors of Bolshevism): no true Christian can be reconciled to evil, wherever and in whomever he might encounter it.

All true Christians throughout the whole history of the Church have followed the example of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself and His Holy Apostles and have always condemned evil and struggled against it, even though this might cause them all sorts of severe deprivations and even cost them life itself.

_

My husband and I found Bill one day laying down in the grass near the swings at Arden Park, in his usual spot. A little girl with a dirty face and a dirtier, faded dress stood over him smiling and laughing while he told story after story. A great writer he'd grow up to be, we knew. Bill was the son we'd never have, in his simple innocence. He didn't go to school and the state really didn't care, he was just some homeless boy with autism. Nobody cared but us.

Last winter when we were walking home from our underpaid teaching jobs at Morrill High School we saw Bill standing by the riverside holding scraps of cloth around his body, shivering. The icy waters had nearly frozen but kept flowing, resisting the change of winter, the death of motion. Bill passed a final smile to us and jumped into the waters, yelling of adventures Sir Galahad and Lancelot were leading him on, into the great depths below where imagination roamed free and death never bothered. Bill floated still and silent in waiting, into his greatest adventure.

Now I am going somewhere, ambulating
away down the highways of Farmington to
where the sidewalk ends and the dual-lanes begin.
I imagine opening day at the Rite Aid across the street -
that plywood box with a brick facade and neon lights,
the pharmacy where “IT'S PERSONAL” -
and recall that old Rexall
was driven out of town after two hundred years
and at least two buildings.
They said they were bought out, but I know that
we all take comfort in this corporate consolidation of our world.

I keep going, on the stiff grass of median strips,
or across front lawns;
walking is far too romantic for the bike lanes.
Cars swoosh by and pretend that pedestrians
don't exist, they say goodbye with the
cruel aftertaste of gasoline in the air.

The memory of farming persists in a sidewalk cider shop,
juxtaposed between gas stations and clanging, rattling,
roaring logging trucks HAULING ASS to be back in time for dinner.
One hundred million tons of steel on wheels.

The freedom of my walking legs is being
snatched away with each inch of auto-mobile pavement.
I hold my hands tightly to my sides and walk on,
headstrong, brace myself against the endless rapid
whooshing of air that threatens to take me with it.

• Modernities / Postmodernities
• From tradition to innovation / modernism, avant- garde, decadence, kitsch, postmodernism
• Ethics of (post)modernity
• Dialectics of enlightenment
• Eradication, redemption or reconstruction of myths
• Mechanism of (dis)belief
• Aspects and limits of certainty
• Primitivity and (post)modernity
• ‘Biophilia’ and biopolitics
• (Post)modernity and (meta)narratives
• (Post)modernity and time
• Modernity and secularism
• Aesthetics of modernity
• Historical relativism
• Modernity and the Body
• Crisis in representation

The deadline for proposals: December 19, 2008.

Please send a 250 word abstract for a 20 minute paper and a short bio in the form of an email ‘word’ attachment to the coordinator at: css2009ege@gmail.com

Assoc. Prof. Dr. ªebnem Toplu Dept. English Language & Literature Faculty of Letters Ege University, 35100-Bornova, Izmir
Turkey
Fax: (0090)(232) 388 11 02
Phone:(0090) (232) 3884000 ext. 1976

Selected papers will be published in the forthcoming proceedings.
For further information the Symposium website will be online shortly at: http://css.ege.edu.tr

Assoc. Prof. Dr. ªebnem Toplu
EGE University
Dept. English Language & Literature
Faculty of Letters 35100-Bornova Izmir
Turkey
Phone: (0090) 232 3884000 Ext. 1976
Fax: +90 (232) 388 11 02

Email: css2009ege@gmail.com

Mohler most prominently repeats the usual western evangelical theological approach on the merits of being an eager and fully engaged participant in capitalism with the only restraint being biblical admonitions of greed. While his views are not Biblically wrong, it is with issues like this - and again with Palin - that I am reminded that in many cases with Reformed evangelicals, the key term is not Reformed but evangelical. Now while the meaning of "evangelical" has evolved over time, but its basic meaning in the current context is a Christian who professes to adhere to both orthodox theology (or Bible based doctrine) and a modernist worldview simultaneously. (More conservative evangelicals detest postmodernism, but more modern and liberal evangelicals find postmodern constructs quite useful, and Rick Warren is an excellent example of a postmodern evangelical.)

With evangelicals, it is not so much that when the inevitable conflicts between modernism (the creation of Enlightenment philosophers, many of whom were atheists, deists, unitarians, and theological liberals) and orthodoxy arises, many evangelicals consciously choose modernism. (I am not going to list any examples of how because if I did it would be "hot button issues" like feminism, abortion, homosexuality, divorce which, by the usually shallow nature of the debate - which often concerns the issue itself or at times even the legal, political, and rhetorical maneuverings of the debate rather than the theological or spiritual truths at stake -conceals the true nature of the issue. ) Instead, the bigger problem is how often evangelical Christianity seems to choose modernism over Biblical doctrine with no considerations whatsoever. Often this does not even need to happen on some "subconscious" level because modernist tools (i.e. systems of logic and analysis), presuppositions, and worldviews are purposefully integrated within evangelical theology just as economic, political, and cultural Marxism is often (but not always!) integrated within liberal theology. 

This is not to say that there is no difference between a John Stott and a John Shelby Spong. The former presupposes the Bible to be true and authoritative based on it being the inspired Word of God and the latter does not. Instead, it means that those such as Stott will in many cases inevitably interpret and apply Biblical truth and authority in a modernist manner. Contradicting my earlier promise not to pick an example, perhaps the best illustration of this is the nearly wholesale internalization of mind sciences (psychology and psychiatry) within Christian thought, creating this bizarre situation where the holy Word of God is scripture and primary, but the long discredited ideas of atheists and perverts like Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey comprise a secondary and authoritative tradition that is actually used to interpret the Bible in a similar manner that Jews use the Talmud and Roman Catholics use their tradition. In fairness to evangelicals, to whom I am not opposed, this is not nearly a new phenomenon as the pre - modern church used Greek philosophy in a similar fashion (although I should point out that figures ranging from Tertullian to reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin despised philosophy). Still, have you noticed how common it has become in the more recent evangelical devotionals and even commentaries to use psychoanalysis (in addition to social and behavioral sciences) to try to determine why certain Bible characters made the choices that they did? Small wonder that so many sermons now seem like a social science lecture or a self - help seminar. 

So going back to how the key term is often not "Reformed" but "evangelical", where I once felt that Reformed theology was a bulwark against modernism, it is apparent that in many instances being Reformed makes an evangelical a more confident and steadfast modernist! There perhaps is no better example of this than how the very Reformed Francis Schaeffer was one of the most prominent founding and guiding figures of the religious right with all that entails, including being a prominent supporter and enabler of the anti - Christ wickedness of Ronald Reagan. 

So reading Mohler's political statements on Palin and the economy (as well as going after Obama on bioethics while praising McCain for allegedly "moving in the right direction on this issue" and defending Sarah Palin's pastor), it is another reminder of why I so often tend to align myself with legalistic Arminian premillennial dispensational fundamentalists! Mohler makes these statements:

Comparisons to the Great Depression are inevitable, but today's crisis bears little resemblance to the total economic collapse of the late 1920s. Capitalism is not in crisis and the fundamentals of the American economy remain strong.  When President Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933, the nation faced a genuine crisis and economic collapse. For the most part, the banks were closed and the nation was out of business. The fundamentals of the economy remain intact. These include American innovation, a dedicated labor force, strong consumer demand, vast natural resources, and unlimited intellectual capital. More than anything else, this crisis has to do with what happens when the markets come to term with excessive valuations. Put bluntly, wildly inflated valuations led to risky financial adventures and worse. The sub-prime mortgage collapse came as more realistic real estate valuations forced market corrections. The vast global financial system has accepted the inflated valuations as real and traded in the risky mortgages as if the game would go on forever. This was a fool's errand.

This is typical neoconservative economics, virtually indistinguishable from what you would read on the pages of the Roman Catholic - Jewish dominated National Review and Weekly Standard, or hear Phil Gramm say. First, it is probably the effects of my premillennial rapturist doctrines (now renounced) that causes me to think that the vast global financial system is the problem to begin with! Read about the mystery Babylon global economic system in Revelation 17 and 18. Know that we are not only full participants but LEADERS in this system. Please recall that George W. Bush, especially in his first term, sought mightily to bribe and coerce reluctant third world governments into participating in this system using the carrot (debt relief, favorable trade terms, and foreign aid) and the stick (threats of economic and political isolation that make such nations ripe for internal strife and the aggressive designs of foreign enemies, especially Islam). And what does the Bible say about this global financial system? A) It is evil and B) it will fall. So why on earth does Mohler say "Capitalism is not in crisis and the fundamentals of the American economy remain strong"? Well that is what you get when you use neoconservatism to do your theology.

Even if you remove the overt Bible overtones, this is why what Mohler states is so problematic. At the time of the Great Depression, America had more tangible capital and wealth producing capacity. There was a gold standard for one thing (fatally wounded by Franklin Roosevelt before being finally killed by Richard Nixon), and our economy was based largely on what our farms, mines, and factories produced. Look at us now. Instead of an objective gold standard, our wealth valuation is subject to the decisions of a cadre of international bankers and NGOs along with the governments that they prop up. Instead of agricultural and industrial output, we have an "information and services" economy ... if there is anything worse than the size and persistence of our trade deficits is the fact that neither neoliberal or neoconservative economists and politicians care about it. Our economy does not even produce its own vital raw materials but instead relies on other nations for it, especially in the case of energy. And worst of all, a nation whose economic wealth was largely based on populations that adhered to John Calvin's doctrines of hard work, savings, and frugal modest living (please note that Calvin never intended to be an economist but was only giving practical advise to Christians based on the Bible that addressed their local situations ... in other words not economic theory or philosophy but rather biblical theology) is now one that celebrates idleness and excess and thinks nothing of running up large debts while walking away from our responsibilities to creditors. If you think that our government's debt to the domestic and international holders of its bonds is huge - and it is - please consider the aggregate amounts of the debts of private individuals AND the debts of our businesses.

That is one of the reasons why banks are so unwilling to lend money. It is not merely because of a shortage of cash (which Mohler does not acknowledge exists). It is because banks are dealing with 1) a society where people simply refuse to pay back their loans if it inconveniences them and 2) rising inflation and declining values of real estate and goods which makes any collateral that a bank would use to insure the loan worthless. In the past, it was worthwhile to use collateral because of the presumption that the value of the collateral at least keep up with the rate of inflation during the life of the loan. Now, even if a lender is able to actually deprive a borrower of his collateral (which is becoming increasingly difficult to do) there is a great chance that the bank will still lose a lot of money on the loan. 

I will grant you, Albert Mohler is not an economist. So what ... neither am I! As a matter of fact, Mohler's education and experience in this area almost certainly far exceeds my own. So why on earth is Mohler claiming that we have "vast natural resources" knowing full well that those are hamstrung by the global warming Gaia worshiping environmentalists that John McCain supports, and "unlimited intellectual capital" when America has been having to use foreigners to fill the high tech jobs for decades because our educational system is not producing nearly enough qualified people, and now companies are outsourcing even low level management work (i.e. things done by near entry level employees with bachelor's degrees in accounting, marketing and finance) overseas?

This is not to pick on Mohler, whom I greatly respect and am only using him as an example. But please understand that seeing him recite the neoconservative economic discourse on his religious blog reminds me of the many sermons that I am familiar with where the sinful actions of some Bible character is attributed to problems with self - esteem. Even were this true, the Bible refers to "self - esteem problems" as  weaknesses of the flesh that are the result of a man's fallen nature. It is a lot easier to tell a teenager prone to shoplifting "you have self - esteem problems resulting from your father's abandoning your family and your mother's having to work two jobs to support the family, depriving you of the critical bonding time with her that you needed to form a healthy emotional self image" than it is to say "you steal because you are a sinner, and if you repent of your sins and believe in the resurrected Jesus Christ, not only will you cease shoplifting but God will heal your broken heart." 

Now quite honestly, I am certain that Mohler would take the latter approach rather than the former one in preaching, teaching, and counseling. He rejects modernist evangelicalism in that area. The problem is that with he embraces them in his economic views by refusing to acknowledge that we have a mystery Babylon globalist economic system, that the system will fall, and that Republicans are as much a part of it as Democrats are.

Would a biblical theology movement address this? It is hard to know for sure. It is true that one biblical theology movement gave us the Protestant Reformation. It is also true that a second major biblical theology movement gave us "neo - orthodoxy", which even Billy Graham rejected. Current Biblical theology efforts diverge. John MacArthur and several evangelical Reformed fellow travelers promote exegetical/expositional theology to combat the most negative effects of evangelicalism. Meanwhile, some free will Christians - both evangelical and fundamentalist - are investigating "biblicism" to produce a better foundation for rejecting double predestination than the one offered by Arminianism. We must pray that it is the Will of God that these and other movements result in a larger number of Christians more willing and able to reject worldly ideas in order to interpret, promote, apply, and live Biblical truths, especially when confronted with difficult circumstances, bad facts, and intense opposition.

click the images for larger versions and credits

This man machine trope can also be found in Lee Perry's "Throw Some Water In"[1] with the lines "Service your engine if you want it to function" by Lee Perry, from his album Roast Fish Collie Weed & Corn Bread .

Additionally Horace Silver and Andy Bey recorded "I Had a Little Talk," in which the narrator has a little talk with each of his organs:

"I had a little talk with my lungs and I've decided to treat them right. We made a mutual agreement and I think, at last we both see the light. " --Bey/Silver

The Andy Bey track can be found on the Blue Note kozmigroov compilation The United States of Mind.

I almost forgot The Man-Machine, the 1978 album by Kraftwerk, perhaps the ultimate cyborg manifesto.

As the five pieces included in this slim compilation of Samuel Beckett's shorter works all share a common overall tone and theme, I am electing to review them as one cohesive unit rather than offering separate reviews for each. I also felt that each work presented was too short to necessitate any real substantial review on its own. The stage play Krapp's Last Tape opens and establishes the running mood of the volume, and is followed by two radio plays, All That Fall and Embers, and two outlines for mime performances, Acts Without Words I & Acts Without Words II.

Though the works embrace a different method of performance art, they all reflect each character's attempts to eke out some semblance of meaning in an increasingly absurd, confusing existance. From Krapp, reliving birthdays past through a series of monologues taped decades before, to the struggling couples of the radio plays and on through the silent figures in the Acts Without Words series - all actively yearn to piece together answers from what fragments remain of their respective environments. Though Krapp's Last Tape is the intended focal point, I actually thought Acts Without Words I best reflects the rivulets of desperation and mounting frustration flowing through the other pieces presented. Its simplistic presentation of satisfaction pursued and denied almost perfectly summarizes everything that lays inside the core of Krapp, the Rooneys, and Henry and Ada from earlier in the volume.

This being Beckett, of course, even the 5 pages of Acts Without Words II begs for multiple readings in order to fully grasp every nuance and allusion. I've only read this mini-anthology once, so I'm not going to make any claims of catching all the minutiae included, but I do plan on reading and hopefully dissecting it further in the future. Beckett is a consummate, eloquent dramatist, and the five scripts and outlines that have been pieced together here are all valuable examples from his body of work.

Bibliographical Information

Beckett, Samuel. Krapp's Last Tape and Other Dramatic Pieces. New York: Grove Press, 1960.

Further Reading

Samuel Beckett's own Waiting for Godot could have been seamlessly integrated into this volume. Like Krapp's Last Tape itself and the four other performances alongside it, Waiting for Godot explores its main characters' dire pining for something - anything - that makes sense as the world around them dissolves into a cacaphony of absurdity and illogic. The classic Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead by Thomas Stoppard also explores the same themes in a manner almost identical to Beckett. Both of the aforementioned dramas, however, incorporate considerably more dark humor into the storyline than those included in Krapp's Last Tape.

~Riot

Last weekend, Muni started a new eco-friendly bus line, the 74X CultureBus. For $7 you can ride all day and see a lot of San Francisco's major arts and culture institutions around the City ($5 for seniors, youth and disabled people; free for children under 4). 

Check out all the places it stops:

Yerba Buena Cultural Institutions

California Historical Society (www.californiahistoricalsociety.org)
Cartoon Art Museum (www.cartoonart.org)
Contemporary Jewish Museum (www.thecjm.org)
GLBT Historical Society (www.glbthistory.org)
Museum of the African Diaspora (www.moadsf.org)
Museum of Craft and Folk Art (www.mocfa.org)
SFMOMA (www.sfmoma.org)
SF Camerwork (www.sfcamerawork.org)
The Society of California Pioneers (www.californiapioneers.org)
Yerba Buena Center for the Arts (www.ybca.org)
Zeum (www.zeum.org)

Galleries

111 Minna Gallery (www.111minnagallery.com)
Aurobora Press (www.aurobora.com)
Baer Ridgway Exhibitions (www.baerridgway.com)
Braunstein/Quay Gallery (www.bquayartgallery.com)
Catharine Clark Gallery (www.cclarkgallery.com)
Chandler Fine Art (www.chandlersf.com)
Crown Point Press (www.crownpoint.com)
Modernism (www.modernisminc.com)
RayKo Photo Center (www.raykophoto.com)
Sculpturesite Gallery (www.sculpturesite.com)
The Artists Alley (www.theartistsalley.com)
Varnish Fine Art (www.varnishfineart.com)
Visual Aid (www.visualaid.org)
Other Yerba Buena Arts and Events (www.ybgf.org)

Civic Center

Asian Art Museum (www.asianart.org)
City Hall (www.sfgov.org)

Golden Gate Park Museum Concourse

de Young Museum (www.famsf.org/deyoung)
California Academy of Sciences (www.calacademy.org)
Japanese Tea Garden (www.sfpt.org/japanese_tea_garden.html)
Conservatory of Flowers (www.conservatoryofflowers.org)

tumblr

I'm in Memphis for a talk sponsored by AIA Memphis and Memphis Heritage and I soon discovered that this is a city that surprises. Nothing catches your eye so quickly as the wealth of historic buildings that remain throughout the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods.  In fact, according to Memphis Heritage the city ranks sixth in the nation in the number of properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places.

The day began with a tour of a terrific preservation project at the Lincoln American Tower.  In the past ten years, the downtown has seen a number of buildings brought back online by enterprising developers such as Willie Chandler and architect Chooch Pickard.  (The "Chooch" is a high-school nickname for "Choo Choo Charlie.")  Willie and Chooch gave me a top to bottom tour of the Tower and adjacent Lowenstein Building (see photo at right) which is under renovation right on Main Street.  This mixed-use development has incredible views of the downtown, Court Square Park, and - of course - the Mississippi River.  Downtown housing units have increased from 10,000 just a few years ago to more than 27,000 today, and with the rapidly developing urban vibe one can see why.

Jumping into Chooch's mini-Cooper convertible, we took a quick tour of the business districts, stopping across from the 1974 Gassner Building (see photo at top of post) to take in this very significant - and threatened - mid-century Modernist building. 

The C&I Bank Building was completed in 1974, designed by Francis Gassner, FAIA (1927-1977) of Gassner, Nathan, and Browne Architects.  The innovative design used tubular truss framing and butt glazing to shape the building and enclose its atrium.  When completed, the C&I Bank was applauded for its geometry and light-filled atrium.  The C&I Bank was recognized by both state and local AIA Awards, and, in 1979, the Museum of Modern Art included the building in its exhibit of the 400 buildings that "have had a significant influence in the recent directions of architecture."  In 2000, the C&I Bank building was recognized by the Memphis Chapter of the AIA as the Design of the Decade (1971-1980).

Memphis Heritage and AIA Memphis - like preservationists all across the country - are increasingly at work to save buildings like the Gassner which were built mid-century or later and are already threatened with demolition.  The Gassner appears to have a better chance than many to be saved - thanks to the indefatigable leadership of June West (Heritage) and Heather Koury (AIA) and the work of their boards and membership.

We had a great time with tonight's talk at the Brooks Museum, focusing on endangered historic properties and how preservationists can use tools such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation's annual list of America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places to rally support for preservation.  After a spirited Q&A session, Heather, her husband Joseph, June and I headed for a Memphis institution, the Rendezvous, for a rack of dry ribs.  It was heaven!  When I was in college, I waited tables for a year in a Nashville rib place called Spats that fashioned its ribs after the Rendezvous, so it took me back in time.  And you can't beat a place that rates a mention in a John Hiatt song. 

We finished off our ribs and drinks, and I went back to June's Jeep to pick up my bag and computer for the trip around the block to the Peabody Hotel.  I'd been glancing at this writing on her dashboard, but only focused on it now.  "What is this?" I asked.  "Why that's where Wynonna Judd signed my dashboard," replied June - as if this was something that everyone had in their car.  "Okay, why was Wynonna in your car and why did she sign your dashboard?" I asked, playing the role of straight-man.  And the story was pure Memphis, going back to the King himself.

As June tells it, Elvis (you knew there had to be an Elvis sighting somewhere in Memphis) was to be inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame.  And since Elvis is dead (at least most people believe he is), they asked Wynonna to be the stand-in recipient.  She came to Memphis for the ceremony, and a friend of June's was responsible for getting her around.  June had the only non-sportscar among the friends, so her Jeep was selected.  June said, "Sure she can ride in my Jeep - she just has to sign the dashboard."  Wynonna apparently thought this was cool...and 10 years later June has a great story to tell.  But she can't bear to sell the car!

I've met a lot of preservationists in my line of work, and I almost drowned in a Jeep going through a creek in Kentucky about 12 years ago to look at a historic site, but this story tops them all.  If June can talk Wynonna Judd into signing her dashboard, she can certainly talk some recalcitrant developer into saving a historic building.  Memphis is in great hands.

More to come...

DJB 

Now take that concept of representation and consider then what a definition really is.  Then think about Moby Dick (by Herman Melville).  Melville starts the book with a page of etymologies and a couple pages of excerpts that say everything and yet nothing about whales.  The reader then asks, so what about a whale?  And that is the real question-so what about whales?

The thing is, Moby Dick is not about a whale at all.  Says Captain Ahab:

All visible objects, man, are but as pasteboard masks.  But in each event-in the living act, the undoubted deed-there. some unknown but still reasoning thing pits forth the mouldings of its features from behind the unreasoning mask.  If man will strike, strike through the mask!  How can the prisoner reach outside except but thrusting through the wall? To me, the white whale is that wall, shoved near to me.  Sometimes I think there's naught beyond.  But 'tis enough.  He tasks me; he heaps me; I see in him outrageous strength, with an inscrutable malice sinewing it.  That inscrutable thing is chiefly what I hate; and be the white whale agent, or be the white whale principal, I will wreak hate upon him.  Talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I'd strike the sun if it insulted me. (Melville 178)

Tuttle seems to think that this book is the ultimate postmodern book, and with the conversation about simulacra and theory and such, it is arguable. But to do so, one would kind of have to be under the persuasion that modernism and postmodernism are part of the same movement.  But I say they're not.  And that is an argument that will probably go on longer than I care to partake in it.  But for me to agree with Tuttle, Moby Dick would have to have death.  It would have to dwell on it, discuss it. I told my friend Kenneth that postmodernism is about death, and it really is.  It is the diluted separate layers that resulted from modernism.  Death, death, and more death.

"What is modernism about then, if post modernism is about death?" he asked.  Poor kid, I did a number on his head that day, and I knew it when I did it.  Sorry Kenneth.  Modernism, I answered, is about identity.  I should modify that actually.  Modernism is about creating identity.  Identity already exists and it is about the need to define, modify, and add too it.  It is the renewal of the combination of the body and mind.

While this whole discussion seems relatively tangential, i assure you, it is quite relevant. Because  why are  we reading this book for this class, other than Tuttle has a fetish for it?  I think it is because this is quite an American notion-the need to create identity.  The need to be something more than simply what we come from.  The need to undergo a round in the toaster, so to speak (that was in reference to a reading-Berger's "The Toaster." I'll see if I can get something up for reference...on the reference page or something).

The idea of the whale is the antagonist to whatever it is our American ambition says we can be.  Greatness.  God-like even.  And it is probably our Nantucket Puritan heritage that presents that whale to us in the first place.  But I don't know.  I'm not done reading.

"RICHARDDo you think I have acted towards you-- badly? No? Or towards anyone?

BEATRICE(Looks at him with a sad puzzled expression.) I have asked myself that question.

RICHARDAnd the answer?

BEATRICEI could not answer it.

RICHARDIf I were a painter and told you I had a book of sketches of you you would not think it so strange, would you?

BEATRICEIt is not quite the same case, is it?

RICHARD(Smiles slightly.) Not quite. I told you also that I would not show you what I had written unless you asked to see it. Well?

BEATRICEI will not ask you.

RICHARD(Leans forward, resting his elbows on his knees, his hands joined.) Would you like to see it?

BEATRICEVery much.

RICHARDBecause it is about yourself?

BEATRICEYes. But not only that.

RICHARDBecause it is written by me? Yes? Even if what you would find there is sometimes cruel?

BEATRICE(Shyly.) That is part of your mind, too.

RICHARDThen it is my mind that attracts you? Is that it?

BEATRICE(Hesitating, glances at him for an instant.) Why do you think I come here?

RICHARDWhy? Many reasons. To give Archie lessons. We have known one another so many years, from childhood, Robert, you and I-- haven't we? You have always been interested in me, before I went away and while I was away. Then our letters to each other about my book. Now it is published. I am here again. Perhaps you feel that some new thing is gathering in my brain; perhaps you feel that you should know it. Is that the reason?

BEATRICENo.

RICHARDWhy, then?

BEATRICEOtherwise I could not see you.

(She looks at him for a moment and then turns aside quickly.)

RICHARD(After a pause repeats uncertainly.) Otherwise you could not see me?

BEATRICE(Suddenly confused.) I had better go. They are not coming back. (Rising.) Mr Rowan, I must go.

RICHARD(Extending his arms.) But you are running away. Remain. Tell me what your words mean. Are you afraid of me?

BEATRICE(Sinks back again.) Afraid? No.

RICHARDHave you confidence in me? Do you feel that you know me?

BEATRICE(Again shyly.) It is hard to know anyone but oneself.

RICHARDHard to know me? I sent you from Rome the chapters of my book as I wrote them; and letters for nine long years. Well, eight years.

BEATRICEYes, it was nearly a year before your first letter came.

RICHARDIt was answered at once by you. And from that on you have watched me in my struggle. (Joins his hands earnestly.) Tell me, Miss Justice, did you feel that what you read was written for your eyes? Or that you inspired me?

BEATRICE(Shakes her head.) I need not answer that question.

RICHARDWhat then?"