Further to this post, a conversation:
Socrates: oi oi
as i understand it, conor says the things he does not because of creation, but because the incarnation somehow affirms materiality
this is argument with darwinism; they are actually anti-materialistic, because they seem not to like matter very much
Meno: yeah, that's correct too - but creation affirms materiality to begin with (God said it was very good)
Socrates: yes, precisely, so it seems a weird move
perhaps the incarnation is like a reminder of this! to refresh ones memory of the goodness not just of the cosmos, but also of human life in all its movements
Meno: a cosmic memo
Socrates: but conor might not want this because, of course, he wants to avoid a tragic christianity
Meno: yeah, no - that's right, it's the centrality of human life that is essentially new in the incarnation
hwo could that be construed as tragic?
how
Socrates: well, the kind of the world as secular and godless largely and god kind of comes into it
but if you think about it, both the creation and the incarnation are centrally human - adam is put in the driving seat
perhaps this is a bit like paul's new adam bit
and therefore a kind of deification bit
Meno: yes
if we became men, we'd be gods
'[the person who becomes spiritually enriched through contemplation of the scriptures] will find God himself engraved on the tablets of his heart through the grace of the Spirit and with face unveiled will see as in a mirror the glory of God'
maximus - wants to look in the mirror and see God
Socrates: but polemically speaking, i am not sure conor's point is as subtle as all this - or perhaps it is and i am not being pleasant if Jesus teaches us to be men
Meno: well, if conor's just arguing with darwinists, there's no real room for expositing 'what scripture really means'
if on the other hand he was teaching a class on maximus and augustine, or on biblical theology, he'd be saying much more interesting things
(john too.)
...
because, for example, without Christ there is no suffering - well would there be suffering without the fall
ditto death, especially death
john has gone to the wall in saying death came after the fall and anyone who says differently is either not orthodox or simply a bit lame
Meno: well it's an ontological question proper, isn't it - it's a question of what 'is' means in conor's affirmation
Socrates: lol!
Meno: death as a datum, cold, blunt, meaningless - this 'is' because of the fall
but death as meaningful, suffering as redemptive - this 'is' because of the incarnation
that's straight st paul (cosmic suffering has been happening for ever, but only since the crucifixion and resurrection has it been suffering 'for' something)
Socrates: cf. nietzsche's very lutheran critique of christianity
Meno: so maybe that's the distinction he's trying to make?
because death couldn't be a moment in creation
...how do you mean?
Socrates: well, nietzsche goes like this - christianity gives suffering a reason
Meno: (i love it - lutheran critique of christianity - what a catholic thing to say)
Socrates: so like you said above - suffering isn’t datum, but is meaningful
Meno: yeah
Socrates: but of course, for nietzsche this is the lie - because it makes suffering more suffering because it raises it to a cosmic register
Meno: yeah i think nietzsche's diagnosis is basically correct; i just don't think that movement (of giving suffering significance) is as conservative as he things it
Socrates: Lutheran because of its pauline emphasis
Meno: *thinks
but right, nietzsche's really only attacking 19th century lutheranism
he knows nothing of the catholic tradition
or orthodoxy
or really even luther
just the bible
which is all that lutheranism allowed him to read!
Socrates: yes and no - yes he is attacking a specific brand of christianity and his critiques are well met (degradation of this worldly good etc), but don’t want to go with the line that some of his critiques don’t apply to christianity tout court
Meno: sure
his critiques apply to christianity tout court, but the tradition could answer his critiques - 19th century lutheranism really doesn't have the resources to answer him
he's the big kid picking on the handicapped kid
Socrates: lolz
Meno: stop hitting yourself, christianity
Socrates: !
Meno: actually that's exactly what he does
he makes sola scriptura slap itself in the face
...
Socrates: i think though what conor says is part of an overarching ro move
that without transcendence there is no difference
Meno: and without difference, no meaning
yeah
Socrates: so we just get a grey mush of stuff - no difference between an ice cream
and the holocaust
Meno: well, in this country that's not far from true
...sorry, go on
Socrates: so this is why no incarnation, no nothing - i think it is part of the bigger ro project - no transcendence, no immanence and we want both
Meno: the malt cross is playing bitches brew
this is immanence and transcendence at its finest
Socrates: i think you should edit this teasing out of the implications of conor cunningham's comments and post it
particularly the bit about nietzsche slapping christianity in the face
Meno: with its own hand - that's the central bit
Socrates: naturally
Meno: alright, how do you want it edited?
do you want it to look like we typed in proper sentences?
...
Socrates: also, this is kind of ray brassier's move also, he is slapping materialism with its own hand
except positively
Meno: that's interesting
is that parallel to what conor's trying to do to materialism?
Socrates: oh totally - this is precisely what he is trying to do! conor that is - ill come back to brassier in a sexc
sec
his big thing is darwinism undercuts itself, ie the scientific enterprise
so darwinian theory or science all over becomes a way of saying i want to mate with you
you cannot have you materialist cake and eat it
etc
Meno: right
and brassier?
Socrates: so it is the same bully tactic
similar move i think, particularly in the first chapter of nihil unbound
in that churchland's materialism doesn't quite tally up with his scientific realism
and he has to invoke a deus ex machina of darwinism (we were selected because it’s good for us to have more economic solutions to problems)
so eventually, despite his rigour, he becomes an idealist - a kind of neuro idealist where the structures of the mind form the phenomenal of our world etc
Meno: churchland does
okay
Socrates: while we are chucking this around: isn't deconstruction basically this move as well
Meno: yeah, yeah it is
Socrates: you take on the 'hand' of a discourse (temporarily accept its premises) to hit the discourse with until it is deflated and ruptures (goes crying to its mum)
Meno: ha!
Socrates: ruptures = wees itself
Meno: yes
Socrates: mum = transcendental signifier
Meno: you make conor, brassier and nietzsche all sound kind of mean
Socrates: well they are aren’t they
Meno: philosophy = bully
Meno: who will grow up in self-loathing
Socrates: in their own ways they are all kind of pugilists in their own ways
Socrates: lol
that is surely the (only?) structural difference between these modes of argument and bullying of this kind
because most people bully because they are dissatisfied with themselves, no?
Meno: that's at least what my parents always told me
Socrates: maybe because we are all geeks and all were probably to some extent bullied
this is our theoretical revenge!
Meno: our entire career is vengeance on the [popular children] of our childhood
except we attack their ideologies, instead of pulling their hair
Socrates: lol
...
anyway, ill leave you to convert this witty banter into a platonic dialogue!
i think we have hit on something pretty profound here
marx does the same thing doesn’t he
Meno: we are profound and witty
Socrates: yes
it’s all we have
we have no money
Meno: barefoot in athens
NB When Socrates says 'lol,' he is not laughing - he is verbally expressing 'lol' (or as it often sounds, 'lull').
2 commenta:
This made me pee in my pants a little.
Oh Jeffrey. The things you do to me.
lolz, philosophy/theology bash.org style!
Post a Comment