I have recently discovered the Sociologist C Wright Mills. His book the Sociological Imagination was wonderful and I feel like he is the kind of person I would have liked to work with. Here is a quote from Steven Seidman about C Wright Mills take on modern America.
"Mills imagined America drifting into a quiet totalitarianism in contrast to the noisy harsher version in the Societ Union. Its basic feature is the development of a dependent social mass ruled by an elite through impersonal bureaucracies and the media. A totalitarian society is marked by the absence or enfeeblement of public debate and the social movements that influence the direction of society. In the Societ Union, a state dictatorship undermined the possibility of a democratic society; in the United States, the formulation of a mass consumer culture coupled with the consolidation of a power elite threatened the demise of democracy. The illusion of freedom perptuated by consumerism and electorial politics blinded Americans to their social drift."
Sounds about right to me.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
Heretical Thoughts: Origional Sin
It is a little bit difficult to figure out what the origional sin was. If we believe traditional Christian orthodoxy, Adam and Eve had sex. I'm not sure where exactly they get that idea, but that's the story.
As far as I can tell there is no Biblical evidence for this and Mormons certainly shouldn't take it seriously. In the Mormon version the origional sin seems to be disobeying God. But then again, God gives contradictory commandments: don't eat from the tree, have babies. Adam goes blissfully along, Satan tells Eve she can't do both, she sees the logic and goes for it. Later after getting kicked out of the garden they both agree it was the right decision.
It is a bizaare story. God gives them contradictory commandments, then kicks them out for not obeying. If they had not eaten the forbidden fruit would they have just hung around for 1000 years until God finally says you idiots I really meant for you to eat the fruit? How long do they go for before they get kicked out for not obeying that commandment? This is strange stuff.
There is a sense that what really matters is the symbol. Humans sin and as such cannot live with God and are condemned, etc. The origional sin is more a representation of all of humanity's inevitable sins.
Sometimes traditional Christians talk this way, but sometimes they act like the origional sin (sex) tainted humanity. Just by being human you are tainted. babies that are fresh born are tainted, so they must be baptized asap.
Mormons don't buy this either. Mormons opt for the option that the origional sin is a symbol of humanities fallen state, not some metaphysical taint. This still leaves unanswered the question of what exactly the origional sin is. Again, for traditional Christianity it is sex. Often mormons talk about it like it is disobedience. But, again, this doesn't make sense to me. Disobedience was inevitable by the conditions set up in the garden.
Does this really matter? I think it does. Traditional Christianity thought sex was the origional sin and this made sex a very bad act. It represents a turn away from the spiritual, a choice to embrace the carnal over the etherial. So, naturally, if you start off with those assumptions, people start talking like their physical bodies themselves are bad. Next thing you know people are whipping themselves, starving themselves, assiduously avoiding sex, shaving their heads, etc.
Mormons don't think of sex as the origional sin and reject many of the implications that are drawn by traditional Christians. Sex isn't bad. The physical body isn't bad. It just needs to be used in the right way.
On the contrary, as I have already pointed out, Mormons seem to see the origional sin as disobedience. I have argued that this doesn't make sense solely based on the Adam and Eve story, but it is plausable in a metaphorical sense as a symbol of the human condition.
I don't like this. Just as taking sex as the origional sin leads to a culture that denigrates the human body and rejects this life (although I should mention that Jews didn't read the story this way, it seems that what happened was Christians adapted the Platonic assumptions about the physical world being bad and then interpreted the Bible on these grounds, thus producing the origional sin = sex story), the Mormon tendency to see the origional sin as disobedience leads to a stultifying culture of obedience.
What is wrong with a culture of obedience? Too often it is mindless obedience. Tell me what to do and I will do it. this leads to all sorts of problems because humans and prophets are fallible and if all we ever do is obey then we risk doing something immoral in the name of God. To put it bluntly, the Nazi's produced a society that was pretty obedient. God doesn't want mindlessness. He may want obedience, but he also wants competence and competence requires intelligently weighing alternatives, motives, nuances, etc. Too often, painfully too often in my opinion, mormons are guilty of this.
I really dislike the mindless culture of obedience. I want to suggest an alternative origional sin story. In my mind the Adam and Eve story is convoluted and paradoxical. I don't think the Adam and Eve story tells us that we are supposed to be obedient at all, I think it shows us something much more complicated about the complexity and possible ethical conundrums that are inevitable with a pluralistic humanity. But I want to leave this question and ask, if disobedience is NOT the origional sin, what is?
Interestingly, the Book of Mormon has a rough equivalent of the Pure State like the Garden of Eden. While not sinless, there is nonetheless a period of 200 years after Christ comes when a Zion like society is established and there is "no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God." (4 Nephi 1:16)
I find it interesting that 4 Nephi doesn't play a much larger role in LDS theology and popular culture. Mormons love talking about how humanity is here to have joy (2 Nephi 2:25). You would think we would be intersted in the happiest people to ever exist in the history of the world.
Furthermore you would think we would be interested in what destroyed the happiest people in the world. Whatever sin destroyed the happiest people in the history of the world should merit major reflection and consideration as the/an origional sin.
It is fashion. "...there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world." (4 Nephi 1:24)
Sure we could say it is pride, but the explicit manifestation of what destroyed the happiest people in the history of the world is fashion.
"And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more common among them.
"And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ." (25 - 26)
The clearest I have ever found the origional sin, the fundamental sin, stated in the scriptures occurs in D&C 49:20.
"But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin."
There it is. People aren't supposed to have more crap than each other. They are supposed to share. Sin begins when one person attempts to get more crap than another. And that is precisely what fashion, the great destroyer of the happiest people ever, does. It sets one person above another.
The question of fashion, of setting ourselves against and above others, is everywhere in the scriptures. But Mormons largely ignore it. Why?
Personally I believe it is because Mormons have bought into the doctrine of Korihor, which states: "every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength" (Alma 30: 17). Korihor suggests every person should be able to "make use of that which is their own" (28). Essentially Korihor says it is a dog eat dog world and we all have to fight to get what is ours for our family. Protect your own first.
This attitude is related to the Protestant Ethic, which is still very present in America and plays a foundational role in the rise and perpetuation of capitalism. It isn't going away anytime soon and, in my opinion, it is another version of the fundamental sin.
Why don't Mormons fixate on 4 Mephi? Because it condemns us here and now. We love our fashion, we love fighting to protect our own, and we hate having to share.
It is black Friday. People all over the united States are running to stores, trampling each other, buying meaningless garbage to try and distinguish themselves. It is probably worse here in Utah than other places.
As far as I can tell there is no Biblical evidence for this and Mormons certainly shouldn't take it seriously. In the Mormon version the origional sin seems to be disobeying God. But then again, God gives contradictory commandments: don't eat from the tree, have babies. Adam goes blissfully along, Satan tells Eve she can't do both, she sees the logic and goes for it. Later after getting kicked out of the garden they both agree it was the right decision.
It is a bizaare story. God gives them contradictory commandments, then kicks them out for not obeying. If they had not eaten the forbidden fruit would they have just hung around for 1000 years until God finally says you idiots I really meant for you to eat the fruit? How long do they go for before they get kicked out for not obeying that commandment? This is strange stuff.
There is a sense that what really matters is the symbol. Humans sin and as such cannot live with God and are condemned, etc. The origional sin is more a representation of all of humanity's inevitable sins.
Sometimes traditional Christians talk this way, but sometimes they act like the origional sin (sex) tainted humanity. Just by being human you are tainted. babies that are fresh born are tainted, so they must be baptized asap.
Mormons don't buy this either. Mormons opt for the option that the origional sin is a symbol of humanities fallen state, not some metaphysical taint. This still leaves unanswered the question of what exactly the origional sin is. Again, for traditional Christianity it is sex. Often mormons talk about it like it is disobedience. But, again, this doesn't make sense to me. Disobedience was inevitable by the conditions set up in the garden.
Does this really matter? I think it does. Traditional Christianity thought sex was the origional sin and this made sex a very bad act. It represents a turn away from the spiritual, a choice to embrace the carnal over the etherial. So, naturally, if you start off with those assumptions, people start talking like their physical bodies themselves are bad. Next thing you know people are whipping themselves, starving themselves, assiduously avoiding sex, shaving their heads, etc.
Mormons don't think of sex as the origional sin and reject many of the implications that are drawn by traditional Christians. Sex isn't bad. The physical body isn't bad. It just needs to be used in the right way.
On the contrary, as I have already pointed out, Mormons seem to see the origional sin as disobedience. I have argued that this doesn't make sense solely based on the Adam and Eve story, but it is plausable in a metaphorical sense as a symbol of the human condition.
I don't like this. Just as taking sex as the origional sin leads to a culture that denigrates the human body and rejects this life (although I should mention that Jews didn't read the story this way, it seems that what happened was Christians adapted the Platonic assumptions about the physical world being bad and then interpreted the Bible on these grounds, thus producing the origional sin = sex story), the Mormon tendency to see the origional sin as disobedience leads to a stultifying culture of obedience.
What is wrong with a culture of obedience? Too often it is mindless obedience. Tell me what to do and I will do it. this leads to all sorts of problems because humans and prophets are fallible and if all we ever do is obey then we risk doing something immoral in the name of God. To put it bluntly, the Nazi's produced a society that was pretty obedient. God doesn't want mindlessness. He may want obedience, but he also wants competence and competence requires intelligently weighing alternatives, motives, nuances, etc. Too often, painfully too often in my opinion, mormons are guilty of this.
I really dislike the mindless culture of obedience. I want to suggest an alternative origional sin story. In my mind the Adam and Eve story is convoluted and paradoxical. I don't think the Adam and Eve story tells us that we are supposed to be obedient at all, I think it shows us something much more complicated about the complexity and possible ethical conundrums that are inevitable with a pluralistic humanity. But I want to leave this question and ask, if disobedience is NOT the origional sin, what is?
Interestingly, the Book of Mormon has a rough equivalent of the Pure State like the Garden of Eden. While not sinless, there is nonetheless a period of 200 years after Christ comes when a Zion like society is established and there is "no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God." (4 Nephi 1:16)
I find it interesting that 4 Nephi doesn't play a much larger role in LDS theology and popular culture. Mormons love talking about how humanity is here to have joy (2 Nephi 2:25). You would think we would be intersted in the happiest people to ever exist in the history of the world.
Furthermore you would think we would be interested in what destroyed the happiest people in the world. Whatever sin destroyed the happiest people in the history of the world should merit major reflection and consideration as the/an origional sin.
It is fashion. "...there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world." (4 Nephi 1:24)
Sure we could say it is pride, but the explicit manifestation of what destroyed the happiest people in the history of the world is fashion.
"And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more common among them.
"And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ." (25 - 26)
The clearest I have ever found the origional sin, the fundamental sin, stated in the scriptures occurs in D&C 49:20.
"But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin."
There it is. People aren't supposed to have more crap than each other. They are supposed to share. Sin begins when one person attempts to get more crap than another. And that is precisely what fashion, the great destroyer of the happiest people ever, does. It sets one person above another.
The question of fashion, of setting ourselves against and above others, is everywhere in the scriptures. But Mormons largely ignore it. Why?
Personally I believe it is because Mormons have bought into the doctrine of Korihor, which states: "every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength" (Alma 30: 17). Korihor suggests every person should be able to "make use of that which is their own" (28). Essentially Korihor says it is a dog eat dog world and we all have to fight to get what is ours for our family. Protect your own first.
This attitude is related to the Protestant Ethic, which is still very present in America and plays a foundational role in the rise and perpetuation of capitalism. It isn't going away anytime soon and, in my opinion, it is another version of the fundamental sin.
Why don't Mormons fixate on 4 Mephi? Because it condemns us here and now. We love our fashion, we love fighting to protect our own, and we hate having to share.
It is black Friday. People all over the united States are running to stores, trampling each other, buying meaningless garbage to try and distinguish themselves. It is probably worse here in Utah than other places.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Reverence
it is 4:44 AM. I woke up at 3 and didn't feel tired. It is noon in Korea.
The last weekend before we left was bittersweet. I had been in a zombie like state for a couple monthes and fall was finally dying. The cold in Korea has an edge. Somehow we ended up at Coex, a large underground mall. Overpriced and silly as they are, sometimes I like to wander around malls just to see people. It is like poking an ant hills, the shoppers frantically scrounging around for another supercillious sale, another preplanned discount. I'd rather be at an old market than a mall, but modern gods are as thorough as the old ones--old gods can stay around as long as they sell.
Out the north side of Coex there is a large Buddhist temple complex with a huge Buddha statue. Inevitably Anna and I ended up hunkered down in front of it watching the last leaves swirl around the grainy grey figure and she asked if I thought it had a soul.
I think the buildings, statues and cultural creations that humans make are embodiments of the world of their creators. This giant buddha statue with tiny Korean figures below it bowing down repeatedly has a soul. Granted, if you knock it down no djinn emerges and screeches away. But there is a presence to ancient things left behind, a world that was made flesh and if you listen it forces itself upon you.
What is the difference between the person who stands before the Buddha statue and feels God, history, ideals and culture and the person who feels nothing and would rather get back into the warm mall? I've given a lot of thought about this, and it was only sitting there with the smell of incense tickling in the rigid wind after having emerged from the oppressive chemical frankenstein perfumes of the mall that I realized it is the same thing that leads some people to be indifferent to animals while others respect them: reverence.
Perhaps it is right to associate reverence with obedience, but turning it into a sunday school virtue doesn't do it justice. Max Weber was getting at this when he argued modern life disenchants the world, eliminates the eternal, the power of the external. It turns us all into hermetically sealed headons that only reach outside ourselves in voyeuristic gestures driven by a pleasure calculus. The outside world ceases to be something we listen to, something that we must acknowledge and revere and instead becomes something we consume (while at the same time turning ourselves into commodities to be ranked, wondered at and bought).
In a world where we are taught to go out and get what we want it is hard to learn to be gotten. We are in the full time business of cracking open tombs and divulging secrets, lifting up skirts and dissecting corpses. When we aren't actively dispelling them, we no longer can take the time to pay attention to the souls all around us.
Modernity is learned irreverence. Little kids have reverence about the world. They are excited by it, open to it. So much of the madness that is modern life is driven by the ability to shut off reverence. Economically, reverence is a disaster. The last thing the businessman and entrepreneur wants to deal with is their potential customers detained in a stream watching waterbugs and minnows. So we are stimulated by the new omnipresent force in modernity, commericals, into a constant state of voyeurism.
Anna and I talked about this while sitting before that statue. Then we sat in a temple for a while and watched as people stand up, then get on their knees, then bow, then stand back up, then get on their knees, then bow, then get back up. The sound of breathing, shuffling, quiet prayers and clinking prayer beads. There was a little temple in Suwon than was the first place I took Anna to. No one was there. No Koreans, no foreigners. i remember we sat down in the temple and were quiet for a long time. Then we talked.
being alone in the desert has the same effect.
It it important to be small. To be a part of something bigger. Too see the god in a statue and the god in a scarlet tanager that flits briefly from one Saguaro to another.
The last weekend before we left was bittersweet. I had been in a zombie like state for a couple monthes and fall was finally dying. The cold in Korea has an edge. Somehow we ended up at Coex, a large underground mall. Overpriced and silly as they are, sometimes I like to wander around malls just to see people. It is like poking an ant hills, the shoppers frantically scrounging around for another supercillious sale, another preplanned discount. I'd rather be at an old market than a mall, but modern gods are as thorough as the old ones--old gods can stay around as long as they sell.
Out the north side of Coex there is a large Buddhist temple complex with a huge Buddha statue. Inevitably Anna and I ended up hunkered down in front of it watching the last leaves swirl around the grainy grey figure and she asked if I thought it had a soul.
I think the buildings, statues and cultural creations that humans make are embodiments of the world of their creators. This giant buddha statue with tiny Korean figures below it bowing down repeatedly has a soul. Granted, if you knock it down no djinn emerges and screeches away. But there is a presence to ancient things left behind, a world that was made flesh and if you listen it forces itself upon you.
What is the difference between the person who stands before the Buddha statue and feels God, history, ideals and culture and the person who feels nothing and would rather get back into the warm mall? I've given a lot of thought about this, and it was only sitting there with the smell of incense tickling in the rigid wind after having emerged from the oppressive chemical frankenstein perfumes of the mall that I realized it is the same thing that leads some people to be indifferent to animals while others respect them: reverence.
Perhaps it is right to associate reverence with obedience, but turning it into a sunday school virtue doesn't do it justice. Max Weber was getting at this when he argued modern life disenchants the world, eliminates the eternal, the power of the external. It turns us all into hermetically sealed headons that only reach outside ourselves in voyeuristic gestures driven by a pleasure calculus. The outside world ceases to be something we listen to, something that we must acknowledge and revere and instead becomes something we consume (while at the same time turning ourselves into commodities to be ranked, wondered at and bought).
In a world where we are taught to go out and get what we want it is hard to learn to be gotten. We are in the full time business of cracking open tombs and divulging secrets, lifting up skirts and dissecting corpses. When we aren't actively dispelling them, we no longer can take the time to pay attention to the souls all around us.
Modernity is learned irreverence. Little kids have reverence about the world. They are excited by it, open to it. So much of the madness that is modern life is driven by the ability to shut off reverence. Economically, reverence is a disaster. The last thing the businessman and entrepreneur wants to deal with is their potential customers detained in a stream watching waterbugs and minnows. So we are stimulated by the new omnipresent force in modernity, commericals, into a constant state of voyeurism.
Anna and I talked about this while sitting before that statue. Then we sat in a temple for a while and watched as people stand up, then get on their knees, then bow, then stand back up, then get on their knees, then bow, then get back up. The sound of breathing, shuffling, quiet prayers and clinking prayer beads. There was a little temple in Suwon than was the first place I took Anna to. No one was there. No Koreans, no foreigners. i remember we sat down in the temple and were quiet for a long time. Then we talked.
being alone in the desert has the same effect.
It it important to be small. To be a part of something bigger. Too see the god in a statue and the god in a scarlet tanager that flits briefly from one Saguaro to another.
Monday, November 09, 2009
CDG 5
If you are wondering why I have been posting so many pictures it is partially because I can store them here and also because I might as well show them.
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
CDG 3
Details from the servants quarters. Oddly enough I found the plain brown and white servants quarters the most beautiful buildings in Chang Deok Gung.
These two little kids were holding hands and skipping and Anna said "Justin, get the camera!" Didn't quite get them in the door but close enough.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
