Check out this video by David Harvey. It is a provocative analysis of capitalism in crisis by a Marxist theorist. However, I think you will be intrigued by the presentation style. I love it. I think it is a fabulous way to take in information. I will refrain from commenting on the style of the video and just allow you to view it. But please do leave me a comment and let me know what you think.
Two of his main points (for those who wish to discuss the substance of the presentation):
"Capitalism never solves its crisis problems, it moves them around geographically."
History of capitalism is about financial ingenuity and innovation. "Financial innovation has the effect of empowering the financiers."
This video is a short, ten minute lecture on the future of advertising if gaming merges with marketing. I tend not to pay attention to gaming all that much, but there is reason to pay attention to this industry and the way in which it could influence human behavior.
This excited lecturer reflects on how our entire lives could become a gaming module, where we score points based on our behavior, particularly in relation to what we purchase. He concludes by saying, "I do know that this stuff is coming. Man, it's gotta' come. What's gonna stop it?!"
This discussion reminded me of Spielberg's 2002 film, Minority Report. Here is a short, 45 second video. "John Anderton, you could use a Guinness about now!"
So, if religion is not about believing things, what is it about? What I’ve found is that, across the board, religion is about behaving differently. Instead of deciding whether or not you believe in God, first you do something, you behave in a committed way, and then you begin to understand the truths of religion. And religious doctrines are meant to be summons to action: you only understand them when you put them into practice. Karen Armstrong on SOF
Theology is poetry
I suggest we discuss the above conversation. Karen Armstrong is a prolific author and articulate speaker on comparative religion. She describes herself as "a freelance monotheist," and believes that "all the great traditions are saying the same thing in much the same way, despite their surface differences." She centers religion on compassion and ethics: "I say that religion isn’t about believing things. It's about what you do. It’s ethical alchemy. It’s about behaving in a way that changes you, that gives you intimations of holiness and sacredness.” [see wiki article]
What did I like, you ask?
I like Armstrong's comments about the fact that the Bible can't answer your questions. I think Armstrong rightly puts her finger on the fact that many fundamentalists and atheists have both erred in expecting the Bible to be a book of answers. Hence, either the Bible has life's answers (fundamentalist) or it doesn't (atheists). Of course, that's painting with rather broad strokes. (Not all atheists are reacting against fundamentalism, for example.)
Armstrong suggests that the Bible is "like weights in a gym" that we "struggle with." I like that. It reminds me when the book of Hebrews speaks of the "mature" approach to "the Word." The mature "by constant use have learned to distinguish good and evil." The idea in Hebrews (chapter four, is it?) seems to be of training, not by learning rules of behavior or true propositions that one applies to life; rather, I think the idea is that interaction with "the Word" (which probably should not be restricted to the written text) should result in a certain transformative effect that carries over into the lived life.
Armstrong talked about how the Bible can be (for many) an answer book that "with the click of a mouse the answers come up."
Also......what did I like....let me see here....
Okay, I really really appreciated her thoughts that the religious should develop a "counter narrative" to that of the "extremists." I like the positive movement. Armstrong talks about "an exegetical effort." In other words, engage the text.....deeply.....rigorously. I like it. Armstrong doesn't want to shy away from the text. For example, she suggests that there is "far more violence in the Bible than in the Koran," but that this is not something that a Christian should hide from.
On the negative side.....
I am always a bit cautious of those who suggest that all religions are generally the same, with only surface differences. I do appreciate and sympathize with the perspective. Extremists throughout history have exaggerated differences and exploited many. However, there are differences in religions, and the degree to which a religion differs depends largely on what one calls the "core," "essence," or "fundamentals" of the religion. And what one calls the essence of a religion is largely a matter of interpretation. In other words, religions like Isalm or Christianity have harsh words for non-believers or infidels, and as such it is easy to see how one could locate the essence of the religion in an us-versus-them frame of mind. I personally think that this is a mistake, but it is a matter of emphasis, isn't it? A matter of interpretation that has to do not just with the text or the tradition, but also with the interpreter's own vision for the world.
You're the only tie that binds my heart Away from you I'm falling apart We need to be closer than we are
Sanctus Real Closer Fight the Tide
I'm not alright, I'm broken inside Broken inside And all I go through, it leads me to you Leads me to you Closer to you Closer to you Closer to you
I'm not alright I'm broken inside Broken inside I'm broken inside, Broken inside And all I go through leads me to you Leads me to you
I'm not alright, I'm not alright I'm not alright ... that's why I need you. Sanctus Real I'm not alright The Face of Love
One of the lessons taught me during my time in Christian evangelical circles was that one needed to pursue God, to be "close to God." Being close to God meant peace; being close to God meant that you were okay; the presence of God was to be pursued, the absence of God, eschewed.
But....does God really want to be close to us? I ask a serious question here.
Should we exist in a relentless pursuit of God's presence in our lives? Again, though many Christians take this to be an unquestionable axiom, I am raising the question, and I am doing so not simply for sake of argument.
I have previously posted on Peter Rollins, a/theology, and other explorations of negative theology. The idea is basically that I question the assumption (held almost without question in most evangelical circles) that the presence of God should be privileged over his absence....I oppose this assumption, at least, as some sweeping, categorical formula....what if God truly desires to be absent from us for a while? Would that be okay? What if there is nothing broken or wrong with us when God is absent? What if, in fact, such absence were a positive aspect of spiritual formation?
In a very real way, we can never escape the presence of God because he always surrounds us. God is really unknowable, truly transcendent, and yet She/He surrounds us at all times: "'For in him we live and move and have our being.'"
It may very well be that the presence of God heals and repairs....and it may very well be that the absence of God breaks and damages us....but I don't think these things hold absolutely. There is surely something wrong with faith when it obsesses about the presence of God. Exploring the absence of God is a means of knowing God that cannot be understood if God is present. When those we love are absent, our love grows in a unique way, love grows in the absence, and in the absence we learn more about ourselves and our relation to those we love; we learn more about the love itself; we desire the presence of the absent one; we cultivate an isolated and present-less desire.
Absence can be necessary also from the perspective of distance in order to understand our doubts and fears of God. When dealing with his people at Mt. Sinai, God appeared as a God of distance--to be feared and respected. While I'm not sure I understand the logic of such a move, I raise the issue because God himself seems to create distance from those he loves. Similarly, I think there are times when we need distance from God simply to attempt to reckon with inner doubt and faithlessness.
In short, I think that cultivating the absence of God seems to be invaluable in knowing God: we know God in presence and we know God in absence. Theologies and spiritual teachings that perpetuate God's presence as the supreme experience of spirituality feels very unhealthy to me, at this point in my life.
Thoughts?
When my love was away, Full three days were not sped, I caught my fancy astray Thinking if she were dead,
And I alone, alone: It seem'd in my misery In all the world was none Ever so lone as I.
I wept; but it did not shame Nor comfort my heart: away I rode as I might, and came To my love at close of day.
The sight of her still'd my fears, My fairest-hearted love: And yet in her eyes were tears: Which when I question'd of,
'O now thou art come,' she cried, ''Tis fled: but I thought to-day I never could here abide, If thou wert longer away.' Absence by Robert Bridges
In light of the spirited discussion on the prior Rebellion post, I thought I would post a Matrix clip that might be of relevance.
The part that is of interest is at the beginning when Smith speculates on misery and suffering. They could not program a perfect world where people are happy and free from misery. "Some believe that we lacked the programming language to describe a perfect world," Smith says, but Smith has a different theory. Smith believes that "human beings define themselves through misery."
I've got a few questions. They are short and sweet, but loaded.
First: Could God have "programed" a perfect world? Some might argue that he did program a perfect world and that humans screwed it up. I tend not to agree. I think that if God is omniscient (all knowing), then he would have known that if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were available, then humanity would partake of the wisdom of its fruit. So, I think it is reasonable to say that God created a world where suffering and misery were inevitable.
Second question....Is it possible to return to a time when we are free from misery? What happens if we restore the Garden of Eden? Is it possible that we can define our reality through something other than misery? (And maybe we already do, at least in some way.)
Personally, I'm dubious that such a return to Eden could ever occur. It seems to me that one of the most fundamental elements of our world is chaos. But nonetheless, what if we could restore something of a paradise on earth? Or at least get close? What about God? Would we need God? And if we didn't need God, then would God disappear? I say this because I think that it seems generally true that the less people need God, the less of a real presence he seems to have. I think this is true even of very religious communities here in the U.S. Even among the very religious, God still seems rather absent from the scene, and it seems to me as though our churches are more like services of remembrances of a time when we really did need God. Kind of like placing roses on a gravestone.
Those are just a few of my thoughts, stirred by Smith's speculation that "human beings define their reality through misery."
Advertising is clearly one of the primary ways not only to sell a product, but as a means of selling a lifestyle and transforming culture. There is no longer a distinction: product is image and image is product.
Advertising just is culture and culture is advertising.
In 1971 Coke produced the "I'd like to teach the world to sing" commercial. As I understand, it is the most successful (or one of the most successful) ad campaigns ever. Though I am no expert on the history of marketing, this ad was a pioneer in abandoning the concept of blatantly selling the product and instead sold an idea: a better world; a world united in song. Oh, but a world also united in drinking Coke. (Ah, so they did not completely abandon the sale of the their product!)
In 2003 Cola Turka aired two very popular commercials with Chevy Chase. Certain elements in Turkey felt threatened by the invasion of American culture and products. Cola Turka seized the opportunity to sell its own cola and outwit the giant foreign mega-brands, Pepsi and Coke. The message of the ad? Cola Turka is not just another American-type cola. Whereas the other brands represented an import of American culture and threaten to Americanize the Turks, Turka Cola promises to Turkize the Americans! So, they used a famous American spokesman to pitch the idea.
Check out these two, highly successful Turkish ads for Cola Turka:
Either way one looks at it, the above ads represent the homogenized global culture now sponsored by ___________. I'm not here to make a value judgment, I think that there are opportunities and challenges. One positive potential outcome is that we can be united around being human beings and not by race, ethnic, or national distinctions. Of course, losing our distinctiveness also seems troubling.
In any case, go ahead and pop open a Cola Turka and celebrate diversity.
Normally Indiana is ignored in the primaries. Well, friend, truth be told, most of the time Indiana is ignored in just about everything! But this year Indiana actually has some influence in the upcoming Democratic primaries. (We vote tomorrow.)
As a result, Bill Clinton was in Warsaw, Indiana. Yes, that's right, Warsaw, Indiana.
Warsaw is right next door to my little lake side hamlet of Winona Lake. So, I went to see Bill speak on Saturday.
It was a good time. His message was conservative, no big surprise there. I was a bit worried at the outset of the speech because Bill seemed like he was zoning out! In fact, his mouth was kind of hanging open and he was leaning forward such that some high school guys behind me started laughing and joking that he was going to fall over.
Ah, but once Clinton started speaking, he got in the zone. The man is a very influential politician. He was very passionate and on point, glancing only infrequently at his notes. I was very impressed.
There was a young woman with him on stage, which of course caused the high school guys behind me to start cracking jokes. Being of a depraved mind, I joined in the course jesting and suggested that I had seen a young woman who had carried in a sign saying, "I want to be the next Monica." Yes, friend, I am wrong.
The President began his speech by saying, "This country is in trouble. And you know it." His tone was emphatic; he reminded me of sitting around a dinner table listening to my grandfather lecture. A few times during the speech, Clinton took a stern tone, warning the crowd that the United States had drifted off point from the utopia he created in the nineties. What is interesting is that Clinton never spoke of Barack. I don't recall him mentioning any other politicians by name, with the exception of mentioning a few local Democrat politicians. Only a few times did he mention "the other candidates."
Here is a hilarious Youtube clip of something of a typical Indiana local who couldn't get their camera to work in time!
In other local news...
Unfortunately for me, I missed the chance to hear Obama. He was in Ft. Wayne and then made a surprise stop yesterday in Elkhart, Indiana. Ft. Wayne is about 45 mins away and Elkhart is only 20 minutes or so. Darn. I would have liked to see Obama.
I thought I would post a few videos on Oprah and her views on spirituality that have been circulating on Youtube recently.
The first two are mostly Oprah's take on spirituality, religion, and God. The last one is something of an anti-Oprah hit-piece; it is mainly a summary of clips from the first two videos but with a "beware of false teachers" motif.
In certain ways, I sympathize with Oprah's position. I do not agree with her belief that ideology necessarily means that one's spirituality is closed; I think in many cases it is ideology itself that serves to advance and cultivate goodness and true spirituality. For example, there are ideals that say, "I believe that rape is wrong," "I believe people should not be hated based on their skin color," and "I believe that recreational genocide by insane facist minded leaders is immoral." Surely these and other beliefs advance the goodness and spirituality/truth in the world. I think this is an important point that Oprah is missing; sweeping all ideology under the rug is perhaps a bit hasty.
On the other hand, I do not fall in step with the popular alarmist reactions that believe Oprah's thoughts on spirituality completely undermine the message of Christ or the Gospel of Paul. I am a strong John 14:6 believer, but I would not define it along the terms of popular Christianity today. I agree with Oprah, for example, when she suggests that Christ did not come to start Christianity. That gets an "Amen" from me. Christ's message of reconciliation is not confined strictly to a particular creed or belief system. I think it is possible to experience the power of Christ without necessarily doing so through a propositional dogma. So, in this sense, my understand of Jesus as "the way, the truth, and the life" is far more robust than most Christianity. As Truth, Jesus was (and is) not limited to dogma or doctrine; rather, he is the person of truth whose message and ministry of redemption is far bigger than can be contained within the creeds, denominations, or church buildings to whom we often pay the most homage. Religion does often become an end in itself and the various religions founded on the name of Christ often have the smallest view of Jesus and the reconciliation he came to bring. Jesus merely becomes a means to an end.
I recently watched The Island (2005) with Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson. It was a good film, definitely worth seeing if you enjoy sci-fi that is of the Aldous Huxley variety. There was certainly nothing that was entirely original in The Island, but I thought that the movie was well put together and the narrative and characters were compelling.
The setting for the film is in an artificial world. There are a group of people who have been rescued from the toxic poison of the outside world and now live in a safe, artificial environment. All things in this world are sterile and white. But this world is not the real world. Two of these people (McGregor and Johansson) eventually escape and discover that there is another world outside of the artificial one. The couple also finds that they are clones who have been purchased for their body parts. Those who paid for their cloning have no idea that real people (i.e. withe real consciousness) are being manufactured as products. The clones are brainwashed with talk of "You are special...You have a very special purpose..."
For my purposes in this post, the interesting thing is that the world of the clones is an artificial one. The Place is manufactured and synthetic. If they escape, they find a sharp contrast between the artificial and the real. The artificial world is manipulated by standards and norms that are implemented for specific purposes: To produce homogeneous human beings. These are people who basically have the same identity and purpose in life and who behave in a regimented way so as to be used for the purposes of their creators. They are people, yes. But they are people who are manipulated by their environment so as to be useful for their ultimate purpose. Genuine self discovery and authentic sense of self is denied.
The Place is not authentic. The Place is artificial.
The idea of Place is important in relation to the church. Things like atmosphere, culture, norms (spoken or especially unspoken), forums for teaching/preaching/discussion, et al are very important. Place within the context of the church determines what kind of community that believers can become and the extent to which they can explore their faith or be indoctrinated (or brainwashed, as the case may be).
Question: Can the church become an artificial place?
Of course it can.
A church that becomes artificial is disconnected from the realities of the outside world. Just like in The Island, many church buildings in America teem with religiously minded folk who together create a kind of bubble from the world. Regardless of how bad you have screwed up in the past week, you can always exit the real world of struggle, go down the rabbit hole, and enter into the wonderland of church on a Sunday morning. Here you do not need to face the reality of your life, or, if you choose to introspect and examine yourself, you can repent and promise in your heart that you will try harder and do better. Along with your resolve comes a sense of having received God's grace. (Grace, of course, is never given by God unless we promise him that we will try harder, or, translated into spiritual-speak, that we will "rely on God more to help us overcome the flesh.")
The problem is that it is all artificial. We all exit the church doors and proceed to make the same screwups and live the same lives. In many ways, I think the problem has to do with Place. There can be no genuine or authentic change within the artificial world of church.
Another problem with creating an artificial church environment is that it renders the personal exploration of faith nearly impossible, except in very rare instances. This is one of the reasons why real life-change does not take place.
The current Place of church comes out of the mindset of mass marketing. Faith is something pre-packaged for the masses. It is similar to a McDonald's in that we can all come to church, get our spiritual fast food and be on our way.
One of the things that I have previously mentioned on this blog is that words mean things. What words mean has to do with how they are used. As such, I suggest that the word "Church" is, by definition, an artificial Place. Church is associated with a synthetic environment: a building, a budget, a way of smiling and saying, "Hi, how are you, I'm fine thank-you-very-much," and going through the motions of religiosity. This is true, I believe, as much for the "good" conservative Bible believin' churches as much as for the "evil" liberal or postmodern churches.
What is very rare (oh, so rare!) in Christian circles is an authentic Place.
Only in an authentic place can there be authentic expressions, experiences, and explorations on the part of the faithful. But it all starts with Place. If you have an environment manufactured for the masses, then do not expect substantive lives of faith. Having an authentic Place does not ensure that there will be people of faith; this is a given. But without an authentic Place real faith simply does not exist.
This all begs the question: Like the heroes of The Island, should we who are serious about faith all make a break for it and try to escape?!!? That's when it gets really scary, because the real world is never safe, and we are only human, after all, we would rather be safe than real; artificial people in our artificial worlds.
I am in the midst of packing my junk for the big move. Although I am not a sold-out suburbanite, I still have what I believe is an excess of useless crap. Because I have a few weeks of downtime before I must move, I am making it my goal to throw out all things unnecessary or unhelpful and to organize all of the rest.
Bank statements.
The past few years have been rather hectic. Therefore, this particular former-accountant has not kept his own personal records very organized. My bank statements were basically all in a pile in no discernible order. The solution for me is to sort them (as I have done) and to put them in manila folders in a file cabinet. Each year shall have its own manila folder.
Next comes the existential moment.
I was labeling the years of each manila folder. I then thought to myself, "Hhhhmmm....perhaps you should label several folders going out several years so that your manila folders will be good and ready for each new year." Ah, I thought to myself (now switching back to my dominant personality), that's a good idea. The manila folders have tabs in different places (left side, center, and right side), so it would be nice to have them all organized and ready for each year.
So, I began to label them, but as I was labeling the new year (2008) and the years beyond I found myself with a sinking feeling of despair. Each year became more difficult to write and the sense of depression deepened; it was painful to write out the future years. I could only label through 2010 because going into the next decade was just too depressing.
Why is this?
Why a sense of depression over the upcoming years? I thought I had a lot to look forward to. In fact, I really do. I have goals, a direction for my life, and I feel more authentically me than I ever have at any time previously. I have a great job as an editor and am doing something I love. I've got great friends - even better than I deserve.
Why depression about the future? I am looking forward to it. It quite possibly may be the best years of my life. But I don't want 2010 to come. I don't want 2009 to arrive. Heck, I don't even want to see 2008, even though it is only weeks away.
I anticipate and embrace the future, and yet the thought that it will occur depresses me.
Follow up video from our current discussion on the desire of suicide shooters to gain immortality via the fame of the media. I see this as indicative of our American culture's current obsession with fame.
I had a brief conversation with co-worker/internet legend James Spinti on the issue. One thing that came up in the conversation is that it seems as though our culture has lost a sense of Self that we then supplement through fame: we have YouTube ("broadcast yourself"), Myspace/Facebook, American Idol, and other variants of these trends that are avenues for the Self to be noticed and to rise above the Herd (Nietzsche). We are lost in the Crowd (Kierkegaard). With no inherent sense of self-worth and Identity our only recourse is mass recognition. But it is all a mirage. Puddle of Mudd says, Be careful what you wish for Hope that its everything that you dreamed When everythings falling apart at the seams And I know that you never believed in me Don't ever let them fuck with your dreams [Lyrics]
In light of this situation, my question is this: Is the church really all that different? We typically create institutions and cultures with our own pop stars: Pastors, Speakers, Preachers, Teachers, Worship Leaders, Worship Band Members, Elders, Deacons, Counselors, Famous Authors, etc. We put people on pedestals and create hierarchies. Since we lack intimate relationships in the Body it becomes difficult to cultivate the Self in a genuine and authentic way. (The Self always needs to be cultivated within genuine relationship with others.) Without a true sense of Self, we revert to the same avenues as our peers to develop Identity: Become one of the Christian pop stars. Be known in my church as someone who is one of the best Christians in the bunch.
In my opinion, then, the deception within church is then worse than the culture at large because we can spiritualize it. We can act as though spiritual stardom is our cross to bear and that pride is our thorn in the flesh. But maybe spiritual pop stardom was never God's idea to begin with. Maybe it is a product of our own fantasy and the recontextualization of the culture's values into the context of church.
(This video is kind of generic w/ pictures of the band. Maybe when the real video makes it on to Youtube I can replace this one. Ironic, isn't it, that a band's song bashing fame will increase their fame???)
Interesting reflections by Puddle of Mudd on generating drama for the sake of writing "passionate" lyrics: “Have you ever heard those lyrics by Nine Inch Nails: ‘I just made you up to hurt myself'?” he continues, laughing. “That's kinda how it is for songwriters I think: you almost create drama in your life just to get some good inspiration! Anything that irks you a little bit, for some weird and unknown reason, is good for really passionate songs. I write a lot of the stuff, but it's like a team – everybody's got their inspiration that they put into it.” [from the band's Myspace page 12/10/07]
I haven't blogged much on college football this year, but it has been an incredible year. Yesterday's action typified, mystified, and stupified the college football world, as it has been the case all season long. Both the #1 and #2 teams lost on the last day of the pre-bowl college football season. West Virginia (#2) lost an absolutely stunning game to Pittsburgh, who carried a losing record into the game. But this kind of upset occurs nearly every week, and the #2 team in the nation seems to be particularly prone to deflowering. In fact, the 2007 college football season is the year of the #2 curse.
So, I'm watching Lou Holtz, Mark May, and Chris Fowler discuss the situation this morning. Ohio State will sneak in to the #1 position. But who gets the #2 spot? This is where the debate touches on a philosophical issue: Who decides the #2 and how? Does the computer calculate the statistics and make the purely rational, objective decision? Lou Holtz was asked who should be #2. Lou answered by quickly whipping himself up into something of an emotional frenzy and made a call for those who vote for the #2 team to vote "from the heart." The computers don't watch the game, Holtz said, and the human element is necessary. This drew a pointed criticism from Mark May (which is a rather regular occurrence) who sarcastically suggested that one should not use their brain when voting. The discussion continued as to whether rational/objective measures should be used, or whether the undefined human element should be the ultimate standard for determining the college football rankings.
In some ways this is a debate we will continue to have as the lines blur between "reality" and "virtual reality." College football currently uses something of a hybrid method. The rankings are based both on human voting and also complex mathematical formulas based upon statistics; however, the so-called human element is favored. There are three elements to a BCS ranking: The AP Poll (human voting), the Coaches Poll (human voting), and the Computer Averages. The computer averages are a combination of 6 different computer rankings systems based on objective, mathematical statistics. The BCS tries to take something of an average of these various computer ranking systems to calculate the non-human element.
Why a preference for the human element? Why not just split it down the middle? Or, better yet, just let the computer decide. This is a philosophical question of great importance. As human beings we cannot ultimately choose a purely objective or mathematical means of ranking our college football teams. We still believe that there is a subjective and undefinable element that human beings possess that a computer cannot simulate. Given the choice of which college football team is "the best," we will favor a "human" choice over an objective choice. Most of us relate to Lou Holtz. We want those who cast the votes to choose "from the heart." For the majority, there is something about football that is essentially human and un-quantifiable.
College football rankings are just one of many areas of life where we must question the role of the subjective human being in relation to the objective computer system. Where it gets really interesting is when computers generate virtual realities that simulate the so-called "human element." What happens when we can no longer distinguish a difference between the "virtual world" and the "real world"? I blogged about this in relation to Warcraft and a South Park episode a while back. If one spends their lives in their mother's basement battling in an online video game of Warcraft, then what is more "real"? The virtual world of the game or the world outside mother's basement.
Another intriguing issue regarding the virtual and real world is that of sexuality. If sexual fantasies can be indulged in the virtual world with greater satisfaction than in the real world, then what are the moral implications? In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul says, "The body is not meant for sexual immorality....Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body?....All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body." If there is no other "real" person involved, and just virtual stimulation, where is the sin? Is it a "virtual sin"? Is it a lesser sin to engage in cyber sex rather than to find a hooker on the street? If most of us are being realistic, we would generally say that cyber sex is not as bad as real sex.
The virtual world is becoming the real world, and the real world is becoming the virtual world. It is increasingly becoming difficult to tell the difference.
The virtual/real overlap is also seen in Spielberg's movie A.I., the brainchild of Stanley Kubrick. In the movie, there is a moral dilemma regarding how to treat "mechas." A mecha is an artificial life form. The movie opens with a discussion of the moral implications of creating mechas that can love. There is a sequence of dialog that I have always loved. "Hobby" is giving what appears to be a lecture at a Corporation sometime in the future regarding a new virtual person (robot) that looks just like a real human. In fact, they have even equipped it with the capacity to love. A female team member raises a few questions that are intriguing:
FEMALE TEAM MEMBER You know, it occurs to me... um...with all this animus existing against mechas today, it isn't simply a question of creating a robot who can love, but isn't the real conundrum - can you get a human to love them back?
HOBBY Ours will be a perfect child caught in a freeze-frame - always loving, never ill, never changing. With all the childless couples yearning in vain for a license, our little mecha would not only open an entirely new market, it will fill a great human need.
FEMALE TEAM MEMBER But you haven't answered my question. If a robot could genuinely love a person, what responsibility does that person hold toward that mecha in return? It's a moral question, isn't it?
In this extended A.I. clip, David, the robot boy who is made to love (played by Haley Joel Osment) meets up with Gigolo Joe (Jude Law) and they search for the Blue Fairy (recall Pinocchio) so that David can win his mother's love. Gigolo Joe makes several, very interesting comments relevant to our discussion here on cyber sex. Also intriguing is at the very end of this clip when Joe and David combine "Fact" with "Fairy Tale" in order to find the real existence of the fairy tale character, Blue Fairy.
I would like to dedicate the following video to American Christianity and organized religions of all ages for whom the inevitable tendency is to use the mask of religiosity as a cover up for true spiritual discovery and as a substitute for authentic worship.
R.E.M. Shiny Happy People Out of Time 1991
Lyrics: Shiny happy people laughing Meet me in the crowd People, people Throw your love around Love me, love me Take it into town Happy, happy Put it in the ground Where the flowers grow Gold and silver shine
(chorus) Shiny happy people holding hands Shiny happy people holding hands Shiny happy people laughing
Everyone around, love them, love them Put it in your hands Take it, take it There's no time to cry Happy, happy Put it in your heart Where tomorrow shines Gold and silver shine
Here are a few videos and pictures of my three day hike in the Black Hills. I went with my brother and his wife and we spent our time in the Black Elk Wilderness.
Family Resemblance?
The following two photos are of the sunset at Harney's Peak:
This picture brought to my mind Exodus 13:21
A few more pics of me:
The following is a video clip from the Black Hills. In this clip I am at the top of Harney Peak.
Bonds gets #756 and passes Aaron for all time home run slugger.
Notice when he crosses home plate. Kind of an awkward moment with his son, who tries to embrace Barry, but Barry is honoring his father by looking up to the sky.
Is it a "tainted" record? Yea, probably. But that's life. Someone will brake his record, anyway, in the next generation of athletes. Alex Rodriguez, so they say, will probably be the next home run king.
"Theos" is the Greek word for "God," making this blog something of a God Project........A project that we all collaborate on, that we all share in, saying what can't be said.......different faith traditions in dialog, believer and nonbeliever in conversation.......Please feel comfortable joining the dialog, each perspective is valuable and beautiful in its own way, because all of us "know in part."
