Philosophical Excitement

As I begin my study of Deleuze, I have this sense of excitement and wonder. This summer I tried to read Difference and Repetition but not having the proper background I only managed to stumble my way through the first 100 pages. However, I remember feeling this anticipation that I was genuinely encountering something truly creative and special. I’m going to toss in my top 10 books (in no particular order) that gave me a sense of excitement that only great works can truly expire

Nietzsche’s the Anti-Christ

Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Freud’s Totem and Taboo

Lacan’s Ethics of Psychoanalysis

Derrida’s Of Grammatology

Altizer’s Gospel of Christian Atheism

Mark C Taylor’s Altarity

Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison

Cone’s God of the Oppressed

Motlmann’s Crucified God

Deleuze on the Death of God

“Did we do away with religion when we interiorized the priest, placing him into the faithful, in the style of the Reformation? Did we kill God when we put man in his place and kept the most important thing, which is the place? The only change is this: instead of being burdened from the outside, man takes the weights and places them on his own back. The philosopher of the future, the doctor-philosopher, will diagnose the perpetuation of the same ailment beneath different symptoms; values can change, man can put himself in the place of God, progress, happiness; utility can replace the truth, the good, or the divine – what is essential hasn’t changed: the perspectives or the evaluations on which these values, whether old or new, depend. (Pure Immanence, 71)

Deleuze on Philosphers

“[P]hilosophers have very little time for discussion. Every philosopher runs away when he or she hears someone say, “Let’s discuss this.” Discussions are fine for roundtable talks, but philosophy throws its numbered dice on another table. The best one can say about discussions is that they take things no farther, since the participants never talk about the same thing. Of what concern is it to philosophy that someone has such a view, and thinks this or that, if the problems at stake are not stated? And when they are stated, it is no longer a matter of discussing but rather one of creating concepts for the undiscussable problem posed. Communication always comes too early or too late, and when it comes to creating, conversation is always superfluous. Sometimes philosophy is turned into the idea of a perpetual discussion, as “communicative rationality,” or as “universal democratic conversation.” Nothing is less exact, and when philosophers criticize each other it is on the basis of problems and on a plane that is different from theirs and that melt down the old concepts in the way a cannon can be melted down to make new weapons. It never takes place on the same plane. To criticize is only to establish that a concept vanishes when it is thrust into a new milieu, losing some of its components, or acquiring others that transform it. But those who criticize without creating, those who are content to defend the vanished concept without being able to give it the forces it needs to return to life, are the plague of philosophy. All those debaters and communicators are inspired by ressentiment” (What is Philosophy?, 28)

On Creation

I often hear Christians talk about the world as if God created it. Am the only one out there who doubts God had a role at all at the origin of the cosmos? Is it possible to think of a God who does is not thought of as a creator? The usual (mature) Christian response is God was the zero-point at the Big Bang, but I really dislike this gesture. For one, I can imagine a point in the near future where we might advance our understanding of scientific knowledge so as to make this assumption pointless. Also, I have trouble understanding why we need to hold on the image of God as creator to affirm God’s self-revelation in Jesus of Nazareth. Even if science never discovers the origin of our universe will we really need to secure God a tiny spot in history to fit in with the natural world? It actually reminds me of a conversation I had this summer with a dear friend who has lost his faith. He described himself as a deist but not an atheist. I was baffled. He thought it was reasonable to imagine a God who initiated the cosmos but took a step back and assumed a detached role. I have a hard time imagining ever getting there. I didn’t think it was possible any more these days to hold onto a theology like this. I thought that with the advent of modern science a belief in God like this was all but impossible.

I’ll include my response to Halden to flush my objections out more:

Certainly, scriptures and the creeds supports the conclusion that God is creator. Here, I’m thinking of Pannenberg’s method in Anthropology in Theological Perspective. He puts theology in dialogue with pretty much every discipline to allow them to critique theology and allow theology to supplement our understanding of those “secular disciplines”. He basically admits certain beliefs in the fall cannot be upheld given our understanding of evolution. He resists the temptation to locate the fall in a mythical, pre-historical world. I just don’t know what to say about the creation of the world. I mean where did God intervene? I really dislike this God as stop-gap in our knowledge, it just seems insulting and awkward. Basically, we cannot explain the how things began so we God to help us make sense of this lack of knowledge. Did he just set the ball rolling and at the beginning of time? I just don’t like theistic evolution. God’s merely a useless name in the whole business, why does chance receive the name God? Isn’t that unworthy of God? Side note: I should read Pannenberg’s Theology and the Philosophy of Science.

It’s odd that I have such difficulty trying to imagine a God that I could believe in that wasn’t involved in the creation of the world. Partially, I suspect the conditions and tools I’ve been given to conceive of God hinder a more productive exploration. I’m about to begin my study of Deleuze, and I just checked out his books on Nietzsche, What is Philosophy, his essays on Pure Immanence, as well as listening to Caputo’s lecture on Deleuze that involves a study of Difference and Repetition. I know the Deleuzian answers to the question what is philosophy is the creation of concepts. I wonder in what ways theology should think of fostering a more creative atmosphere as opposed to merely reflecting on traditional sources of theological inspiration: the church, the Bible, religious experience, and the work of past theologians. This seems like a more productive enterprise. Maybe once I start reading Deleuze I’ll have something of substance to say.

Bible Verses Against the Family and Marriage

Because someone tried to call bullshit on my claims that Jesus was opposed to marriage, I’ve decided to assemble a collection of verses with the help of Ted Jenning’s The Man Who Jesus Loved.

31 Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. 32 A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, “Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.” 33 “Who are my mother and my brothers?” he asked. 34 Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! 35 Whoever does God’s will is my brother and sister and mother.”
Mark 3:31-35

29 “I tell you the truth,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age (homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—and with them, persecutions) and in the age to come, eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”
Mark 10:29-21 – Notice the curious addition of fields at the end of the list again the family is situated within an economic order of possession.

12 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13 All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
Mark 13:12-13

34″Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ 37 “Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
Matthew 10:34-39

49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
Luke 12:49-53

25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27 And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
Luke 14:25-27

27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” 28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”
Luke 11:27-28

1 After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; 3 Joanna the wife of Cuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means.
Luke 8:1-3

15 When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, “Blessed is the man who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God.” 16 Jesus replied: “A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. 17 At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’ 18 “But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, ‘I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.’ 19 “Another said, ‘I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I’m on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.’ 20 “Still another said, ‘I just got married, so I can’t come.’ 21 “The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.’ 22 ” ‘Sir,’ the servant said, ‘what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.’ 23 “Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full. 24 I tell you, not one of those men who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.’ “
Luke 14:15-23

Jennings notes how the last parable places all of the relations in economic terms. Even marriage is conceived of as ownership, and hence can lead to possessiveness and dependence on something other than the coming Reign of God (Man Jesus Loved, 198)

If you want to try and claim Jesus is merely a rhetorician be my guest. But I’m always suspicious of where people decide to interpret the sayings of Jesus metaphorically and not just take him at his word. Same approach occurs when the rich man’s vice is merely his attachment to something not-God as opposed to being money. In reality he should just love God more than money, or he should love God more than his wife or children. What if as opposed to making God appear as this insecure, selfish beast we admitted perhaps some other social collective is being advocated here. Besides, we all know that when we loved others the love of God shines through. He doesn’t ask us to love others less so as to make room for Godself, that would be patently absurd! (I must acknowledge my debt to Zizek some aspects of this last paragraph)

 

Reasons to FInd a Church

So having just moved to a new area of the country I immediately felt compelled to seek out a church. Other than the sadistic supergoic demands I must obey, I initially told myself the reason I was seeking out a church was to find a community in which I could live out the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth. However, now that I’ve been here for 2 months without any success or failures I’m starting to have doubts about my motivation.

The last church I went to in Austin was enjoyable, it was probably too hipster for me. I’m not very cool, so I didn’t always fit in with crowd (that and cause I was 21 not 28). I ended up not attending over the last four months and dedicating all my time to running a theology pub.

Here was our reading list:
Peter Rollins – How (Not) to Speak of God
Rene Girard – I See Satan Fall Like Lightning
Jurgen Moltmann – The Crucified God
J Denny Weaver – Nonviolent Atonement
Stan Grenz – 20th Century Theology

Either way, I’m still pretty proud of all that we accomplished in only eight months when I was co-running it with my friend James. I also credit Grenz for introducing me to the vast world of (protestant) theology of the previous century. I thought I could find a group of people here in the DC area who might be interested in reading some theology and drinking beer, but alas I have failed thus far. The main reason I expect to continue to be unsuccessful is the only people that might be interested in reading theology would want to talk about the emerging church, third ways, community, and postmodernism.

However, as I dig more into the depths of my psyche I’m starting to realize the true reason for my motivation to find a church is to find someone to date. Don’t get me wrong I’m generally not a big fan of Christians. However, I felt as if my last (and really all) relationships have suffered because I live and breath psychoanalysis, theology, and philosophy. Consequently, I talk way too much about it, so I was hoping to find some random girl who actually enjoys reading theology in her down time. However, I have a feeling that if she exists somewhere out there she’s probably not attending church, damn this search will be harder than I thought! Unfortunately, I’ve yet to meet many people my age who get really excited discussing Christology and atonement. Or if they do, it’s probably only for the purpose of trying to envision a new sexy church, sigh. It really is quite an obsession, but why do I feel like one of the people on earth who genuinely cares? I have some family members heavily involved in different churches, and I don’t even feel like we could have a conversation about God. They have one of those ‘That’s neat” expressions on their face, which is to say please stop talking.

I suppose I’ll die alone. On the bright side right now I’m justifying being anti-marriage based on Jesus’ ministry in the New Testament (or because of Marxist convictions), that’s always a fun conversation piece. And hell, if I ever waver in the faith and sell my soul to the devil, I can just quote St Paul. Either way, I have my golden ticket. Also, I’ve found that telling married Christians they’re disobeying Jesus often makes them rather uncomfortable, but hey I did not come to bring peace but the sword!

Cone on the Cross and Lynching Tree

Here’s Cone’s controversial speech he delivered at Harvard three years ago, uncomfortable but as always provocative and inspiring.

http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/events_online/ingersoll_2006.html

Foucault’s Misunderstanding of Repression

So, I wrote a post a couple of weeks ago on why I was studying psychoanalysis and attempted to elucidate some concepts that are often poorly understood. I tried to counter Foucault’s understanding of the repressive hypothesis that he believed was false because his analysis unearthed a plethora of discourses of sexuality that had proliferated during Freud’s era.

Zizek drives this home in First as Tragedy then as Farce,

“This is why Lacan claimed that Marx had already invented the (Freudian) notion of a symptom: for both Marx and Freud, the way to the truth of a system (of society, of the psyche) leads through what necessarily appears as a “pathological” marginal and accidental distortion of this system: slips of tongue, dreams, symptoms, economic crises. The Freudian Unconscious is thus “invisible” in an exactly homologous way, which is why there is no place for it in Foucault’s edifice. This is why Foucault’s rejection of what he calls the Freudian “repression hypothesis” – his notion of regulatory power discourses which generate sexuality in the very act of describing and regulating it-misses the (Freudian) point. Freud and Lacan were well aware that there is no repression without the return of the repressed; they were well aware that the repressive discourse generates what it represses. However, what this discourse represses is not what it appears to repress, not what it itself takes to be the threatening X it seeks to control. The figures of “sexuality” it portrays as the threat to be controlled-such as the figure of the Woman, whose uncontrolled sexuality is a threat to the masculine order-are themselves fantasmatic mystifications. Rather, what this discourse “represses” is (among other things) its own contami­nation by what it tries to control-say, the way the sacrifice of sexuality sexualizes sacrifice itself, or the manner in which the effort to control sexuality sexualizes this controlling activity itself. Sexuality is thus, of course, not “invisible” – it is controlled and regulated. What is “invisible” is the sexualization of this very work of control: not the elusive object we try to control, but the mode of our own participation within it.” (101-102)

Zizek’s Critique of Caputo

In After the Death of God, John Caputo made this comment against Marxist philosophers:

“‘I would be perfectly happy if the far left politicians in the United States were able to reform the system by providing universal health care, effectively redistributing wealth more equitably with a revised IRS code, effectively restricting campaign financing, enfranchising all voters, treating migrant workers humanely, and effecting a multilateral foreign policy that would integrate American power within the international community, etc., i.e., intervene upon capitalism by means of serious and far-reaching reforms . . . . If after doing all that Badiou and Zizek complained that some Monster called Capital still stalks us, I would be inclined to greet that Monster with a yawn.’ The problem here is not Caputo’s conclusion that if one can achieve all that within capitalism, why not remain within the system? The problem lies with the “utopian” premise that it is possible to achieve all that within the coordinates of global capitalism. What if the particular malfunctionings of capitalism enumerated by Caputo are not merely accidental disturbances but are rather structurally necessary? What if Caputo’s dream is a dream of universality (of the universal capitalist order) without its symptoms, without any critical points in which its “repressed truth” articulates itself?” (First as Tragedy Then as Farce, 77-78)

Zizek and Political Ideology Today

From First as Tragedy Then as Farce:

“A true Left takes a crisis seriously, without illusions, but as some­
thing inevitable, as a chance to be fully exploited. The basic insight of
the radical Left is that although crises are painful and dangerous they
are ineluctable, and that they are the terrain on which battles have to be
waged and won. The difference between liberalism and the radical Left
is that, although they refer to the same three elements (liberal center,
populist Right, radical Left), they locate them in a radically different
topology: for the liberal center, the radical Left and the Right are two
forms of the same “totalitarian” excess; while for the Left, the only true
alternative is the one between itself and the liberal mainstream, the
populist “radical” Right being nothing but the symptom of liberalism’s
inability to deal with the Leftist threat.” (75)