Skip to main content

Meandering

Jesus said something to the effect that he spoke in parables so those with ears for such stories might hear him and those without would confounded. Jesus was a clever sod, and nobody ever accused him of being humble, but he was fairly straightforward in this answer. He spoke in interesting stories and metaphors to bar people from following him when they might otherwise do so. In light of Christian doctrine, I suppose this is a bit cruel, especially when Jesus goes on about how bad it will be come judgment for those who saw him and didn't convert, but it could also be argued to be just--and I suppose this would be a defense of some nimble minded Christians.

Anyway, this all occurred to me earlier this evening when talking with my dad about not getting through to people on deep subjects, especially in writing. I'm not going to place myself up there with Jesus or Nietzsche in terms of dialectical strength or right to weep at misinterpretation (the poor bastards). Not at all. I'm just saying, sometimes I hop online or talk to an acquaintance, and it's almost like I can see the words just glancing off the top of the addressee's dome and careening into spaces unknown. Is this partially my fault? Yeah, I suppose it is. I've got a certain attachment to style, and a certain style on top of that. Sometimes, I might be interested in addressing something specialized or esoteric, which can only be presented appealingly to most people with the most careful of packaging and a rather ... cosmopolitan approach that I am loathe to take.

Paint me elitist. I'll let it dry with ambivalence.

Comments

  1. Take heart, my little wing - elitism isn't for everyone!

    I was just cruising Charles Rozier's blog when I ran across your comment on his entry re: his fucking brilliant idea to apply logical arguement to, uh, the Gospel.

    I just got done sparring with him on Amber's blog, myself.
    http://amber.tangerinecs.com/viewentry.php?entry=750

    Glad to see other people out there are interested in rationale and logic! Bitchen.

    Color me impressed!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hah. So I just caught this reply. Cool.

    Going to check Amber's entry in a bit. As to Charles, man, if I hadn't come prepared with a bit of philosophy in my pocket when I met the guy online he might have had me singing with the Chorus on Sundays. His program, as he has worked it out, is interesting, and some of the most appealing Christian thought I've seen outside Pascal. Being a staunch atheist, I guess that's saying something.

    Thanks for the encouraging words. It's always a pleasure to come across someone with whom I can truly converse, even as ephermeral as such meetings are on the net.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

More Political Notes

-Rick Santorum seems a somewhat likeable guy who believes several crazy, distasteful things. It may not be helpful to say his ideas are nuts, but it still is less useful to fashion him an evil man because his discriminatory views don't jive with the left, centre, or centre-right in America.

-Calling a person a 'front runner' before votes are counted is just plain wrong.  Calling one a front-runner after some votes are counted is slightly misleading.  The race isn't about who the media thinks is ahead, and it is only indirectly about who gets the most votes.  What really matters is accruing the most delegates.  In the race for a major party's nomination for POTUS, the guy with the most delegates-who-will-actually-vote-for-him-at-their-national-convention is ahead. If no delegates have been awarded, there isn't really a front-runner, no matter what polls might say.

-I doubt the primary process will hurt the eventual Republican nominee for POTUS all that much.…

Pointless Ruminations on the Absurd

The world around us is in no way required to conform to our expectations, beliefs, or desires. Rather, it is all but guaranteed to disappoint us, at least once or twice a lifetime. The loftier (or more deeply felt) our ideals, the more this may be true.

When we accept this incongruity and are keenly aware of it, but cannot change our thinking, absurdity steps in. The world no longer quite makes sense. It is untethered from rational or moral concerns, adrift in a bizarre joke told by no one.
Desire for normative order is often irrational and misplaced. Placing ethical constraints on amoral matters makes no sense. Yet these appear (sometimes, seemingly) inescapable conclusions. Hence the sensation of absurdity.

We can apply these incongruous demands to anything and anyone. But this is not a universal philosophy. It is a philosophy of the self, a diagnosis.

Well now.

I think I'm going to try to revive my online writing habits, outside of Facebook.

And what have I been thinking or feeling in the interim, across the last couple years or so? Well, I'm glad you asked.

In part, this.