Friday, October 21, 2011

This is the Last Post Ever!


At this point, this blog has become mere randomness.  And although random thoughts can be fun, in such a scenario substantive progress is lost for any one topic.  My original intention was to keep a blog with which I could discuss the goings-on of my life and then what I have learned from them.  However, and much akin to the way I have never been able consistently to journal, I am unable to keep up a rigorous discipline of relating life occurrences to my latest mind-trips.  Of course there is a relationship, and an interesting one.  But it seems a useless waste of time to regurgitate the simple facts when they have already passed through my mind and generated more interesting meta-thoughts.  This has always been my problem.  I lack an appreciation for details (even though apparently as a Taurus I am supposed to be overly concerned with them… get it right, astrology!).  Although, when it comes to administrative tasks I’m all for a good spreadsheet, but precisely for the purpose of never having to waste precious cognitive resources on memorizing data.  To be entertained by trivia, talk to somebody else.  But I’ll discuss the impact of Foucault’s History of Sexuality on Quaker nonviolence any day of the good-god week.

And this is my conundrum.  Well, it was a conundrum until earlier this week when I decided that it’s time to retire thismomentshines.  It’s time that I direct my burgeoning writing skills into a useful and informative blog that might have some substantive impact on something (if only for me) overtime.  So I have created a new blog called RobustPeace.  It is the blog that most directly relates to what I foresee at least the next twenty years (if I live that long) of my life will be about—working to develop the intellectual resources for a less violent society.  Of course, I may discuss the same sorts of topics (sex, community, worship, religion, etc) but they will all be better written (hopefully) and more sophisticated.  Blog entries won’t emerge as often, they'll have lots of footnotes, and we’ll all (as in I will) be better off for it. 

P.S.

(permit me one last exposition)

I recently blogged about Quaker worship in which I polemically exclaimed that I’d rather be at the gym than sitting in silence.  I did this to begin a side project in which I’d like to start codifying a separate (but equal) discursive space for liberal Quakers.  I want to do this merely so that we can be proud of uncertainty, of our ambivalence.  I want to do this so that we can make headway in justifying our pride without reducing our faith to what was true for Quakers years ago, but is no longer right for us now.  It’s time that Liberal Quakers cease apologizing to less liberal Quakers about their supposed lack of robust religiosity.  It is time, instead, that liberal Quakers unapologetically announce to God and everybody that the testimonies are important not merely as results of discernment, but as regulative elements in a postmodern faith.  It is time that liberal Quakers claim uncertainty and mystery as the foundations of their religion, and it is time that we push back against other Friends who want everyone to believe that.  Believing that, is so twentieth century.  One can believe that, or one can believe in.  And although there are other distinctions that might get at the same idea, to what I point is especially elucidated if I utilize belief.  For example, one can believe that God exists.  Or one can believe in the existence of God.  To believe in the existence of God is really to indicate that the idea of God existing has some meaning for you.  It helps you get along in this world, and it helps you understand virtue.  Believing that God exists relates to God as a fact, as a thing of science.  But religion is not science.  Science and religion are two separate systems of thought.  There is reason why we learn about evolution in Biology classes, and about God in theology classes.  So, to me, it is pointless, for example, to claim that Jesus is Lord.  And I don’t mean to offend anyone when I say this, even though I acknowledge that I am, and but I don’t much care that I am.  Because, I’d much rather advise people to believe in the Lordship of Jesus—to hold lightly and not tightly the matter of his guidance in our lives, in his salvific sacrifice, and in the beauty which he represents in our hearts.  So for us Liberal Quakers, belief is important, but its importance should not be mistaken for attachment.  What matters is that we hold to mystery, to uncertainty and to the contingency of belief.  So.  It's true that we don’t know what does the leading when we are led, and we don’t know really what the best way to worship is.  And we are proud of our lack of knowing.  So, on the side, I will be blogging also with WordPress about liberal Quakerism.  That blog is called The Liberal Quaker.

3 comments:

  1. nice! thanks for this. You have informed me of many things I did not know existed and helped me to think more clearly about some theological things I did know existed. THANK YOU :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Woohoo!! Amen, Sister! I hear you. I find the dichotomy of "they" are rigid and "we" are flexible useless and rather tiresome. In fact dichotomies and dualities in general I think ought to start pointing out an area of potential misunderstanding in our awareness rather than be taken as fact. True, we are existing in a dualistic world, but we are starting to return (even in the hard sciences) to the suspicion that there is a unifying principal underlying existance. Even the word "belief" I find odd. I mean, when someone asks me if I believe in god, I always do a bit of a double take - Do you believe in the chair you're sitting in right now? because to me it's an equally silly question. No one questions whether or not one "believes" in something they have seen, felt, heard and smelled. So the very presence of the question calls into question the validity of your direct experience of God. Have you had one? If not, are you believing on the words of another? Your parents, perhaps? A very popular book? Or your own direct Knowing - a tangible, visceral Knowing of something greater, something interconnected and irrefutably Divine? If it is the latter, then what requires belief at all?

    ReplyDelete
  3. amen, right back at ya!

    ReplyDelete