The seeds of Neurosis bear fruit...
This will be a brief little post. It has one objective: to celebrate the band, Pelican. I just got their album, Australasia today. Granted, I haven't really let it sit too long, but I predict I will come to like this album and this band quite a bit. Yeah, they share Neurosis' aesthetic -- and it is Neurosis' aesthetic. But, Pelican's brand of sludge is not the Dionysian ecstasy of Neurosis. It's more like the orange glow of amplifier tubes, or a warm, swiftly moving breeze on sweat-moistened skin. Much metal demonstrates its power in order to strike the listener with a kind of terror and awe, like a petty, omnipotent but nonetheless insecure God. Pelican, on the other hand, asserts its power benevolently, bestowing blessings on its beloved: the listener.
They have a more recently-released album. I know nothing about it. But Australasia is entirely worthwhile.
They have a more recently-released album. I know nothing about it. But Australasia is entirely worthwhile.
posted by fockler at 5:08 PM
9 Comments:
Wahoo brother! Well I am so glad you stumbled apon my blog to open the door of your own! I love doing it and I am even more excited about yours. You are an amzing person with such a simply complicated insight into things. Stuff that should be so obvious to others but as you and I know is not. Not that I put myself in your league of thinking but you know what I mean! Love ya!
Hey Dustin! Thanks for giving me your blog, I'll check it out more later. Regarding this post, I'm a little lost - don't listen to metal or sludge. However, I couldn't help notice the apparent "stab" you took at God - "Much metal demonstrates its power in order to strike the listener with a kind of terror and awe, like a petty, omnipotent but nonetheless insecure God." Interesting...I'd love to attempt to discuss that comment on a cerebral level.
Really, it was a stab at a particular conception of God, a conception in which He/She is seen as arbitrary and jealous. According to this conception, God is -- for some reason -- constantly concerned with the "fear and trembling" of his creatures. My analogy here compares most metal bands with insecure, petty gods, and Pelican to benevolent, well-meaning gods. I think which kind of god is preferable -- both in my mind and in general -- is fairly obvious. However, I'm not saying I don't like Neurosis. I'm just saying that, given the decision between the two bands, I would prefer to worship/live under the reign of Pelican. Hopefully, though, that decision never presents itself. I would feel stupid making it. It's a stupid "what if" question.
You are very articulate and gifted in writing. I would enjoy getting to know you better, as I have the rest of your family. Regarding this conception of an arbitrary and jealous God, is this simply a conception you derived for use as an element of comparison in your description of metal bands, or is it your personal perception of God…the God whom is claimed by many people to be the Supreme Being? Admittedly, I am sensing some cynacism you may have towards this belief, although I know from our brief discussion thus far, is not a fair assessment. In defense of God, and those people who may disagree with the conception you stated, there is also the conception of God in which He(I will assume He since Jesus was male and made after God’s image, though I also understand God is not human and therefore potentially “without gender”) is not seen as arbitrary or jealous, but very significant, meaningful, all-loving, and even benevolent and well-meaning. Unconcerned with “fear and trembling” that contradicts grace, but concerned with humans pursuing a personal relationship with Him. Also, when you mention insecure, petty gods, I can’t help but assume you are fitting “God” into that category, which presents a myriad of questions in and of itself. Do you believe God is insecure? If so, how? Is God a petty god? Is there more than one God? Hopefully I’m not reading too much into your comparsion of two bands. Your writing is very stimulating.
I just posted a long comment under your "Sincerity, just for the sake of contrast..." posting.
Kirk,
Within the context of the post/review, my opposition of two antithetical conceptions of God had a very specific, very modest purpose. By comparing the relationship between the sounds of two like-minded – but ultimately different – bands to the relationship between two very dissimilar ideas, i.e. the “angry God” and the “happy God,” I hoped to focus the skeptical listener on the possibly more dimly apparent distinctions between the two bands’ sounds, rather than lazily highlight the bright, shining similarities.
Of course, the information necessary to conceive and make the analogy was mentally on hand because I have been interested in philosophy, theology and religion for many years. The Pelican/Neurosis post was merely one of the more recent fruits of this long-abiding pre-occupation.
Personally, I do not conceive God as angry, petty or insecure. Really, I don’t conceive God at all. I cannot describe him, because I do not know him. (By the way, referring to God as “he” is just natural for me, at this point and, for our purposes, I don’t see anything wrong with doing so.) By my lights, debating God’s nature is an exercise in futility – which is not to disparage such debate. It’s just that I wouldn’t venture to guess A or B about him, uninformed as I am. (I have to say, though, that I doubt I would be able to adapt – easily or at all – to a polytheistic or henotheistic theology. Navigating life in the shadow of either theology would be like some infinitely, tragically overblown version of Survivor.) So, the “angry God” idea does not represent my understanding of God.
It was not intended as a representation of “mainstream” theism, either – although I’m sure many people do believe in a wrathfully intercessional God. In any event, I sure hope to heaven God isn’t some petty, omnipotent child. If that were the case and I found out, I think I would simply lie back, thumb my nose at God and await affliction at his hands. Unless God is pleasantly disposed toward man, beast and world, I am uninterested in him.
I’m not cynical about theism, in general. I’m more concerned – and in some cases, disgusted – with certain varieties of theism and certain varieties of theist. I’m convinced that only a sociopath would or could draw any manner of comfort from an “angry God.” In fact, I suspect that most theists believe in a God more closely aligned with the “happy God” than the “angry God.” A theology featuring a loving, responsive, effective God certainly seems more persuasive and attractive to me.
I don’t know if you’re reading too much into the post. I don’t think so, though, and I encourage you to keep up the provocative questions.
Jennifer reminded me that it is finals week for you, and I shouldn't give you any distractions. HA! She's probably right, but I'll go ahead and throw another comment out there and you can reply whenever you have time. Good luck with finals by the way!
For the sake of clarity, is it true that your "search" (which I perceive to be somewhat passive in nature) is to find out who God is, as opposed to deciding for yourself if God even exists? I don't get the idea you are atheist, you just haven't discovered a theology that allows you to grasp who God is? Is this true? My thoughts are somewhat chaotic right now, but here is the question that stands out the most. At what point would you be moved to pursue God from a personal relationship standpoint, versus a purely cerebral approach. Obviously, the belief in the existence of God would be required first, but I believe you are already at that point. You have studied religion, probably more than I have, so I must ask this question: do you not see an abundance of examples of God's character in the bible? Assuming, of course, that you believe the bible is a real, credible, and valid source. With that assumption in mind, how do you say you don't know who God is? Granted, I am still searching for a deeper understanding of who God is, and my perception today is much different than it was 2-3 years ago, so I am not claiming one should know the character of God from simply reading the bible alone. As you have mentioned, experiences can steer our lives and give us a better understanding of things, so maybe this is where you are. Waiting for an experience to cause you to internalize the knowledge you possess, transforming it from a cerebral existence to a deeper, personal, more meaningful understanding.
I feel like I should emphasize that I have no hidden motives behind my "provocative" questions. I am merely attempting to journey down the path of reason with you. Though we have different lives externally, we may possibly be asking some of the same questions internally. Obviously, you are better equipped to "philosophize", but I'm not ashamed of my inequalities! HA! Ask me what the US Treasury yield curve means in its present state and what that means for our economy both globally and domestically, and I might sound a little more intelligent. :) Of course, I'd hate to bore anyone reading this...
My thinking skills are not on the same level as you guys. My capacity to maintain many deep level thoughts at one time is much smaller than Dustin's and el jefe's. Regarding el jefe's statements - "The Bible is our best and most blessed presentation of these two omnipotent phantasms. The angry, Jewish God, and the accepting and concerned Christian God." I'd like to propose that these two presentations actually describe the same God. I'm no bible scholar, but my belief is that the Old Testament God was a God of people who lived under the Law - the old Jewish covenant. Sure, God was angry when his believers did not obey the law. However, the complete picture had not been drawn at that point. When he sent Jesus to earth as the sacrificial lamb, we were all set free from the law. Through Jesus, believers can now be justified and made righteous before God, without the requirement of circumcision or sacrificing or even obeying laws. So now in God's eyes, believers are not seen the same as the Jewish people were who disobeyed the Law. That's not to say God doesn't get angry today at believers. Also, I don't think I'd say the Old Testament God was not concerned or accepting. I don't see the two presentations of God as contradictory. The bible was carefully divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament for a reason. The context of the two are unique based upon how much of God's ultimate plan had been carried out. Again, I'm no bible scholar, and I hope I don't give the impression that I know all the answers and you are wrong if you disagree with me. That is not the case at all. I'm just "commenting". :)
The idea of a happy God and an angry God is new to me. I can't help but wrinkle my forehead...so would there be a "happy" Kirk and an "angry" Kirk? I'm still Kirk, I'm just happy at times and angry at other times.
Kirk,
The scope of my “search” encompasses – among much else – God’s entire identity/nature. God’s existence or nonexistence is as much a part of that identity/nature as any other attribute, the ontological argument notwithstanding. I’m not necessarily looking for a theology – an account of God. The account for which I’m looking would be much more comprehensive. I’m looking, not only for an ontology – an account of being, i.e. what exists, what existence is, what life in general and my life specifically are – but even more. I’m looking for a worldview that does some kind of justice to the world of which I have experience, the only world I know. Granted, I’ve indubitably bitten off more than I can chew. But, when all is said and done, I’m interested more in living a lifestyle concentrated around such a search, than with finding “the answer.” I’m interested in nurturing a much more primitive, basic kind of wonder. I’m interested in cultivating the kind of awe we all had as children. I don’t only want to live with open eyes, but with wide eyes. If a theology ultimately facilitates or finds a place within such a lifestyle, then so be it. I’m open to such a state of affairs. (I do have to say, however, that I don’t think the likelihood that I will end up converting to a religion – conventional or otherwise – is very great. Given my history with religion and my now almost instinctive and intensely critical way of thinking, it seems a safe wager.)
Most people in the know would refer to this attitude as agnostic. I don’t think the term addresses the scope of my professed ignorance. I think of my position as more of a recognition of the impossibility – or at least, the relative difficulty – of responsible, honest, open-eyed conviction, in general. The term agnostic is very much a part of the ongoing theism/atheism debate. Unfortunately, I find most of what is said as part of this debate insincere, dishonest, mean-spirited sophistry, concerned more with “who’s right” than “what’s right.” I don’t want to be part of it and, in fact, I am not. I aspire to a Socratically-styled ideal, an understanding of how little anyone knows or can know. (Whether I fall short of this ideal is another matter.)
As far as identifying an event that would induce me “to pursue God from a personal relationship standpoint, versus a purely cerebral approach,” I can’t say. In fact, that question is really at the heart of the “Sincerity, just for the sake of contrast…” post, on which you also commented. (By the way, I’ll respond to that comment in the near future.) The best answer I can give is simply to repeat my conclusion there – that only some sort of “God laying his hand on me” experience would be sufficient. I admit that’s vague and, if there is a God interested in what I think of him, my position is like saying, “Well, God, now the ball’s in your court.” I recognize that ultimatums are rarely effective and/or positive ways to draw someone out – but at this point, there’s still a question whether there is “someone” to draw out, not to mention the fact that, without knowing God’s nature, whose to say he doesn’t adore ultimatums. Also, I do have to say that I don’t think the phrase “purely cerebral” exhausts my current approach. I’m very emotionally and psychologically invested in my “search.” And, in general, it occurs to me that the line between rational thought, feeling, emotion, intuition, desire, will, etc. is far finer than your personal relationship/cerebral distinction implies. I understand exactly what you mean, though. I don’t think my approach is purely or even predominantly cerebral, though.
As regards the Bible, what it is a record of, exactly, is still very much an open question. In fact, the Bible question is very messy. The fact is that it is not a single work – or even an anthology of several works – by a single author. It doesn’t even demonstrate thematic or stylistic consistency, in some instances, within the same book. Also, the Bible contains a great variety of kinds of litereature, each of which can serve a wide range of ends. For instance, think of a fairy tale. Does it purport to be literal history? Are its characters represented as at least semi- or quasi-realistic? If one were to investigate any event reported in a fairy tale and find that it had not, in fact, occurred, would it be proper to conclude that the fairy tale was a “lie”?
Would one be right to approach the Psalms the way one approaches a new story, or even one of the purportedly historical books in the Bible, or vice versa? What I’m saying here is that I don’t know how I should take the Bible. I don’t know if it is reliable in the same way that a weather report is reliable. I don’t know if it is symbolic/allegorical/mythological or literal, although – as is obvious to many people familiar with Bible, and in conjunction with my earlier remarks regarding the way genre dictates how it should be approached – the Bible resists and/or refuses efforts to take it as an undifferentiated whole. My ability to say whether it reveals God’s character or not presupposes one of two things, or maybe both, i.e. that I have some standard – for example, positive knowledge of God’s character – to which I can compare what the Bible might propose about God, or that I believe the Bible itself is a reliable source of information about God. So, in order to come to some final – or even stop-gap – conclusion regarding this question, I would either have to know God already or have a sufficient reason to be confident in the Bible’s account of anything. Well, I don’t know God and I don’t know – and I don’t have any utlimately reliable way to establish – if and how to trust the Bible.
Also, when I use the word “experience,” I use it in an incredibly broad way. It connotes anything that befalls one. That includes reading the Bible, having a vision, feeling the air pressure push in on one’s body, getting one’s eyelashes caught in one’s eye, feeling any emotion, etc. The point is, I don’t sharply differentiate between experiencing God and reading the Bible. Maybe that’s just a terminological issue, but I think it reflects some important things about my perspective and what I think/believe.
Regarding the “hidden motives” issue, I didn’t think you harbored any. Most people who aren’t “pure hearted” regarding so-called rational discourse tip their hands in really obvious ways very early on. Above and beyond your failure to so implicate yourself, I wouldn’t expect any buckshot from you. Our discussion – as well as what little I’ve been able to gather about you since you moved down to Sagnasty – has shown you to be very intelligent. I find your questions and responses very considered and thoughtful. Also, I completely agree with you on the “same questions” issue. As el Jefe remarked, there are as many human experiences as there have been, are and will be humans. However, man and his circumstances haven’t changed radically enough over the course of history and pre-history that sharing experiences becomes impossible.
Also, what you understand – i.e. economics, etc. – is completely beyond me. It’s a realm of knowledge and a way of thinking I cannot – and likely will never – grasp. (What you understand also appears much more well-regarded and “in demand” by the world at large – or at least our society – than what I understand. Employers outside academia aren’t interested in “what” I think, only “how” I think – and they’re only interested in that insofar as they can exploit it. Even in academia, “what” I think is less important than “what” I publish. It’s a little like an songwriter only being able to find a job writing insipid jingles for evil products.) You, on the other hand, seem readily able to deal in what I understand, so don’t feel “[unequipped] to philosophize” or “ashamed of [your] inequalities.”
Furthermore, to make a long post even longer, I’ll move on to the “angry God/happy God” issue. The fact is – and I don’t think anyone is disputing this, although feel free to correct me if I’m wrong – the Old Testament God certainly behaves differently than the New Testament God. I think it’s fair to say that both the Old Testament God as well as the New Testament God are very interested in adherence to law. However, the Old Testament God seems to have a rather short fuse and possibly a pronounced readiness to avenge sin, often violently. The New Testament God, on the other hand, is present primarily in the person of Christ. Now, I understand they – the Christian God and Christ, himself – are one and the same. However, Jesus doesn’t turn anyone into a pillar of salt. I won’t elaborate on this example with other examples. I’m sure everyone involved in this discussion is well aware of this disparity between the New and Old Testaments. The point is, in the Bible, we have two very different visions of God.
Kirk, your way of dispatching with this problem seems one of the better strategies. In fact, had you asked the “me” of 1997 or 1998 about this issue, I likely would have answered in the same way -- though possibly less articulately. However, it operates on the assumption that there is only one God. This is indeed an assumption – no matter how understandable or reasonable – and therefore cannot be treated as axiomatic. I don’t say this to discredit your solution to the problem. I don’t say it because I believe the Bible contains accounts of two different Gods. I don’t say it because I think the Old and New Testaments are fundamentally incommensurable or hostile. I only say it to point out that it’s entirely reasonable for a reader of the Bible to glean two different visions of God from it. It seems Jeff and I were struck by this more than you were, which means nothing more than does the fact that I have trouble remembering the names of characters in novels I read, while other people do not.
However, consider this:
There is a written account of your life and deeds. The first half is littered with anecdotes that feature you yelling at people – friends, family and strangers alike – driving recklessly and doing any number of other things of that nature. The second half relays stories of your good nature, kindness, refusal to condemn the wrongdoings of others and readiness to loan large sums of money out without expecting its return. If this were the only knowledge I had of you, I would wonder if the two parts of the account reported the life and deeds of the same person. (Of course, if the Bible were purportedly an account of a mere man, I would assume the change in the main character's disposition was attributable to some intervening event of which I was unaware, like a religious experience.) Without knowledge of Kirk of the same intimacy and certainty as the knowledge you have of yourself, there would be no way for a reader of this account to make heads or tails of it, especially given the two different characters – or visions of a single character – it presents.
As I re-read the beginning of this post, I noticed that I never told you exactly what I am trying to find out. It is this: I'm trying to find out the right way to live -- with the admitted assumption that living rightly and being truly happy are directly related, and maybe even one and the same thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home