The Golden Ass

"You're the handsomest of men;
every word from your lips is sheer grace,
and God has blessed you, blessed you so much.
Strap your sword to your side, warrior!
Accept praise! Accept due honor!
Ride majestically! Ride triumphantly!
Ride on the side of truth!
Ride for the righteous meek!"
- Psalm 45: 2-4

"What is truth?" These are the words of Pontious Pilate. Alethia refers to a notion of truth as asserted by a famous philosopher named Martin Heiddeger. Some of you may have heard of him. In a Heideggerian context, such "truth" refers to the kind of truth that is "uncoverd" from actually living in the world. Heidegger calls this "Da-sien," or "There-being." For our purposes, we can call it "riding." Riding majestically, triumphantly...riding with courage and grace. "On the side of truth...for the righteous meek." Or simply living in the world.

Some would question what I mean here. They would probably question my intention, as well. Their idea of truth doesn't make the image of a warrior in the world on a horse or chariot (or any image at all, for that matter). One might especially ask what does handsomeness have to do with truth!? "God doesn't judge by appearances," they shout with ferocity! One is left to ask of the orphaned truth of handsomeness. Pavel Florensky founds a whole theology on a relationship between God and Man reciprocated by the Other's Beauty. "Be here - the king is wild for you." (Psalm 44: 11).

In Fishing from the Pavement, Daniel Libeskind says: "Why accuse the orphan striking the blind patriot for fun of assisting the devil? NATO coward, tilt back your sword." (p. 10). But wait...NATO is a multinational organization? What's going on? What is the meaning of all this "blind patriot" stuff?

What's going on is that the raising of a sword requires actually living in the world. Their notion of truth requires no being in the world. You build up a set of logical mind-projectiles (eerr...propositions) until you've come to the completion of your story; and your story matches up with the one told by the world you actually live in...hopefully. Its similar to firing projectiles from a tank. Your safe from actually facing the enemy. No, your safe from facing death; that's it. Until your tank suddenly blows up. Then your popping the top off the tank and suddenly running around back out in the world again. Besides being on fire, the only other problem is that you have no sword to raise; you're used to just pushing buttons.

Back, then to the meaning of this "blind patriotism." "Aletheia" is an ancient Greek word. Americans have no real sensible relationship to their "America" in the way that Athenians had a sensible relationship to Athens - other than through the images available to them by their technologies, of course. Technologies which are, however, not a direct sensory experience of America, but extensions of the self. Much less is NATO a being-in-the-world. The fortefied tank, which essentially exists like a plane outside the world, is an extension of that part of the self that is either unwilling or afraid to face death, and therefore also cannot face the world.

Speaking of beauty in the world: "The atmospheric ugliness that surrounds our scientific war is an emanation from that evil panic which is at the heart of it. The charge of the Crusades was a charge; it was charging towards God, the wild consolation of the braver. The charge of modern armaments is not a charge at all. It is a rout, a retreat, a flight from the devil, who will catch the hindmost. It is impossible to imagine a medieval knight talking of longer and longer French lances, with precisely the quivering employed about larger and larger German ships." - from What's Wrong With the World, by G.K. Chesterton, p. 29.

The "truth" of those words from Chesterton ring in the bell tower when I hear the following, from our fearless leader: "They will not take away our freedom and a way of life." "It is a rout, a retreat, a flight from the devil, who will catch the hindmost." If we don't retreat toward them they will attack; and then we would have to retreat away from them!

"You're my King, O God—
command victories for Jacob!
With your help we'll wipe out our enemies,
in your name we'll stomp them to dust.
I don't trust in weapons;
my sword won't save me— "
- Psalm 44: 4-6.

Tanks and systematic theologies of "truth" have no trust, hope or faith in a God's uncovering Himself as a God of Grace and Life in the world and in you and in me. They'd rather cover the world themselves with their own truth. They'd rather be their own king. Jesus was a nice and unengaging kind of fella; why arm yourself with the Word?

Verses 6 and 7 of Psalm 45 again, addressed to the king, say:

"Your throne is God's throne,
ever and always;
The scepter of your royal rule
measures right living.
You love the right
and hate the wrong.
And that is why God, your very own God,
poured fragrant oil on your head,
Marking you out as king
from among your dear companions."

The irony here is that this Psalm, written by the Sons of Korah, was probably written at the time of a bad king in the world of Isreal (mainly meaning a lack of care for the "righteous meek"). By its very conflict with the truth it uncovers the real truth and ironically proclaims both God's love and judgement in the world.

Reread those same verses as if they were talking about Patriotic tanks or systematic theologies. They in turn proclaim the same ironies. The fragrant oil becomes especially interesting. Tanks and scientific propositions become blind truths, ultimately unable to properly relate to or live in the world. "The atmospheric ugliness that surrounds our scientific war is an emanation from that evil panic which is at the heart of it." Do we live in a time of a "bad king" (or a number of them), or is it simply the same old Prince here to provide the same entertaining temptations he once so graciously lavished upon another of those Psalmists, namely King David?

"But it's you, you who saved us from the enemy;
you made those who hate us lose face.
All day we parade God's praise—
we thank you by name over and over."
- Psalm 44: 7-8.

So yesterday, one of the main "highways" in Los Angeles was closed. The term "highway" is used loosely there, typically fit only for a spacial rather than a temporal reality. The particuar example in question was "the 101." "Why was it closed?," asks my cybo-blogger audience? Golden Ass shall impart upon you the vital information. There were deer stuck on the highway. They somehow got on the highway in the first place. How is a fitting question. Another one of those Los Angeles highway mysteries for which one expects no answer. Anyway, it should be born in the mind of those foreign to L.A. that "the 101" is in most places either on the side of a mountain or sourrounded by mountains. What that means is that the 101 is graced with two less than deer-friendly conditions: A) monstrously large walls on boths sides, or B) a monstrously large wall on one side only, with a monstrous drop to any living being's death on the other. Let me clarify; those conditinos are less than deer-friendly to a deer who somehow got stuck in that position in the first place.

Moving on. As noted previously, "the 101" was closed. Eric, Audrey Blummber's wonderful husband, imagines that they must have been dancing and prancing around in circles circles of sheer terror. "They" - the dancing highway deer authorities, that is - had to tranqualize the poor deer and transport them from the highway. For once, since it was closed, it the term "highway" could be employed to describe a temporal reality. But in L.A., in which deer dance in the highway, all the world truly is a stage.

Living in Los Angeles affords us of many interesting experiences. I will now share with my cyber audience three special ones that strike me as being especially unique to Los Angeles living:

1. I was in Ralph's one evening (the local grocery store) when in walked a seemingly-handsome and well-tanned young man (as I suppose the women would say) with medium-long wavy dark hair. He was wearing a pair of strikingly short bright-blue boxers, pointy dark brown Ranch-life Cowboy boots, and an oversized pair of David Hasslehoff sunglasses. Additionally, he sported a buttoned up white pen-stripe dress shirt (not tucked in, thank God!). I shall let my audience do the math and figure out how he might have gotten into such a getty-up. The only part missing from the equasion seems to be the very fact that he was walking through Ralph's in such attire.

2. Being an architect, I one day went down to the City Hall of Long Beach to submit some plans, and while walking across the large plaza was treated with an interesting sight in its middle. There was a large burly Harley-Davidson looking man with a big shaggy goatee and the appropriate sunglasses. Only missing the black leather attire. In its place, however, was a pair of Mark Twain overalls - minus the tattered bottoms, but including the bare feet. No shirt, however, underneath the overalls. You can imagine the hair on his arms if you wish. Further provision of comedy was given by the little furry high pitched barking pomeranian briskly leading the big burly man along in circles around a rather tall dark brown lampost.

Further provision of comedy was the shirtlessly overalled man's talking to himself while walking in cirlces while, again, trying desparately to keep up with a ferociously barking pomeranian while, again, muttering to himself incoherently. Circular sentences end where they begin, as do men walking in them. Except this man was doing it over and over and over again, very quickly.

3. This story was graciously imparted upon me by my good friend Audrey Blumber in the form of a real life story. As she "drove" down Hyperion Ave. in Silverlake one evening (right near where I work, I think), she was struck, as is typical for L.A. by just how unfitting "driving" would have described her current activity. "Sitting" would have been more appropriate. She got to stongly wondering about the reason for the delay, but expected no answeres, since there ususally isn't one here on our mysterious L.A. streets. This time, however, she was treated with an answer, although not lacking said mystery. Not at all in the way of traffic due to his perfect placement of himself in the exact middle of the street was a man walking.

Not especially unusual, I suppose. As Audrey approached him from behind, however, what did first strike her as unusual was the sighting of his bare buttocks. What secondly struck her as rather unusual was that the rest of his body, with the exception of the wirey grey hair on his head, was covered in shiney black leather. Further mysteriousness filled her soul as she slowly passed him and was delightfully presented with a view of his thoroughly aged genitals. The most perplexing aspect of this particular mystery, however, was the absence of his...uuhh...you know. After a small eternity of painfully staring at the region in the dark of night to try and figure out what on earth was going on, she realized that it was between his legs. As she laughed to her self and continued "driving" on at normal speed, she realized that the previous delay in traffic was simply because folks in the cars previously ahead of her had been "stargazing," which is quite common here in LA.

The following is a recording of part of another conversation with Thomisticguy - at this post - which stemmed from the following statement of mine on modernity: "My point here, in regards again to bodies, scale, limits and locatoin, is that the shift from ancient to modern involved one that fundamentally dwarfed and made irrelevant the human body, which was previously so central to man's understanding of who and how he was in the world. The modern body is dwarfed and made irrelevant (relatively) precisly because of the 'explosion' [to reference McLuhan] that occured as the defining moment of the start of modernity. The human body has no "real" rational relationship to the globe, and yet the globe sets the field of play, defines the location and/or deliniates the limits of modern life."

Thomisticguy's response was as follows: "Thank you for defining exactly what you mean by the shift in man’s understanding of himself. I will have to think about this. I do see a number of objections that could be raised to this theory. Let me raise a few and allow you to reflect on them if you wish to."

The previous 3 parts were my response to Thomisticguy, which include his points. Part 4 is an expansion on my central point from which the conversation hinged, and is itself a recording of a previous part of the conversation.

---------------------------------------------

I'll get into this more later where you get more involved in your talk of complexity. My point is that I think you have a point about the complexity thing, but that something shifted and changed - got radically both more complex and simple - when our "frontier" went from some territorial topological line on the earth to the planet Mars. I think that the shift occured especially in light of its very REASON, which was that man had essentially conqured the whole globe.

Additionally, that this referenced shift from modernity to postmodernity (from a topological frontier to Mars...or, previously, to either the outer limits of our globe - witness Sputnik - or the moon - witness our landing there) involved both a radical new simplicity and complexity is why I don't think of the issue in question - of our relation with limits, bodies, scale and location, "especially in light of the powers of the intellect" - to be one simply of complexity. Again, though, I think you have a point about the complexity thing...more on that later.

OK, so I had previously written: "Secondly, the proportion between what an ancient Athenian knew and had some measure of power over was negligible compared to yours. The reason I refer to it as neglegible as opposed to 'must less,' is because man has essentially conqured the whole globe. Now there are little pockets areas into which humans seldom venture, due mainly to difficulty."

And your response was: "●I agree with this. Yet, at the same time I would note that this same situation of the “measure of power” would have applied to the Athenian as compared to the Ice Man. Relatively speaking, the Athenian would have had much more power available to him than the Ice Man. I guess what I am saying is that there has not been some 'great leap' forward in the modern world. I think that sometimes people believe that everybody before the Industrial Revolution lived the same way all the way back to Adam and Eve (like a bunch of cave men). The reality is much more complex and was a gradual process of expanding 'civilizations' (complex human habitats) made possible by advancing technology. This was true when the first viable tribal groups developed that combined more than one family unit. Certain technologies made it possible for individuals to specialize and for the groups (over 100 in size) to settle in specific areas. When this happened it was no longer necessary for each individual to know all of the complex interrelationships between each tribal member. All the brain power was released to focus on fewer relationships and specific activities. This, in its self, released a huge amount of creativity that as continued to bless mankind. Yet, despite the increased external complexity (of which no one person can fully know), man’s individual intellectualizing has not changed."

First, I would like to note again that you have a point with the complexity thing. I think, though, that we can here identify both where we actually agree disagree (I think): "I guess what I am saying is that there has not been some 'great leap' forward in the modern world. I think that sometimes people believe that everybody before the Industrial Revolution lived the same way all the way back to Adam and Eve (like a bunch of cave men)."

To start with where we agree, I take it to be true that men didn't all live as "bar bar" speaking cavement in before the industrial revolution (Romans referred to barbarians as such, because their language sounded to them like "bar bar"). In fact, where some people take the industrial revolution to be the defining ignition point for "modern times," I think that's a total misconception. I think the industrial revolution itself was sort of just an incident in the modern wave of changes already long on the way to changing the face of civilization.

Additionally, I think that the change in the face of civilization was a change FROM what it had been like for so long, going back to your referenced point of the beginning of farming as a technological innovation. On this we also agree. I take this point in our past as one of the most key points in our history, as you seem to do as well. "Civilization," as we now know it, pretty much began with farming. This, I think, is your refernce in speaking of the "complexity" of the various relationships in a "civilization" as opposed to a small tribal nomadic group previous to that point, or maybe even a small tribal settlement near some water.

What we conditionally do not agree on, however, is that the modern world itself was not a great "leap foward." I say "conditionally," because I think we actually even agree on that, in a sense. I don't really think that the great change from ancient to modern was one from wayward incivility and economic despair to sudden mannerliness and economic prosperity. I do think that, in those terms of an economic and operational shift in daily living, the shift was one that occured in terms of complexity and "specialization." This shift in the level of complexity and specialization is related to my point on where we might disagree, but is not the same thing, I don't thnink.

Now here's where I think we outright disagree. I do think that modernity brought with it a great shift. It wasn't necessarily a shift in "progress," as discussed above - although that came to be more centrally valued in the modern world. I take the shift in modernity to be a shift in how humans viewed themselves, specifically in relation to the issues that I am taking to be central, of bodies, scale, limits and location.

The shift from ancient to modern modes of specialization (leading to higher levels of complexity, I think by incident) was only one example of the shift that occured in modernity between man's viewing himself more primarily as a bodily, sensing being with limits defined by that body and those senses and which deliniate a location of his life, his being and even his identity. I say "identity," because an ancient man primarily viewed himself as an "Athenian," from a particular household in Athens. Modern specialization, in regard to these sensory limits in qeustion, was what McLuhan referenced as an "explosive" force.

The economic shift from ancient to modern was not when economics came to dominate politics, but when the very field of economic play "exploded" - via specialization - to include and (vulnerably) rely on the entirety of the globe. Now, on that we agree. We also agree that at that point there still are not any characteristic mental differences (I am not saying that there are). Where we disagree is where this shift implies a huge and fault-changing shift in the human being and human identity (how he views himself).

My point here, in regards again to bodies, scale, limits and locatoin, is that the shift from ancient to modern involved one that fundamentally dwarfed and made irrelevant the human body, which was previously so central to man's understanding of who and how he was in the world. The modern body is dwarfed and made irrelevant (relatively) precisly because of the "explosion" that occured as the defining moment of the start of modernity. The human body has no "real" rational relationship to the globe, and yet the globe sets the field of play, defines the location and/or deliniates the limits of modern life.

This, then, for a psycho-somatic being, is a HUGE shift - involving specialization and complexity - but not necessarily one of some sudden burst in "progress." As I hinted earlier, I think that the modern world was one of growing specializaton and complexity - by co-incidence with the fact that the modern world IS the whole globe, rater than being Athens, Sparta, Vienna or Venice.

In other words, I totally agree with you when you say: "If anything, we have a weaker mastery over our immediate environment as is demonstrated every time there is a 'brown out.' If there was an extended brown-out we might have to start using our brains to be creative again." This relates to what I was saying in your most recent post about the difference between a Davidic ruler and a CEO who simply learns the rules by which he is to play. But I think you are viewing the CEO style of leadership as condusive to a certain kind of blessing, namely "that each individual can become specialized in a profession and with the abundance of prosperity pay for goods and services that people living 200 years ago had to do for themselves." My point is that I'm aware of that blessing, and agree that it is a blessing (obviously); but I think it comes with a curse as well for a psycho-somatic such as ourselves.

I think that might serve as a summary of where we agree and disagree on that, no? Although I actually question whether we even disagree at all, to be honest, because of your quoting of Aquninas: "“Therefore sense, which is a power of the body, knows the singular, which is determinate through matter: whereas the intellect, which is a power independent of matter, knows the universal, which is abstracted from matter, and contains an infinite number of singulars."

More specific to something you actually said that causes me to question whether we even disagree at all, was where you wrote: "I think I see what you are saying here that modern 'real time' technology gives men access to information that only God or the angels possessed in the ancient era. This is without a doubt true."

And while we are on the topic of our agreement, your very next sentence was: "I would add that man’s inherent relationship between that information and himself has not changed." I think I would agree with you here, at least in the way that you mean it.

I guess maybe your phrase was more correct. I guess we have "very different approach[es] [to] the topic," rather than simply disagreeing. I guess where we disagree is where our differnet approaches lead to different opinions about connected issues, such as systematic theology. Even that, though, I suppose shouldn't really be termed a disagreement, as much as a difference in approach. It can sound like we disagree, but I don't think either of us are disputing any facts (correct me if I'm wrong there).

The following is a recording of part of another conversation with Thomisticguy - at this post - which stemmed from the following statement of mine on modernity: "My point here, in regards again to bodies, scale, limits and locatoin, is that the shift from ancient to modern involved one that fundamentally dwarfed and made irrelevant the human body, which was previously so central to man's understanding of who and how he was in the world. The modern body is dwarfed and made irrelevant (relatively) precisly because of the 'explosion' [to reference McLuhan] that occured as the defining moment of the start of modernity. The human body has no "real" rational relationship to the globe, and yet the globe sets the field of play, defines the location and/or deliniates the limits of modern life."

Thomisticguy's response was as follows: "Thank you for defining exactly what you mean by the shift in man’s understanding of himself. I will have to think about this. I do see a number of objections that could be raised to this theory. Let me raise a few and allow you to reflect on them if you wish to."

Parts 1-3 will be my response to Thomisticguy, which include his points. Part 4 will be expand on my central point from which the conversation hinged, and will itself be a recording of a previous part of the conversation.

---------------------------------------------

3) You wrote: " Christian observers (CS Lewis and GK Chesterton being two) have noted that moderns have become irrational and sentimental. One might even say anti-rational. Contemporary philosophies seem to relish in the notion of incoherent nihilism. Sentiment appears to be the defining force for all things. Sentiment is a word that refers to the senses and passions which arise from the body. This contemporary orientation, of course, dovetails perfectly with the obsession over bodily sexual powers and unrestrained (by reason or religion) permissiveness."

As for sentimentality, see my point number (1): that, if the problem is with the irrelevance of the body rather than obession with it, then the proper reaction to the problem is not to firstly "restrain" bodily functions, desires and sensations, but rather to remember them as being an important part of our identity and our humanity.

As for irrationality, I will quote myself: "The human body has no 'real' rational relationship to the globe, and yet the globe sets the field of play, defines the location and/or deliniates the limits of modern life." Of course, then, having no rational relationship to the very field that delineates the limits and rules of his game (speaking of it here figuratively as a game) would contribute to, although of course not "determine," modern man's irrationality.

4) You wrote: "Thoughtful Muslims have noted all of the above and leveled serious critiques against the Western obsession with the body and sexuality. They, along with other religious observers, have noticed the striking anti-intellectualism that seems to have gripped Western society. In short, they see us as worshippers of the body who devalue the life of the mind."

I probably don't know enough about Muslim arguments against us folk. For one thing, though, I would again refer back to my point number (1). For another thing, I would return (gleefully again) to Swift (from Wikipedia), concerning that newly antagonistic relationship between mind and body in modern times: "Death became a frequent feature in Swift's life from this point. In 1731 he wrote Verses on the Death of Dr Swift, his own obituary published in 1739. In 1732, his good friend and collaborator John Gay died. In 1735, John Arbuthnot, another friend from his days in London, died. In 1738 Swift began to show signs of illness and in 1742 he appears to have suffered a stroke, losing the ability to speak and realizing his worst fears of becoming mentally disabled. ('I shall be like that tree,' he once said, 'I shall die at the top')."

I take that story from Swift's very life to be a "microcosm," illustrating the "death at the top" of modern man. Its a fitting curse for a man who views himself in such a way that the top takes central importance. God does funny things like that often in the Bible. Man curses all of creation by listening to the snake, so the snake will bite his heel from his place along the ground. Man was made from the earth, so then the earth (from where the snake will bite) will require sweat from his brow. Saul, in his educated darkenss kills a bunch of Christians; then he is blinded by God and made to see again by the hand of a Christian. David opens his soul to the death of sin with adultry, so the son born in it dies. Absolom dishonours the true king by sleeping with all of his women at the very top of the city; so he dies a dishonourable death while circumstantially hanging from the top of a tree. Then God Himself does the same, to free man from his attempts to supplant Him at the top.

Concerning that "newly antagonistic in a particularly modern way" relationship - between mind and body, that is (your referenced "anti-intellectualism") - as well as my definition of modernity to which you were resonding in this comment, we should again keep in mind the orig. title for Gulliver's Travels: Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts, by Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and Then a Captain of Several Ships. What appears as anti-intellectualism is actually the surface evidence of an underlying disharmony to be blamed other-where (again, I am referencing my point number 1).

Also interesting in regard to the very title is that for anyone who knows antything about ships, he or she knows that a ship is like a small city. In Swift's very title is the antagonism between the ancient "polis," or "body politic," and the modern "globe."

Blessings,

Jason

The following is a recording of part of another conversation with Thomisticguy - at this post - which stemmed from the following statement of mine on modernity: "My point here, in regards again to bodies, scale, limits and locatoin, is that the shift from ancient to modern involved one that fundamentally dwarfed and made irrelevant the human body, which was previously so central to man's understanding of who and how he was in the world. The modern body is dwarfed and made irrelevant (relatively) precisly because of the 'explosion' [to reference McLuhan] that occured as the defining moment of the start of modernity. The human body has no "real" rational relationship to the globe, and yet the globe sets the field of play, defines the location and/or deliniates the limits of modern life."

Thomisticguy's response was as follows: "Thank you for defining exactly what you mean by the shift in man’s understanding of himself. I will have to think about this. I do see a number of objections that could be raised to this theory. Let me raise a few and allow you to reflect on them if you wish to."

Parts 1-3 will be my response to Thomisticguy, which include his points. Part 4 will be expand on my central point from which the conversation hinged, and will itself be a recording of a previous part of the conversation.

---------------------------------------------

2) You wrote: "Modern humor has increasingly become focused on the human body. It is increasingly scatological and sexual. Humor is always a good indicator of cultural trends."

Although it is oftentimes these days nothing more than an excuse to be sexual or avoid paint, I love good humor. Humorously, then - since you usually hear me denigrating dictionaries - I will defer to dictionary.com. We all know that humor is about laughter, which of course the dictionary notes. Addionally, however: "[Origin: 1300–50; ME (h)umour < AF < L (h)ūmōr- (s. of (h)ūmor) moisture, fluid (medical L: body fluid), equiv. to (h)ūm(ére) to be wet (see humid) + -ōr- -or1]." That sounds a bit cryptic and meaningless in relation to our question of the body, but just before that it provides a link to "humour," and you find something interesting: "the liquid parts of the body [syn: liquid body substance]."

Applying that to my "definition" of modernity, I gleefully went and did some research on Jonathan Swift, a man of white wigs and funnily tailored suits:

"...he began writing his masterpiece, Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts, by Lemuel Gulliver, first a surgeon, and then a captain of several ships, better known as Gulliver's Travels. Much of the material reflects his political experiences of the preceding decade. For instance, the episode when the giant Gulliver puts out the Lilliputian palace fire by urinating on it can be seen as a metaphor for the Tories' illegal peace treaty; having done a good thing in an unfortunate manner."

The way I see it, such a scenario of relationships between fortune and misfortune could be extended to provide an image of the previously discussed relations between the blessings (increased specialization leading to increased fortune) and curses (increased specializatin leading to increased vulnerability and reduced "creativity") of modernity upon man. The image would be that of a GIANT global man of collossal scale urinating on the limits and location of his own body.

More Swiftian comedy involving the body and limits: "In 1708, a cobbler named John Partridge published a popular almanac of astrological predictions. Because Partridge falsely determined the deaths of several church officials, Swift attacked Partridge in Predictions For The Ensuing Year by Isaac Bickerstaff [a Swift pen name], a parody predicting that Partridge would die on March 29th. Swift followed up with a pamphlet issued on March 30th claiming that Partridge had in fact died, which was widely believed despite Partridge's statements to the contrary."

"In 1729, he published A Modest Proposal, a satire in which the narrator, with intentionally grotesque logic, recommends feeding the rich using impoverished infants: 'I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food...' Following the satirical form, he introduces the reforms he is actually suggesting by deriding them."

My point here, then - with Swift as my example - is that humour is necessarily about the body, or maybe simply IS bodily, but is not necessarily about sexuality.

---------------------

"The Battle of the Books.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Books

"In France at the end of the seventeenth century, a minor furor arose over the question of whether contemporary learning had surpassed what was known by those in Classical Greece and Rome. The 'moderns' (epitomized by Fontenelle) took the position that the modern age of science and reason was superior to the superstitious and limited world of Greece and Rome. In his opinion, modern man saw farther than the ancients ever could. The 'ancients,' for their part, argued that all that is necessary to be known was still to be found in Virgil, Cicero, Homer, and especially Aristotle."

+ Jason marginal side note: In the realm of Architecture, Claude Perrault, who was a forerunner - from the modern side of the debate - of the advancement of modernity, is a sworn enemy of mine.

And since we are on the specific topic of comedy: "Jonathan Swift worked for William Temple during the time of the controversy, and Swift's A Tale of a Tub (1703/1705) takes part in the debate. From its first publication, Swift added a short satire entitled 'The Battle of the Books' to the Tale of a Tub. In this piece, there is an epic battle fought in a library when various books come alive and attempt to settle the arguments between moderns and ancients. In Swift's satire, he skilfully manages to avoid saying which way victory fell. He portrays the manuscript as having been damaged in places, thus leaving the end of the battle up to the reader."

I happen to find it funny that a bunch of books came alive and fought each other. Moving on, then...

"In one sense, the 'Battle of the Books' illustrates one of the great themes that Swift would explore in A Tale of a Tub: the madness of pride involved in believing one's own age to be supreme and the inferiority of derivative works. One of the attacks in the Tale was on those who believe that being readers of works makes them the equals of the creators of works. The other satire Swift affixed to the Tale, 'The Mechanical Operation of the Spirit,' illustrates the other theme: an inversion of the figurative and literal as a part of madness."

Such referenced madess (such as books coming alive to fight each other) may - in this situation humourously - have something to do with contemporary dogfights on biblical (and Fitchian) interpretation :) The thing is, though, that such an inversion between the figurative and the literal is due to an inversion in the relationship between the mind and body, which in inevitable for a global man.

-----------------------

And speaking of globalist humour, as well as the comedy of a deduced theory of a diagnosis on a hidden sickness of modern man, I would like to remind us of something I wrote in my previous comment on irony:

"Well, please allow me to only focus on your second example, as I would take that one to be much more relvant to our discussion. I'd say that your second example is actually a very good one - that relationship between A) an anient Jew's hearing rumor's of "Cafe", and B) modern man's frontier being Mars. I have to say, this made me giggle, simply because of the mental gymnastics invovled between times and places, as well as the various ironies involved in the various scenarios. Who could have ever told an ancient Jew that man would have ever crossed the ocean, much less travel to the moon?!! That's funny! Anyway, my point is, in the same way, who is to say we won't travel to Mars?

I'd say some tourist trips to the moon are much more likely in our lifetime, so maybe my analogy falls apart at that point...but I think you get my point :) Both the moon and Mars are beyond the borders of terrestrial earthly living (with which - so long as such living involves some definable location with limits to which his body can relate - a psycho-somatic being has some rational relationship); yet neither Mars nor the moon are 'really' beyond the borders of human SENSORY experience ('moon-shots,' to quote McLuhan). Such a fact is comparable to the 'rumors' of China HEARD by an ancient Jew."

One more thing, while we're on humour: in light of our new-found understanding of each other (I think) on modern man's (irrational) relationship to the WHOLE world (the globe), I would also like to go back and re-quote McLuhan:

"It is not brains or intelligence that is needed to cope with the problems...What is needed is a readiness to undervalue the world altogether. This is only possible for the Christian. Willingness to laugh at the pompous hyperboles and banalities of moon-shots may need to be cultivated by some. The 'scientific mind' is far too specialized to grasp very large jokes. For example, Newton did not discover gravity, but levity, not earth-pull, but moon-pull." - p. 92, The Medium and The Light.

I think maybe part of the meaning to his observation of the "specialization" of the scientific mind is the inability for particularly modern inductive reasoning to "get" the joke.

The following is a recording of part of another conversation with Thomisticguy - at this post - which stemmed from the following statement of mine on modernity: "My point here, in regards again to bodies, scale, limits and locatoin, is that the shift from ancient to modern involved one that fundamentally dwarfed and made irrelevant the human body, which was previously so central to man's understanding of who and how he was in the world. The modern body is dwarfed and made irrelevant (relatively) precisly because of the 'explosion' [to reference McLuhan] that occured as the defining moment of the start of modernity. The human body has no "real" rational relationship to the globe, and yet the globe sets the field of play, defines the location and/or deliniates the limits of modern life."

Thomisticguy's response was as follows: "Thank you for defining exactly what you mean by the shift in man’s understanding of himself. I will have to think about this. I do see a number of objections that could be raised to this theory. Let me raise a few and allow you to reflect on them if you wish to."

Parts 1-3 will be my response to Thomisticguy, which include his points. Part 4 will be expand on my central point from which the conversation hinged, and will itself be a recording of a previous part of the conversation.

-----------------------------------------------

T.G.,

Well, you're welcome for defining exactly what I mean. Its funny, in a general kind of way, how you finally came to see what I mean. I don't see a whole heck of a lot of difference between that statement and others I've made in the past, but its that and now that you seem to have connected with what I've been saying. I think its because we've made a conscious effort to understand each other rather than bicker...to good ends, it seems. The main thing is, I'm happy that we understand each other in this regard. So, to address your points:

1) You wrote: "Many observers have noted that the modern age is obsessed with the human body. Far from the body becoming dwarfed into insignificance; the human body seems to have taken the driver’s seat. Additionally, we seem to have entered into a cult of youth where the young body is worshipped and being 'old' is denigrated. In the colonial period young men used to wear powdered wigs to make them look elderly. They also wore jackets that were cut the opposite of they way jackets are cut today. Today we broaden the shoulders to make the mid-section look smaller thereby imitating the young physique. In the colonial period they actually broadened the mid-section to imitate the 'spread' of middle age. All of these things seem to point to an obsession with the young human body because it epitomizes the human sexual powers."

This may not make sense to you at first, but I totally agree with you. I mean, there are multiple entire vacation getaways called "Hedonism," and people actually go to them! That's just one example; I also like your example(s) from the colonial period. Interestingly, though, the colonial period was modern. That the styles of that time are your examples of when sexuality wasn't worshipped is, to me, further evidence that the shift from ancient to modern wasn't a sudden and instanatneous shift.

Of course, such a statement indicates my making two apparently conflicting statements, that: A) modernity makes the body irrelevant, and B) with modernity comes an obesssion with the body. In a very general way, if I were to speak in medical terms (my prof. used to say that Architecture is like medicine), I take our current obsession with sexuality to be like a very bad reaction to an underlying disharmony, a disharmony which is itself very difficult to diagnose, since it is not directly observable upon medical examination of one patient's body and its workings.

What I mean when I say that the underlying disharmony is difficult to diagnose is that it doesn't really help to take the scientific approach in which you observe the phenomenon, make a hypothesis on the sickness and then try and definitively match the observable evidence with the potential diagnosis that you have in your mind. In other words, in this case, you have to bring with you an understanding of what it means to be human in the first place, of how the body and mind interact in relation to the things they apprehend, such as the epistemology of Aquinas: “Therefore sense, which is a power of the body, knows the singular, which is determinate through matter: whereas the intellect, which is a power independent of matter, knows the universal, which is abstracted from matter, and contains an infinite number of singulars.” ST I-II, Q. 2, Arts. 6.

This understanding from Aquinas is just one thing you'd have to take with you; we've discussed a number of others. I guess I'm just saying that you have to work deductively in this instance.

To apply this need for deduction to your specifically observed phenomenon of our obsession with the body, then: I'm saying that it does not lead to the foundational problems of our time to observe the existence of a vacation getaway called "Hedonism," and therefore diagnose modern man's sickness as having an unhealthy obsession with the body. With diagnosis comes a medical treatment. The most likely treatment for such a diagnosis, then would be to "suppress" the obsessive desires of the body with reason or religion, as you seemed to note. Such a treatment, however - if in fact the problem is as I've state in regard to the body, limits, scale, location...and the globe - would only exacerbate the problem! I think the only treatment is the Incarnate Jesus!

Summary of my point number (1), then: modern man, particularly contemporary modern man, is in fact obsessed with the body, as evidenced by his sexual permissiveness. It does not really help the situation, however, to observe his various sexually permissive behaviors, and react by "restraining" bodily desires, functions or sensations. If in fact the actual problem is the body's irrelevance, a reaction to which is man's obsession with his body, then the proper reaction is first to make the remember the importance of the body to our very humanity and to our identity ("how we view ourselves"), and then to properly order its desires and sensations - meaning that "restraint" might not be the right word for it...but yet restraint may or probably will play a role in even what I take to be the proper treatment of the sickness, so to speak.