An interesting quote from French President Nicholas Sarkozy (from AFP):

..that many of the hundreds of French soldiers executed for desertion or mutiny during the war “had not dishonoured themselves, were not cowards, but had simply been pushed to the extreme limit.

Critique:

1. Modernism (as foreseen by Nietzsche and Marx) dehumanizes us into pawns to be maneuvered, not humans with boundaries to be built up and valued. Likewise, there was the expectation that human boundaries were much larger than they are presently considered to be. Furthermore, post-imperial thinking was enarmoured by modernism’s technology and love of orderly boundaries.
2. PostModernism now recognized those lowered boundaries/expectations on us, allowing us to be more ‘pansy’, but also to feel and enjoy and create art not war now that those boundaries are more accepted, and pride is less accepted.
3. Personal pride of being the hero and love for country is hardly ever greater than love for self-protection and those we trust (thank you Maslow). If it is, then such pride has likely taken over any genuine love and interest in people (nevermind that Christian citizenship is international).

There are 2 kinds of art, given a set of elements to play with:
1) The kind that thinks all adds up to 63.. or
2) The kind that thinks sees 34 or 23 or 13. i’ll take any of ‘em!

Each would see the ‘brown’ canvas with black dots differently. The first kid would likely create something more like the blue canvas, all focusing together; the latter would make something like the green canvas– not all the dots connected on the same pattern or at precisely the same angles. More is added in than is necessary, and some is left out.

The first type of artist is one of a strong-mind; who must make all the connections connect as close as possible. “Close” isn’t good enough. There *IS* *only* *one* *ideal*. This the idealism at it’s best/worst. There’s strengths to this, like knowing what you’re doing; understanding and having reasons. Those are good, but they aren’t *all* there is.

This method will also have trouble with what is given; will prefer to modify what is given in favor of ’rounding off the edges’ so that it fits within the Ideal he has created. Trouble is, self-defined ‘rough edges’ may be some else’s precious child. Sacrificing another for your-own is hardly commendable. Thus the idealists have consistently one thing to learn: love+humility, in the form of valuing others and seeking understanding of them. Often this won’t happen without a fight, since the idealist will idealize (within his own ideas/competencies) what the other persons wants. He will always think he has acheived until someone tells him otherwise.

This idealist thrives on energy, and dismisses the existence of entropy, that he should have to deal with it, bow to it’s demands, or worse, be accountable for it. “Entropy is outside of me, thereby ‘not my problem’” he would say.

The second form of art is a much less strong-minded/ideal approach, where “close enough” has much wider tolerances. It’s less ideal, more pragmatic. However, that does not mean that it is less precise; things can precisely exist and be placed within a tolerance. Often one method of this is to leave out elements that are ’suggested’ but not ‘required’ for the scope of work; there are more however.

This is the pluralist’s approach: chopping off the head of #1 and making all #2 & #3. Creating more level ground. And for pragmatism, that’s just fine: why sell the $60k car to a kid who grew up with a ‘85 cavalier? He won’t know what to do with it, can’t afford it, and will end up wrecking it, all while you’re $55k in debt! Giving away high quality has no place in the market. Rather, consistently selling people what they can handle (but not dream or do for themselves) is progress, and sufficient. This expectation and standard the idealist cannot handle, and will only scoff at.

Each artist is different. But both will tend to view their work as an expression/extention of themselves. So telling the idealist to not be so idealistic is telling them to do ‘crap-work’, and further communicating that ‘crap’ is more acceptable than they are. So what does that leave them feeling like? Crap’s crap. And entirely confused/frustrated. “But I was doing my best!!!” Yes, and the world can’t handle you. Idealists suffer through “The heartbreaking work of staggaring genius.” The world can’t handle idealists, and idealists can’t handle the world.

As for the hope of the idealist changing into the pragmatist, it can rarely happen. This is the cry of the 90’s for “out-of-the-box” thinkers. This is equal to the “work” that must be done in marriage, which no dating-for-one-month couple who has yet to run out of date ideas still has to learn and of which cannot conceive. Such work takes either supreme self-awareness or supreme others-focused-ness, consistent changing of purpose, playing with possibilities instead of fixating on the One, being thankful for open rebuke and not being afraid to try.

This is not about ‘aiming & shooting lower’ like the idealist will think it is. It’s another goal altogether, one filled with enabling other people’s dreams over your own, and calling their ugly baby pretty, because they never thought they could give birth.

Update: this little art-theory has everything to do with personal clothing style choices as well:

While recently looking at a “wide leg” ad, I was reminded me of a rather ‘artsy’ friend of mine. While analyzing this ad, I was further reminded what defines the “artsy” look. It’s having “outfits” that are offbeat, but also which only display 2% of “you” and having 90 of such outfits. This way you never wear the same style from day-to-day like ‘most’ ppl, and you never wear what is FULLY yourself, but are happy to take this one small 2% bit of you and tease it out into something bigger than yourself. Of course this is the ‘I’ personality type who can pull this off, since that’s how they *act*, not just dress.

I’m not that type. I’m the more orderly-idealist who will tend to be more “monochromatic” in style (having found the One Style that IS Me), albeit just off-beat enough, a la beatniks & film noir

Which is the “proper” syntax:

1. Now, obviously, Johnny may still not throw it to you, but it was an attempt.
2. Now, obviously Johnny may still not throw it to you, but it was an attempt.
3. Obviously Johnny may still not throw it to you, but it was an attempt.

Likely #3. but why do we all tend towards #1? Likely because we early-21st-century-ers are more about communicating how *I* speak (subjective, personal idiosyncrasies) than aligning with the Objective Grammar. Post-Modernism is all about the Death of the Object and Rise of the Subject.

“*I* would have said the sentence with pauses, so THAT is why *I* put commas in.”

Again, which is more important? Communicating clearly (per the norm of Modernistic Rules) or communicating SELF? Do we all display our psychological dependencies of personal acceptance through simple grammar?

As to the importance of life and the reality of it communicating something, we might all agree. Specifically what it’s communicating, to whom, what it means, and the consequences.. that’s not so agreed upon. We understand that sin is bad, and our lives speak our theology. That’s the beginning of one of many arguments towards a holy(character of God) daily lifestyle.

But life isn’t that clean; that sin we try to avoid is undermining, active against us, confusing us, giving us a new foundation which we try to live upon.. and most sadly, it works. Life doesn’t crash-and-burn 100% when you sin. It’s a slow-way down. And the energy of youth is often enough to recover the tail-spins which can come quick. We simply learn to “not do that again.” And that’s what I’ll call “bottom-up” living: when experience teaches, and we build an idealism/expectation from it.

There’s another method, obviously “top-down”.. where we demand our idealism (from whatever source, be it parents, church/religion, youthful hopes, etc). No matter the experience, we will fight against reality to hold to our hopes. Ethics are strong, requirements high. Thanks to American Pragmatism, the latter is laughed at, and the former a stronghold of American secular living.

But my Theology says a few things.. That how I live says stuff about God. Now, for finer points, my life says stuff about God because I claim his way as my own. The “gap” question here is does everyone’s life communicate their theology? The simple answer is yes. But the other ‘gap’ question is, “Does everyone’s life communicate their perspective on God?” And the corollary, “Does everyone’s life display their commentary on God?”

Now, take the simple Christian, who is able to follow the idealism of the conservative american variety. He lives in an undisturbed box that he claims God wants him in, and he has no trouble attaining his perfection. Likely pity is his take on the rest of the sin-filled world. What is he communicating? Transcendence of and isolated God, yes. Immanence of Jesus that eats with the sinners? No. Immanance that loves and helps? No. Certainly, we can call this ‘Christianity’ a half-breed– mixed with selfish isolationism/protectionism of keeping oneself clean first AND last.

Take the avant-guard Christian.. often found on uni campuses, stuck(whether by his own choice or the housing dep’t) with a roomie who sleeps around and invites him to do the same.. Challenged on all fronts to NOT get up on sunday for fellowship, and challenged even on Sunday by people who are in the previous category, and have no concept to help him towards a holiness which is God’s. Immanence is not his trouble.. he’s IN the world, clearly. The transcendence of God’s character which he is originally designed for no longer seems reasonable, possible. The people he meets “outside the box” and still appear happy challenge.

Now, about those people he meets, out there in the world. Some who are taken by their sin and revel in it. Claim it as an identity. What are they saying about God? (1) Perhaps that they have no knowledge of his claim to holiness? Or that they have knowledge (Romans 1!) but there’s just no one ’round confirming it, encouraging them, helping them realize the goodness and long-term best. (2) Alternatively, they are unaware the connection of their daily lives to consequence.. communicating to God that they value something other than him. That’s a scary thing, and I think most people don’t realize their actions are communicating this.

Precisely.

I don’t think I’m aware of this either. I’m not convinced the church is communicating this enough; I’m not convinced that’s my message I take to those in the world.

This means that that college-roommate who’s liberal with his sexuality is directly saying God’s meaning and purpose in sexuality isn’t compelling, valuable, or of any pragmatic use. And the church is quick to jump to try and recover this message (often without the theological base, too!)But to the one who has never heard or perhaps has forgotten, his life isn’t about God, and it isn’t about communicating anything. It’s just as self-centred as the protectionist Christian, only exactly in the opposite direction. (and in this case, the protectionist christian is “better” only because he’s got 1 problem of selfishness not 2!)So selfishness of all is evident. All are indicted, no reason or cause for anything but humility. But pride fills up instead, denying consequence– precisely of God’s concern of such matters.

———-

Restart.

At this point, I’m confused. I started off this post regarding my friend who’s sin is her identity. She’s happy.. honestly happy. She’s got a life that’s working enough for her. There’s enough people confirming her actions, and there’s enough people able to keep her going. All people live by what they see and feel. Bottom-up experiential living is the norm. And that is authentic, which is often more than in the top-down lives.

But I feel I’m squished in the middle. I’ve lived both top-down (lead to such inauthenticity that lead to depression) and I’ve lived bottom-up, which can lead to frustration.

I know God’s message to me is love. That’s enough to solve the frustration of bottom-up living, get oneself out of it’s addictions and demands for peace and ease.

Perhaps that’s one of the homosexual issues. They get frustrated with the opposite sex, while being so comfortable with those who are like-minded and so retract from those who think, act, value differently instead of entering in to the messy other. Just like a married man who doesn’t know what to do with his wife or children, and so retracts into work or his hobbies or an affair where he DOES know what to do with, where he finds solace and ease. Fact is, both are sin. Both are not living fully, both are self-protectionist, and both are “happy” ..just one takes more work: fighting self and ease.

———–

Round 3:

So what of it all? Our lives are filled with our own anti-consequential desires, decisions & actions, all communicating that I’d rather live my bottom-up way than any top-down idealism keeping me from pragmatic reality. All the while, breaking God’s heart, shoving him aside, missing out on an authenticity deeper than the termites have eaten away.

Now, that’s not to say that God’s way is as the conservatives make it out to be. And that’s the confusing part for everyone involved. They present a highly in-authentic, illogical, top-down idealism which only works inside their own box of pretty-pretty-land. That’s not palatable, let alone tasty to most. And it’s not God’s design, hope nor future for any of us.

What am I to say? God’s broken heart over our denial of him is ‘ok’? Our lives communicating constant rejection of him inconsequential? Is there a difference between me trying to not reject him, and me giving up, giving in to my natural choices which speak rejection? And maybe my own effort will only build my pride.

I’ve got to say, the homosexual, the addicted-to-sports-male and the protectionist Christian are of the same tree. All act out of the same motives, though some more hidden than others. Telling God, “f*** you!” nicely doesn’t keep you in the kingdom.

All I can find that is true is continual recognition of all this and of the final payment for these crimes by God himself, and the continual attempts to value him, his ways, his kingdom.. everything else will confuse, everything else is noise.There is no “best” life. There is no one who achieves. We all rationalize and twist and turn.

only goes as far as your voice carries.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/06/mlk.role.church/index.html

Like it or not the masses are won over by their aesthetic life. Until whatever is popular is shown to be ‘ugly’, they won’t be changing. I wish it wasn’t so.