This past Sunday’s liturgy involved the confession of misuse of intellect and imagination. My mind has been working underground on that generic idea since, and with luck, here we have a post.

As a child, I could not stand scary movies. (As an aside, I couldn’t stand the suspense of mystery novels either!) I could never walk up the stairs to my room, or from the basement– I’d have to run. Fear. A compulsion that ghosts or scary things were after me. If it was dark, and if I had my back turned, then they were there! I’ve called it childish and irrational, and tried my best over the past 15 yrs to keep my cool, with limited success.

In another vein, the past few years have made me aware of my disinterest in fantasy novels or movies.. Fantasy as in sci-fi or anything with gnomes, fairies, unicorns, orks, trees that walk or talk (no matter how many boulders they throw), wizards, etc. No LOTR or Narnia for me.

As for exhibit ‘C’ toward my non-standard imagination, my childhood was filled with two things: Dinosaurs and Legos. (Note the glaring lack of comic books like most boys). My childhood was not taken over my narrative or storyline of any sort. I still don’t read novels like many adults do, be it Harry Potter or Ted Dekker (Here’s to you Tim!). Rather I was caught up the the amazement of the granduer of dinosaurs, of the reality of another time, and of construction and interworkings of pieces of any sort– stretching them to their limit.

My imagination was non-narrative, but instead, constructivist and ideological, if not mechanical. Any wonder why I now take interest in contental philosophy? Sure I enjoy logic, but I’m not a pure analytic in my approach. I like considering the large ideas at play within the masses.. perhaps my world is a world of lego-men after all!

But tonight after watching a zombie-filled movie, as I walked from shadowy room to shadowy room in the winter dark, I was struck by this idea of imagination: My mind is strong, and it seems to project the non-real into reality. My mind is unable to make monsters appear before me and others like true wizardry, but for all intents and purposes, my mind is overactive enough to make me believe )behave) as if I could be attacked out of nowhere.

Take this into another realm.. many have trouble with depression, OCD or even trusting others. Is this simply a matter of having a strong, overactive mind projecting issues and concerns into one’s reality which are not? A matter of having the mind “push back” instead of simply being a tool to process and understand? Imagination running wild of a new sort?

Or again, all the ideologies in the world, from Democritus’ atoms, Descartes’ reality, Kant’s Phenomenology, Hegel’s history, Modernism’s dream, Christianity’s hope of a New Heaven and Earth, Nirvana, even Hindu castes.. these are all strictly in the category of imagination. The one difference would be whether any one of these dreams were to pan out. Just because something is unseen does not make it imaginary, but as well, to live in a presumed imaginary world which ends up being reality, that would not be so foolish of the faithful.

And precisely the point: the faithful trust that reality is more in line with their imagination than what is commonly held. This can lead to discrepency over the logical outcome of lifestyles given what is or is not included and prioritized in the ideology. This idea of faithfulness is also consistent with the requirement to “remember the dream.”

A Disciplined mind.
Something I don’t hear mentioned often is disciplining the mind. Discipline, in general, is spoken of, perhaps only in reference to one’s will or perhaps emotions, but training one’s mind to swap between reality and imagination would seem to be of use, for avoiding mental illness, as well as keeping faithfulness.

The Island and ‘V’ for Vendetta… same idea? Rebellion into freedom from fear-mongering dictatorships, one personal, the other social. Ahh.. anti-authoritarian heroism..What would american media be without it!

And here I am reading up on anarchy & Plato: “Anarcho-Syndicalists regard individual autonomy as the basis and the necessary precondition for the enjoyment of a truly human existence, one based in the development of a strong individual self, complete with a distinctive character and personality and pursuits which bring spiritual fulfillment, happiness and pleasure.” Aka “what is the role of a civil society?” NONE!
And Plato? “What is the role of civil society?” “to bring about maximal pleasure through the self-giving of the masses!”

Step 1: Go to Europe & watch the citizens rally against G8.

Step 2: Go to America and watch the red campaigns & “save darfur” bumper stickers

Step 3: While at both places, attend Live 8.

Step 4: Listen to Bono be happy about G8.

Step 5: Read the stories & be confused.

Nearly every organization out there has a “Help Africa!” focus. It’s nearly as hilarious as the Darfur clocks. Because getting emotional about it and “being reminded” does something of course.

But hey, it’s better than the G8 “imposing their wills upon these poor nations.” Poor nations which can’t seem to get over themselves, unite on ANY level, form ANY kind of government (16 years & counting!), or be anything but mercenary.

This kind of life the West has no clue about. Warlords, clans, gunfire, bombs, oh wait.. isn’t this called “street gangs“? Poverty does weird things to people, like bring out depravity.

But what of social order? The gangs around the world seem to understand it- they use a short-term, localized form of it. And why submit to a larger organizing body which would make you work when you can steal?

Why, indeed, unless there is nothing left to steal. Mercenary order isn’t progress, isn’t decadence, but perhaps it is “more fun.” Especially being male, having a “life of adventure” is usually top priority, or at least priority over stability (but that’s personality too).

What would Plato have to say about all this? His stages of government were in terms of their degradation to lower forms, not arising from an abyss of social disorder. When implementing social order then, do you start with the lowest (tyrannic) kind, and work up, since the people will not submit to higher forms (Aristocracy, Timocracy,  Plutocracy, Democracy, Tyranny)? And think of it: Tyranny is what Iraq had, what Afghanistan had, what these disorderly gangs promote, and wish to achieve (themselves as the tyrant).

But here is an interesting point: democracy then ought be the next stage up for Iraq! How does is positive transition occur? If it is the people who arrive at tyranny by their own desire for freedom absolutely, democracy will arise only when that desire is consistent across all the people who would subject themselves to it. Again: gangs subject themselves to no one; they are not idealistic.

So perhaps in this winding rant, I bring in Proverbs 29:18 “Where there is no vision the people are unrestrained, But happy is he who keeps the law.”

Unrestraint. Is there any better word for the state of african social order? And as I learned in the Chicago Public Schools: throwing money at problems does not solve the problem. Maybe I am on the side of the G8 protesters, but am I also against all the PoMo’s who would prefer I not promote any single metanarrative by which to unite these people? There is no other method or means by which the PoMo value of “no harm to another” can be accomplished!

Western Post-modernity would do well to decide between the unifying force of metanarratives, love for “freedom,” and despising of the violence humans do to one another.

There is fear of consequence,
but the “what if” behind all consequence..
that’s Kierkegaard’s dread.

That is the impersonal force in which all religions hope,
which tries to understand,
it is infinity in the soul..

Dread in children? Sure, but there’s much more significance
when you’re out from under parental rule.
and making a law for oneself is only self-imposed.
When you find the short term consequences acceptable
despite authoritarian fore-warning, you start this self-rule/law.
In the acceptance of consequence or lack of consequence
you gain dominion & pride & accomplishment for self.
but in the awakening that no one cares whether you transgress your own law or not,
that is the start of dread.

What level is dread an un-valuing of self?
When there is no longer concern self with reality, health, idealism..
dread is that reality is black infinite
sum of all fears? perhaps. Kierkegaard wasn’t so fond in this direction though.
..that reality is all in your head- that there’s no structure to it..
that correspondence and coherence are irrelevant?
so is dread a tool of the enemy to confuse us, to turn us to unconsequential living?
or is it a tool of the Father, to turn us from it to fulfillment and wholeness?
What, then, is the antithesis of dread? Fulfillment? Context? Significance in reality?
and how many of us live synthetically, running from dread, seduced back by it
all the while looking for significance & fulfillment..

dread speaks.

Let’s start here:

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20070721/lnq070722.gif

Let’s continue here:

I had a conversation with an old-roomie-turned-married-fellow friend (I have too many of those.. count: 5/0) of mine yesterday. There’s a little too much bunk flyin’ round Christianity. And one for being counted among the liberals (at least by the stupid-conservative.. note, this is a subset, not all conservatives are stupid) I took him up on his rant. What’s wrong with saying that “God made Adam from the dust of the ground” requires this to be through non-scientific means? That is, why not let science have it’s place and help inform the discussion about the means of man’s existence? Besides, thus far in the game it’s inconclusive (in a final sense) in either direction.

It seems that both parties (Christians & Scientists) have a tendency to read each other inherently with discredit, and read themselves with undying-trust-unto-ridicule. Likewise, they seem to miss the we’re-still-in-process-no-conclusions-yet method/message of science. Do I have a problem with these? Of course. Should you? Only if you know ppl with these perspectives.

So what of the line in the comic “..only acknowledges science that doesn’t conflict with the ancient scriptures”?

There’s a long line of history that most everyone on both sides of the camp are uninformed of.  Socrates sought truth by denying he had it, and asking others for it. Good start I suppose, humanity generally finds humility agreeable.  The Catholic Church defined the order of method of truth-finding to be: explicit in the Bible itself, co-equal with tradition, reason and papal statements ex cathedra. I’ve been told Wesley edited these 4 to have an ordered precedence, from Biblically clear statements, tradition, reason and then personal experience.

Taking this quadratum for truth-finding (though more clearly: simply a method by which we put confidence in propositions as being correspondent with external, independent reality) seems rather clear. First, we listen to the one who made reality, then we listen to those who’ve studied it through the years, then we listen to our studies and thoughts on it, then we listen to how it works when lived out in our context. Each iteration starts as widely as can be had, rather than starting within my own little bubble.

Then the role of science is in the category of our reason. Reason unbounded is like emotion unbounded: they are both guides we follow, but neither absolutely. We can only absolutely follow the absolute body of absolute, complete knowledge. And since our experience is more than content-knowledge, but relational, I’m stuck making this set of all knowledge into a personal being. And since independency is required of knowledge, and relationship is one of dependency, I’m stuck making this personal, all-knowing reality multiply-united: the Triune God. If my reason gets me this far by studying life, and if the Scientist reason gets them as far as they are by studying the ‘hard sciences,’ then we need to understand the unity of this external reality: how both of our views unite in the context of both.

If my Christianity has a place for reason, then I must follow it, not fear it like a plague. Science-ism has no place for the soft-sciences, but even itself is ruled by the hard-sciences, by their unwavering commitment to denial of independent reality being being more than content-knowledge.

In America (and england to some degree), we had the ‘revivals’ in the 1700-1800’s. We did go thru a ‘religious death’ in the 1900’s thru fundamentalism & liberalism, but we’ve held the line thru evangelicalism.. now “alive” thru emerging-ism(?).

As to Germany, it has it’s roots back like America does in the 1600’s. but that’s 400 yrs ago. Germany’s 1800’s was liberalism thru rationalism, it’s 1900’s a mix of (rational fundamentalism)war + capitalism/modernism.

So we had at least some kind of religious element. They haven’t. We’ve had a bouy bouncing, a man barely tredding water.. their bouy got torpedoed; their man was pulled down, attacked in his head.

Now, the adults maintain rationality, and die jungen hold to agnosticism, and are afraid to commit, since commitment is exclusionary, and thank you Kant, “who’s to say” what’s beyond the knowable..

It’s a long road back. I wanna be here and write rationally on any and everything I can that will counter all the silly rationality: the problem with inclusionism, the need for exclusion, the need for commitment. But all this cannot be just from my own personal experience. I must also learn to get inside other people’s heads, specifically the mind of the anti-exclusionary, “happy enough,” anti-commitment, sleeping-with-live-in-girlfriend, semi-culturally-rebellious kid. ..Recovering regret, mining deeper than “good enough”..

They will always say, “but what about…” (the other option). I can say 2 things:
1) why do you need another option is this has your answers?
2) here is how those others do not hold up, and here ARE all the options.

But those are my thoughts.. who’s to say if that’s what God has for my life. All I know is that I write. A lot. and ALWAYS on the same topic: a philosophical recovery of theology, which is able to be displayed in all life: personal psychology, group sociology, economics and eventually science. Call me Van Til.

I’m after an ‘honest’ Christianity that is able to contain all that science finds, and is not surprised by ‘new’ findings. Cuz as much as I don’t like it, it’s true that when Christians are taken off guard, it looks like God is taken by surprise as well.

I think it’s cuz I’m so idealistic. cuz my mind is SO powerful. Idealism needs a proportion of empowerment to survive, to bring about it’s ideal. That’s me. And when my idealism is broken by the day, I have nothing.. and I’m furious. I don’t know what my ideal entails, but I do know what it doesn’t include, and that is usually what happens.

Someone less idealistic, who takes things “as they come” and doesn’t have any prejudice over whether they should or should not happen.. that’s the ‘other’ mind that I don’t have, that I don’t know, that I must learn to communicate into.

So before I find out something has failed at work, before I find out that something isn’t “my way”.. it’s so hard, believing(accepting) life won’t go my way. cuz it’s all I want. cuz without You, it is the only thing I need.

So break oh day, and with you my soul! Break, my heart, and with you your own self ideals for self-preservation which are not for your Maker.

22.05.07:
I  had one of the more interesting events in my life over the past 24 hours, and I figure I should write about it. I’ve already let some of my friends in on the story, but there’s always more to tell.

I suppose there’s a few levels to the story, my context in it’s short and long-term form, the actual narrative, and my reaction.

My context, long term:
I took my first intro to philosophy class because I had to, not out of burning desire. I had no prior interest and I didn’t really know what to make of it when I did take it. It was with a hard prof, and for the most of it, it was just about old ideas. This was fall semester, sophomore or junior year. I don’t know why but sometime in the class I asked the prof if there was a class on more “contemorary” philosophy.. like what’s happening now. He said in the spring, and I planned to take the class. Eventually though, at the same time as this contemporary philosophy class, I needed to take another class (tues-thurs) for my music minor. I asked if I could sit in on monday and wednesday. He was fine with that, and so began my intense interest in philosophy. This class introduced me to Critical Theory, Habermas, Derrida, Foucalt and Baudrillard. And I loved it. I even asked the prof about Grad School, which he termed, “the snooze button on the alarm clock of life.’ I even told my parents I wanted to go to a secular grad school for philosophy. And yes, I even took the GRE. I did ‘normal’.. ’standard’. Not above and beyond. That, with trying to do a book review 400 pages thick by Rorty tempered my interest.

I went on to live life, learn through depression and eventually forget about philosophy on every level. But I still kept it as a background. I would say I liked it, but display no active participation in it. Then I was free to go to SBTS, where I found myself more interested in my Philosophy paper than in my Greek exegesis paper. Theology? I’d had enough in undergrad. It’s time for philosophy!  And meeting my girlfriend got that ball rolling all the more! She’s read up on a lot! So I’m now planning on taking post-bacc classes at GSU next spring, with an MA and PhD in time.

On another front, I’ve never been anywhere outside the US, until this past month. And I’ve never really considered going anywhere, until last year, when I heard someone tell her story of her love for another people. So I get curious, and I start reading and I start to wonder about Germany. This land filled with thinkers and theologians of past ages, now turned by skepticism.. and this leads me to wonder about my role, my interest in philosophy, and my years of studying myself– what good is it? What could it be used for? Who needs to know what I’ve learned? Cuz all my “average joe” friends in America don’t understand me at all. I’m too far out for them, and I offer little in terms of their practical mindset. So I came here with one question: is all my learning of life and self and God of any use to a nation filled with thinkers and skeptics and agnostics afraid to commit?

Narrative:
So I’ve been in Germany for almost 1.5 weeks now, 5 days in Frankfurt, 6 in Muenchen. I get a late start to my day- I want to book reservations for when Carmen comes, I want to check out and hit Regensberg to find (literally, since it’s not on any map ANYWHERE on the internet!!) Vallhalla. Well, after getting up late, missing breakfast at the hostel, and misbooking the wrong month on a few reservations, I’m off to the Hbf. I grab my baguette– in europe, apparently a sandwich consists of a 6″ piece of dry bread, with 1 slice of deli-meat, lettuce, a tomato and a cucumber on it. Not super-filling. So I grab a cranberry.. thing. And I forget the time and JUST get on the train after running for it! I find my seat and am, well, tired. I notice my ears being wierd, and on this train ride, I’m not going without water. So I pay the guy 1.60eu. I thought he said 1.57. No, that was 1.75. Don’tcha love german numbers. so we get that straightened out, after looking like a dumb american. Then I open it, and it explode over my pants an the edge of the macbook. Dandy. I quit. I’m tired. I just want peace, and I have none. It’s hot. I’ve messed 3 things up already, and I haven’t had any time with Jesus. Of course.

So I get to Regensberg, and there’s no washroom. There’s no tourist office. I try to get  bike, and they’re closed. Good thing, cuz the DB attendant tells me bus #5 goes to Valhalla. Great! Where’s bus 5? I look on a map, and it tells me only the NW side of town. Great. Time to walk. My camera is in my bag, and I miss a few good shots. It’s hot so I change into shorts, put on sunsscreen and grab my camera at a McDonald’s, as well as ENTIRELY in german asking for a milkshake.. large.. strawberry.. to go.

It’s good that I walked, because I found the altstadt, with the dom. It’s big. And very 400 years old. So I keep going after killing half my camera battery. I kinda get lost and ask where bus 5 is. 30m behind me. Perfect. I wait 5 minutes watching high-school jokers try to flip a hat from their mouth to their head. Apparently “potato-head” is a valid derrogotory comment. Bus comes. I pay my 2.50. I thought he said 5. My GPS saves the day, and I track the trip to valhalla. I have coodinates, and dangit, I know where it is! The bus stops, and I find out that I need to walk up a road.. up a path to Valhalla. Dunno how long it is, and I’m running out of time, so I hit it hard. Yes, with my 15-20kg pack on. I get to the top only stopping once, and it was roughly as bad as Heidelberg. GPS is my friend: altitude change, 60m. I take all the pix I could want, including me with Kant, and then my battery dies. Ok. Time to check out of Regensberg. Oh look, the bus goes RIGHT to the bahnhof, and I never had to walk like a fool earlier! Oh well. I got the Dom.

Head back to the train station, and find that I just missed a train to Hof by 3 minutes, and I have to wait an hour, and I won’t get to dresden until 0:30. Hmm.. wonder if my hostel closes at night.. wonder where it is.. close to hbf? probably not. So I pay .50 eu for the inet..get a map.. no, it’s not close. Well, whatever. Grab Burger King and a 1.5L wasser for .30eu for the ride.

Ride=work. I think.. a lot about the “Human Network” and “Theological Network” that exists within groups. And I think on Human Nature.. corrupt will, corrupt mind, and how God is dependent on his other 2 persons for knowledge of love-relationship. Fun stuff. Amazingly ordered and clear. Still haven’t really had time with Jesus. Kinda forgot at this point.

So 2 stops later, it’s 22:20 in the middle of nowhere, and I’m waiting for a train. it comes, a double-decker. I go up top, and I’m alone. Good. Laptop is dead, and I need rest. A guy comes up to me and asks something in German. I miss it and ask for English. He’s asking if I have “room on my ticket”.. sorry, railpass doesn’t have multiple ppl. So he knows I’m travelling and we talk. It’s good. He grabs his stuff and his friend, and sits with me. They finish their beers, and we talk. It gets interesting pretty quick.

Christoph is studying transportation economy (efficiency) at the uni at Dresden. Andrew is studying philosophy. They both are coming with their 35L backpacks from working waiting tables at Wiesbaden over the past weekend. Christoph’s English is better– he’s been to Chicago when he was 17. Andrew hasn’t been across the ocean.. never flown either. They’re both 21-22. They ask where I’m from, where I’m going, what I do. I tell them from Frankfurt to Munchen to Dresden to Berlin, for the fun of it, working as I can over the internet. ..That I’m studying philosophy at a uni. That I’m writing philosophy for my job on human nature. ..And we’re off to the races. I say that I think the human mind isn’t big enough to understand ourselves nor our world, thus we are unable to ‘use’ it and make sense of it, especially when we deny parts of it we don’t like. At that point, Andrew asks if I’m Christian or something. I have to admit I am. I usually like holding out and surprising ‘em. Chrisoph says, “oh really, I am too!” I think, “yeah right.. he’s nominal like the states. No one is REALLY a christian in this country, right?” but then Andrew says how Christoph is always saying he “fears for my soul.” Ok. Maybe there are saved people in germany. But he still smokes, drinks and curses!

Andrew and I talk more about philosophy. He brings up Camus and fear and how he thinks the mind is actually bigger than all else, just encased in the body that limits it.

I can’t remember all the details, but I think I got the gospel of Jesus’ substitution for me.. ah yes.. we talked about moralism, how that’s not good enough for God. Of course, that’s not his standard. His standard is relationship with Him. And a messed-up human will and selfishness.

So we arrive, and they find a map, and I tell them where my hostel is.. it’s a ways off, and waiting for a tram that may not come isn’t worth it. So they invite me to stay the night with them. Ok, sure. Sounds great. I like these kids. We take their tram, walk to their apartment which they admitted was a bit dirty, and, well, ‘college kids’ live there! It’s Christoph, another dude, and Andrew and his girlfriend. We get there and crash after showers. This morning we all rose at around 11am. I packed and we had breakfast in the kitchen, I meet Sarah, Andrew’s girlfriend. Andrew and Christoph leave the kitchen for whatever reason, and I talk with Sarah.. she’s a philosophy chic too, but has turned to psychology, since it’ll pay more.. well anything. Yeah, philosophers in germany are poor too! We talk about schooling and uni, and somehow.. we’re back at it- I’m telling her the same things I told Andrew last night. She’s willing to hear me. She’s watching me, listening, asking. And skeptical, just like Andrew, “well I AM his girlfriend!” she says. I laugh, because I know Carmen would be just like me on these topics too! We talk about the unknown, God’s plan vs. my plan. She seemed surprised about God speaking to me. I admitted it was on a spirit-spirit level, which is able to ‘push’ my emo’s and mind, so as to ‘hear’ God. She is so skeptical, unwilling to commit. I admitted I committed out of pain. I HAD to. and that I still fight against God, but he’s still my answer. She’s familiar with Job, grace, catholicism. I mention Rom 6 and John 16. Christoph comes in and laughs at me again for going at it again. I’m NOT trying here! It’s just happening! I admit to her (like I did Andrew) that I cannot change her, only hope that her answer works, and to tell her how well my answer works. But they always want to have an open set.. “just in case” because “who can tell” what is real. Can’t prove nor disprove. So I turn pragmatic. “Works for me, hope yours works for you. Lemme know when it doesn’t.”

So Christoph and I exchange email and phone, and say we’ll hang out tonight. He takes me to the train, and we’re off. I make it to my hostel which is effectively in SoHo. Neustadt is Soho.

And so I wonder– was I of any use this past 24 hours? I was involved.. I DID something. I “wasn’t ashamed of the gospel and it’s power”.. (ok, so they did have to ASK if I was christian.. and I was reluctant to some level.. reluctant over being labelled and dismissed though..) Is the role I had with Andrew and Sarah for me to have with many more? Here? States? I dunno if it was of any use, but I sure had fun! I’m so glad to talk with people who think, and told them as much.

Dunno why or how exactly I came across this, but here’s some of what I hope to study in/for a MA/PhD in Philosophy. And yes, I do understand 90% of it!

And for comic relief..

This is part of an ongoing theme in my head started by the Frankfurt school:

Capitalism, for all it’s “worker responsibility”(don’t work= don’t get paid) doesn’t have a lot of boundaries when it comes to ethical practices, since  the #1 ethic is to do whatever it takes to get the consumer’s $.

The opposing force that *should* be enacted to balance this out is consumer responsibility:”I ain’t buyin’ it cuz it’s crap!” Which *should* have some kind of influence on how the companies do their business practices/product..

But then, enter the ‘greed’ factor: Consumer responsibility dies because the consumers don’t hold out for ‘the best’ but go for the crap cuz it’s ‘good enough’.  Likewise, corporate responsibility (of not ripping ppl off) dies at the promise of higher profit/pay.

Internal to each company, the managerial structure is unethical by implementing the equivalent of ‘forced labor’. Again, this should be countered by the consumer responsibility of ‘who wants to buy from a company who treats their workers like crap.’ But in comes the greed factor of “eh, who cares, I just want this even if it’s crap, even it’s from a crappy company.” Or the ‘need’ factor, “I’m not getting paid enough, so I need to buy the crap product (further supporting a crap company) simply out of pragmatic reasons (my crap company has me in a forced-labor situation, not paying me enough to buy from/support a good company).

I’m sure this isn’t a clear post, but it does bring up some of the main issues, which I’m starting to see can be applied to politics of a democratic republic, both of which have their major flaws exposed in the question/underlying situation behind: “What do I do when I don’t like any of what’s offered?”

..have I become a poli-sci-econo-socialogist?..
oh, and for all you who think you NEED vista for fancy graphics, check out the LINUX side of things.

What is it about this new millenium (about the past century really!) that gets us all begging for identity and, well, something MORE than just words - art?

Logocentristic ideologies vs. Aesthetic symbology.

Perhaps in it’s marketing attempts to reach us, capitalism has reached out throughout our common language and stolen all our words for it’s own purposes, such that:

The whole world is made to pass through the filter of the culture industry. The old experience of the movie-goer, who sees the world outside as an extension of the film he has just left (because the latter is intent upon reproducing the world of everyday perceptions), is now the producer’s guideline. The more intensely and flawlessly his techniques duplicate empirical objects, the easier it is today for the illusion to prevail that the outside world is the straightforward continuation of that presented on the screen. This purpose has been furthered by mechanical reproduction since the lightning takeover by the sound film. –Adorno & Horkheimer

On the other hand,  standardized commoditization and ‘kitsch’ leaves us without anything for ourselves.

I want to say that it’s Platonic, in terms of exalting beauty, but I also want to call it anti-platonic in it’s image/shadow preference. I suppose it’s a ‘new kind of divided line,’ in triple-form where images (can) display beauty, words (can) display truth and actions (can) display goodness, all pointing to the Form of the One that is Good, True and Beautiful; the exaltation of shadows.

This freeing of the shadows from being subjugated by word into their own parallel domain is possible only by the symbology of both word and form. In a sense, the artist creates his own language which when privy to, the audience can listen and respond to just like verbal communication.

But there is a fear here. Our logocentrism is shown in our belief/trust/preference that words are more specific, and less likely for mis-interpretation. We as christians, want to make sure we’re clear about Jesus. But I dare say that we’ve chopped up the tree to see how it works and in process lost as much as we’ve found. I may want to know my wife(whoever she will be), but you won’t find me dissecting her like I biology lab!

But Art, when informed by the deepest knowledge we have of reality (even when attained through dissection) has the ability to communicate that knowledge through extra-linguistic means as much as action does. Thus you can love Jesus with your heart, mind and action all to the same level of inherent importance. (I say inherent because it all changes if you only think when God tells you to act).