Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts

12/4/13

Why Do We Expect Meaning From Poems?



Contemporary poems and poets that purposely work-around the styles and tones (though not necessarily the influences) of prior generations are not unlike Lynch’s description of films and music. However, in poetry classes, students are either asked to find the meaning of a poem or, in the case of teaching a course with a focus on postmodern poets, seek meaning themselves. Meaning, of course, is endemic to everyone. We are constantly searching through the world, through space and culture for the meaning to life and, less abstractly, to the events which surround us, especially the traumatic events of shootings and other acts of violence.

However, the search for an objective meaning to these existential questions is fruitless. As Camus tells us, there are three methods for dealing with this fruitlessness: physical death (suicide), philosophical death (religion), or acceptance of the absurdity which surrounds the quest for meaning. The fourth option, I wrote previously, is denial, a very popular choice.

We are trained by the education system, at least in the United States, to seek meaning, to codify our response to anything: birthdays, death, politics and music or art. We are expected not only to place a subjective value judgment on these items but also to explain via language why these subjective judgments are correct.

I believe this kind of judgment and search is based on religion. Religion tells us not only what is right and wrong but also that any subjective “truth” is sinful and that only the objectivity of the very subjective faith can lead to an answer to these greater existential questions. Further, it is in determining these judgments that meaning can be discerned. Religion is not philosophical death for nothing.

Students are especially conditioned, then, to find a correct meaning in the poems they read, a process hammered together in grade school in order to teach a consensus literature with a set meaning before being catapulted into the subjective world. Does religion not do the same thing? Does it not attempt to indoctrinate one with a set of ideas for governing oneself and others before unleashing these individuals on the world? This is not to say that education is killing philosophical thought – far from it. Education should be the expansion not only of knowledge but also the blueprint for how one should acquire more knowledge. However, for the sake of testing and making sure those entering the world beyond school have the same base of knowledge, it became necessary at some point to teach that objective meaning is possible.

Life, friends, is not boring – at least not anymore. Life is chaotic and yet simultaneously structured. There seems to be a narrowing definition of success in American society and it seems that any discipline which challenges that definition is deemed “difficult” and undermined through that difficulty via its subjectivity.

Poetry, then, stands in opposition on these fronts. Poetry, like Lynch’s example of music and his own films, is a witness to chaos through the subjective lens of experience. However, because poetry uses language, it is expected to make sense, to provide meaning within its framework. Because language seems to exist within set parameters of definition and grammar usage, it is assumed that words themselves are not subjective. Words, because they have a set definition in dictionaries, are seemingly not open to interpretation. Words are made up of their prescribed meaning based on society consensus. Because language is our most developed construct, when elements of it are used, they are decidedly set in their meaning – otherwise, what would there be to hold on to?

Poetry is the tool of abandonment, the way of letting go of these pre-determined parameters of language. A poem is the place to let go of expectation, to cease our attempts at aligning meaning, language and experience. The elements can exist as themselves: experience can remain just that with no need of affirmation and language can be reset with the space of a work as it needs to be.

For some, surely the search for meaning is itself meaning, a sense of belonging to something greater than themselves. Without the search for meaning, life would veer dangerously into the absurd which, under no circumstances, should be accepted. In a poetic work, however, this absurdity should not only be allowed to flourish but it should be expected and encouraged.

10/22/08

Two Americas

Bill Maher is right: there are two Americas.

One America wants to be a socially progressive, European state and the other America wants to be an uptight, backwards society where people don't have to pay taxes to a government that allows all the guns you want and barges into your bed room to make sure you're having sex with a member of the opposite gender. That government has every right to your body and no rights to your money or arsenal.

One America wants to make it so that Americans can prosper by taking care of each person's basic needs (like healthcare). The other America wants to make it so that if you're not pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, you're being trampled at the bottom by those richer than you.

One America thinks it's ok to scare people by saying Gays will take over the country if allowed to marry, and the other America thinks that two people, regardless of gender, should be allowed to enter into a marital contract with another person.

One America wants to scare people into hating Gays.

Can you guess which America that is?

8/13/07

Your Own Personal Jesus

"Your twenties suck," my friend Jackson told me once. I thought maybe he was bitter, or just cynical, but it turns out that your twenties, in some way, really suck.

Regular readers know why my twenties aren't fun yet. On top of career issues, it's a time when you kind of find out that not everything is quite so simple. There's not always a mapped out path. Fuck, sometimes there are no roads at all!

People, in times of difficulty, turn to various things: drugs/alcohol, religion, friends, family. They find help filling the gaps they feel are missing in their lives. I think this is where people who go the religion route end up in that "Born-again" area. Scary stuff.

I too, however, have, in my own way, become "Born again". Something I thought I had fallen away from in my youth that now, finding it again, I feel somehow comforted. I feel more complete with it than without. It hugs me when I'm down and celebrates with me when I'm up.

I'm talking, of course, about baseball.

I'd grown tired of it as a pre-teen. I simply couldn't continue watching people who walked away from a game they supposedly loved over more money than the average American will ever see in their lifetime.

But something brought me back. Some enjoyment that I had forgotten about came flooding back at the end of last season, and while I passed it off initially, at the beginning of this season, I eagerly awaited each game and to read about baseball. Jennifer bought some books for me last Christmas, and as I have read them, the spark has grown.

And so I am with you now, baseball. Who could have guessed I would be welcomed back by baseball so easily? It's as if I never left at all.

That, to a great extent, is the beauty of baseball. "The one constant throughout the years," writes Kinsella, "is baseball". The nation has changed, and sure, baseball has too, but mostly, the game is the same as it ever was.

And so I have come to the top of the moutain, my friends, or better yet, the hill. "The Hill" at UGA was where you could see the baseball games and drink beer overlooking the game.

Thou hast made me endless, such is thy pleasure. This frail vessel thou
emptiest again and again, and fillest it ever with fresh life.


-Tagore

7/12/07

Christian Right Activists Disrupt Hindu Chaplain In The Senate

By Eric Kleefeld
Today was a historic first for religion in America's civic life: For the very first time, a Hindu delivered the morning invocation in the Senate chamber — only to find the ceremony disrupted by three Christian right activists.

We have video of the astonishing scene, and we'll be sharing it with you shortly.

The three protesters, who all belong to the Christian Right anti-abortion group Operation Save America, and who apparently traveled to Washington all the way from North Carolina, interrupted by loudly asking for God's forgiveness for allowing the false prayer of a Hindu in the Senate chamber.

"Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight," the first protester began.

"This is an abomination," he continued. "We shall have no other gods before You."

Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), serving as the presiding officer for the morning, immediately ordered them taken away — though they continued to yell at the Hindu cleric as they were headed out the door, shouting out phrases such as, "No Lord but Jesus Christ!" and "There's only one true God!"

The cleric, Rajan Zed of Reno, Nevada, was visibly nervous and uncomfortable as he then delivered the morning prayer. But to his credit, he soon regained his footing and was able to make it through in a dignified fashion.

For their part, Operation Save America put out an interesting press release, claiming responsibility for the protests and castigating Senators for not joining in:

Theology Moved to the Senate and was Arrested

Theology has moved from the church house onto the floor of the United States Senate, and has been arrested.

Ante Pavkovic, Kathy Pavkovic, and Kristen Sugar were all arrested in the chambers of the United States Senate as that chamber was violated by a false Hindu god. The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the One True God, Jesus Christ. This would never have been allowed by our Founding Fathers. (bolding mine)

"Not one Senator had the backbone to stand as our Founding Fathers stood. They stood on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! There were three in the audience with the courage to stand and proclaim, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' They were immediately removed from the chambers, arrested, and are in jail now. God bless those who stand for Jesus as we know that He stands for them." Rev. Flip Benham, Director, Operation Save America/Operation Rescue


A call for comment to Benham has not been returned as of this writing.

___________________________________________________________________

Comments/Analysis:

Never mind being raised a Hindu. Never mind that I believe the U.S. government should have NO prayer at ALL inside of OUR governmental buildings for which WE provide the money.

I take issue with the comment about the Founding Fathers.

Now, it would be easy to simply say that no one can know what the Founding Fathers would have wanted, but again, it would be too "easy".

Instead, what I would like to briefly argue is what I believe to be the real objectives of the Founding Fathers:

1. They weren't perfect. We aren't perfect. They built a system in which they knew no perfect people would ever be apart of. They made it in such a way that even if the nuttiest person ever made it to a high position (ahem), there would be a way to remove them. This is quite unlike having a bat-shit insane king, such as George III. The idea was to make sure the jobs rotate around, just in case someone sucks. Even super perfect awesome American George Washington a) served two four-year terms as President and b) VOLUNTARILY went home after that. He probably realized no man should get into his job forever, which is why he wanted to be a President and not a King.

2. Things change, but maybe not for conservative America. The Founding Fathers were painfully aware that times and people change. What worked in 1787 America would not work in 1987 America, despite what the Reagan era would have you believe. The Founding Fathers knew they weren't the only ones with good ideas, despite what Operation Save America would like you to think. They knew that new generations of Americans would come along and have better ideas than them, and so they made our government as flexible as they could while still having some reasonable boundaries in order to give shape to the nation they wanted in 1787.

While Operation Save America and many others, including the Bush administration, would have you believe that the Constitution is not a living document, I offer this: Why would the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-awesome Founding Fathers allow changes to be made to their document if they did not intend for further generations to make changes.

This brings me to a wonderful tangent: Gay marriage. Christian conservatives want a Constitutional Amendment banning marriage between homosexuals. Isn't this against their own logic about the Constitution and the Founding Fathers?

I propose the following: Gay marriage is already legal because the Founding Fathers, who apparently wrote a static system of governance, did not mention Gay Marriage.

These Christian Activists are ruining our country!

___________________________________________________________________