Now, of course, the denizens of Calcata are godless Bohemians. The prepuzio is but an oddity to them, a tale for tourists. And yet, before we congratulate ourselves on having evolved beyond such “superstitious nonsense,” I would like to remind you that three X-rays of Marilyn Monroe’s chest were sold for a grand total of $45,000 at a movie memorabilia auction in Las Vegas. In May, 2007, John Schneider, who played Bo Duke in the hit TV series The Dukes of Hazzard, sold his personal 1969 “General Lee” Dodge Charger on eBayMotors.com for $9,900,500. Remember that va-va-va-voom dress Marilyn Monroe wore when she breathily sang “Happy Birthday, Mr. President” to John F. Kennedy? In 1999, it was sold for over 1.2 million dollars to a collections company in New York. So, I don’t believe we have purchase on any intellectual high ground here. We’ve merely traded in Jesus’s meat beanie for dead celebrities.
I've always been fascinated with our desire to venerate things that once belonged to famous people...or the people themselves. The rich and famous are no different than you or me; they simply have had better luck in life. Or made better decisions. Or had better ideas. Or had a better jump shot. Yes, they may be vastly more talented in ways that society values, but that hardly makes them some sort of Ubermensch...just someone who won the genetic lottery.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be off in search of the Holy Hand Grenade....
Now, that is very interesting. JUST MOMENTS AGO, I wrote a Cappuccino about how luck plays a huge role in how far we go in life. So, yes, I completely agree with you.
It took me a long time to get over my "angry atheist" stage, though certainly not as long as many (who never get past it.) One of the things a study of philosophy will do for you, you begin to realize that the G-word gets used in so many ways that the question about whether or not you believe in "The Big G" is almost meaningless. In at least one meaning, sure I do.
John Dewey published a nice little book titled "A Common Faith" in which he distinguished between "religion" -- the practices, churches, and organizations -- and "the religious," what many today are inclined to call "spirituality." It is a good distinction to keep in mind. Myself, I'll have no truck with religion, and will likely reach FaceBook banned levels of language and criticism when faced with it. WRT the religious, I tend to remain silent and just listen. I've experienced my own very brief moments of such, and a good reading of James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience" and Santayana's "Reason in Religion" can offer some fruitful insights into its phenomenology.
Whitehead (and I am a Whitehead scholar) used the G-word quite a bit in his metaphysical inquiries. About half the scholars out there get their knickers in a twist trying to eliminate the word from his corpus, while others drown in their own orgasmic lathers trying to make it the ONLY thing he ever really talked about. Both groups make me want to whup someone like a step child. Whitehead's "God" is the rational basis of reality and the font of creativity in the universe. As such, it is absolutely necessary to his system or, indeed, to any process metaphysics. But at the same time it is less "personal" than Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, and as such is absolutely the last thing you'd ever go to church over.
So Whitehead's is one sense of "God" that I believe in. One can reject the "font of creativity" aspect, and have a block universe like Parmenides or Einstein. But to reject the rationalism part is unavoidably incoherent: what rational argument can you offer for rejecting rationality? So those existentialists and fideists who argue for a surd of irrationality at the base of reality are inevitably engaged in some form of self-contradiction by their act of arguing for it.
As for Jesus little "nipped in the bud" moment: being a good Jew, of course he was circumcised. But it is not like that's a caul, which people would save, is it? So where would such a thing have come from, really?
Gares, you are SUCH a phenomenal writer. If possible, I think you've become an even MORE phenomenal writer in just these past years. I love everything you write, and reread it with undiminished pleasure. Please consider me your most ardent fan.
I've always been fascinated with our desire to venerate things that once belonged to famous people...or the people themselves. The rich and famous are no different than you or me; they simply have had better luck in life. Or made better decisions. Or had better ideas. Or had a better jump shot. Yes, they may be vastly more talented in ways that society values, but that hardly makes them some sort of Ubermensch...just someone who won the genetic lottery.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be off in search of the Holy Hand Grenade....
Now, that is very interesting. JUST MOMENTS AGO, I wrote a Cappuccino about how luck plays a huge role in how far we go in life. So, yes, I completely agree with you.
It took me a long time to get over my "angry atheist" stage, though certainly not as long as many (who never get past it.) One of the things a study of philosophy will do for you, you begin to realize that the G-word gets used in so many ways that the question about whether or not you believe in "The Big G" is almost meaningless. In at least one meaning, sure I do.
John Dewey published a nice little book titled "A Common Faith" in which he distinguished between "religion" -- the practices, churches, and organizations -- and "the religious," what many today are inclined to call "spirituality." It is a good distinction to keep in mind. Myself, I'll have no truck with religion, and will likely reach FaceBook banned levels of language and criticism when faced with it. WRT the religious, I tend to remain silent and just listen. I've experienced my own very brief moments of such, and a good reading of James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience" and Santayana's "Reason in Religion" can offer some fruitful insights into its phenomenology.
Whitehead (and I am a Whitehead scholar) used the G-word quite a bit in his metaphysical inquiries. About half the scholars out there get their knickers in a twist trying to eliminate the word from his corpus, while others drown in their own orgasmic lathers trying to make it the ONLY thing he ever really talked about. Both groups make me want to whup someone like a step child. Whitehead's "God" is the rational basis of reality and the font of creativity in the universe. As such, it is absolutely necessary to his system or, indeed, to any process metaphysics. But at the same time it is less "personal" than Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, and as such is absolutely the last thing you'd ever go to church over.
So Whitehead's is one sense of "God" that I believe in. One can reject the "font of creativity" aspect, and have a block universe like Parmenides or Einstein. But to reject the rationalism part is unavoidably incoherent: what rational argument can you offer for rejecting rationality? So those existentialists and fideists who argue for a surd of irrationality at the base of reality are inevitably engaged in some form of self-contradiction by their act of arguing for it.
As for Jesus little "nipped in the bud" moment: being a good Jew, of course he was circumcised. But it is not like that's a caul, which people would save, is it? So where would such a thing have come from, really?
Gares, you are SUCH a phenomenal writer. If possible, I think you've become an even MORE phenomenal writer in just these past years. I love everything you write, and reread it with undiminished pleasure. Please consider me your most ardent fan.
well, I blush ...
You are extremely dear to me.