I read Job recently, which, other than Ecclesiastes and James, is probably my favorite book of the Christian Scriptures. One of the side fruits of this endeavor was being struck by how Zizek’s reading of the text opens up his reading of Hegel. (At least I think.) So here is what I am thinking.
For Zizek the Real is a fundamental gap or lack. That is, if for a orthodox, even if banal, Hegelian notion of thesis, antithesis and synthesis the idea is that the synthesis is the incorporation of both the thesis and antithesis into a higher/broader reality, than the for Zizek the synthesis is the realization that the antithesis is (already) this higher reality. This is seen in his reading of Job. read more…
I have already read the book once, but have been anticipating this for some time now and have no problem reading it again. An und fur sich is hosting a book event on Philip Goodchild’s new book Theology of Money.
If you can get a hold of the book and follow along than I suggest you do so. If not it will be worth while to follow the summary’s (Anthony Paul Smith has already written one that is outstanding and there will be more to follow). Goodchild’s work is the most interesting work I have read in a long while and I am very excited that it is getting some publicity and to see it get more dissemination.
Also, check out Goodchild’s own remarks on his book here.
Last complaint and question concerning my lack of mental stability.
A thesis statement is defined as a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved. What follows is the introduction for a paper that I recently wrote for a class that I recently did stupendously horrific in. I got a C, yes a C, which will look amazing on PHD apps. Anyways, to get back to the point, I am wondering if I am absolutely insane to think that the following bold and italicized sentences could be considered a thesis statement.
Capital as the Power: An Ecclesio-politics of Unmasking
“You cannot worship both God and Mammon.”
Jesus.
What if this has become the only choice, whether one will worship the spirit of money or whether one will worship God? According to what logic will this possibility be possible? What type of a reading will such an interpretation require? Hermeneutically this hyperbolic reading will not register at the critical-historical level but rather at the level of praxis.[1] Which suggests another and more important question: what mode of ecclesio-politics will such a reading prescribe? It is the wager of this essay that such a reading is an option and in fact a need, in that it offers the Church and world something of genuine novelty: that is, the inability for the Church to ignore the problem of Capital any longer. It is also the wager of this essay that the Pauline language of the powers, their modulations and the limit to them, imparts a beneficial theoretical tool for all who seek to resist Capital’s logic and domination.
This essay is an endeavor to sketch the possibility of such a reading for today, and to suggest the possible benefits. In order to offer such a reading I will attempt to situate Capital in the field of the powers. The first order of business is therefore to elaborate what type of imaginary this field designates. This designation will be made following the work of John Howard Yoder. The next step in this process will consist in considering, through the work of Philip Goodchild and Slavoj Zizek and two present day examples, the suggestion that Mammon, in the form of Capital, constitutes the ultimate Power of the day, the “Anti-Christ”, which must be resisted. The last step will be to suggest a Christologically determined mode of ecclesio-political resistance.
[1] “Every age has to understand a transmitted text in its own way, for the text belongs to the whole tradition… The real meaning of a text, as it speaks to the interpreter, does not depend on the contingencies of the author and his original audience. It certainly is not identical with them, for it is always co-determined also by the historical situation of the interpreter and hence by the totality of the objective course of history.” Cf. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (London: Continuum, 2004), 296. Gadamer is concerned with setting out the hermeneutic experience, which entails the “fusion of horizons” within the historical tradition that produced the text. The reader of the text meets the horizon of the author while situated in her own horizon. It is at this locale where the work of interpretation is done. As the horizon of the reader meets with the horizon of the author the work brings forth its meaning. Its meaning is not brought forth or accessed before hand, or outside of the interpreter’s context, because for the interpreter there is no before or outside of her context/horizon. And since there is no outside of the horizon the meaning is not released, or realized, until it is put into practice in this horizon, i.e. until it is performed. Whether through the performance of living out the ethical calls of the Sermon on the Mount or the performance of Shakespeare’s Othello, the work of interpretation is not complete until the reader is performing the work. Hence, the work of interpretation is never complete without application, which will and should look different depending on one’s historical context if interpretation is to be faithful to both the author’s horizon and the horizon of the interpreter. Thus what I propose is a hyperbolic, literal reading of Jesus words for our historical situation in the belief that the application, or performance, will be more faithful through such an interpretation. “The gospel does not exist in order to be understood as a merely historical document, but to be taken in such a way that it exercises its saving effect… Understanding proves to be an event…” Ibid., 308-309.
Below is a paper I received a 55% on from a TA. I brought my case before the Prof and he agreed with the TA. It is worth 55%. The expectations for the paper as stated in the syllabus are posted below it. This is the lowest grade I have ever received on anything, ever! So I thought I should probably post it online. I am not sure whether to be proud or incredibly depressed. I am leaning more towards the later.
In starting this thing my first thought was, how the hell are you supposed to reflect on the ecclesiology of the Church, in critical dialogue with other views and opinions, in five pages? Don’t theologians need about five hundred or more? How far back should I go in my arguments? Are there certain well established orthodox positions that I simply need to take for granted if I am to get anything done in five pages? This is a sampling of my thinking process when I was trying to structure this thing. Obviously the answers I came up with, and probably the questions as well, were no good.
The Paper…
The Ecclesiology of the Church
It could be said that the Church is the fellowship of those who have bound themselves to Jesus in his ongoing historicity through faith and love. This definition may be accurate, or at least on the correct track, yet, it is too enigmatic to be of much theological utility. Theology, at its best, is an attempt at a critical assessment of the movement of God among creation and humanity within history, which includes the movement of God in the Church. Yet it must be noted that in order to investigated this movement, or rather, in order to delineate between the location of God’s movement, via Church and world, theology must attempt a critical definition of the Church. This paper endeavors to examine the notion of the ecclesiality of the Church, viz., what makes the Church, Church? In order to approach a tentative construal I will use the idea of paradox to structure my investigation. It will be argued that as the Body of Christ the Church is Church as it embodies the paradoxical mediation between the binaries of (1) grace and truth, (2) being and doing, (3) the particular and the universal, (4) Revelation and Tradition, (5) the political and the social, (6) the present and the future, and (7) life and death. read more…
Should be rather upsetting considering the last year
If it is true that the massive banking institutions of America could not attract good CEO’s without the enormous bonuses then how in the world did ICBC, HSBC and others accomplish such a feat? Probably magic.
Right now I want to go shopping. I want to be wooed. I want to dance drunk and dizzy, intoxicated by the kaleidoscope of blues, greens, yellows and the infinite shades of beige that make up the fall catalogue. I want to see pictures of beautiful people doing beautiful things and be convinced that my story can intersect with theirs. The melodies cascading from store speakers will complete this mystical experience, upon which no price seems to high. read more…
Hauerwas, Zizek, Patagonia and Rob Bell: Capitalism’s Chocolate Laxatives and the Church
A while back a friend of mine asked me a question(s) in a dialogue we were having concerning Capitalism, justice, and Christianity. It is an honest question and in these times of Gap and Apple’s Red Campaign, Bono, Toms shoes, ad infinitum, I think it maybe an important one for anyone actually interested in disseminating the philosophical or theological problems with the current market system—I am tempted to say all encompassing reality, or at least the state of the situation—today. read more…
A paper I wrote recently on Buddhism and Cognitive Science. In it I look at the work of Francisco Varela in relation to the aporia of first-person phenomenological experience when contrasted with third-person neuroscience and its relation to the Buddhist notion of anatman, or no-self. read more…
My Attempt at Analytic Apologetics; Excuse me Professor Dawkins but philosophically The God Delusion sucks…
Professor Dawkins,
The grounds upon which the claim, seen clearly on pg. 159 bullet 3, of chapter four rests are not sufficient for the confidence displayed.
read more…
Or is this just representation? A pic from a friend’s blog. She’s doing research in anthropological economics for her PHD at UCI. Not that is has to do with her research but her blog can be found here.
So first off, sorry for the lack of posts. I should have a real one up soon enough. Over the last month and a half I have started a new job, finished a quarter of school and started a new one, fought off a bad case of bronchitis, sinusitis, and an ear infection–honestly, who gets an ear infection after five–and had some discouraging and encouraging talks about PHD programs–how to get into a good one, which one to choose, etc.–with several people.
On that front, read more…
I’ve been saying this for awhile now, so for all listening here is a source…
“In the Congo, explains Eve Ensler, militias use rape to fracture communities and the threat of sexual violence to coerce slave labor to mine coltan (a colloquial name for columbite-tantalite ore) which is used to produce capacitors that power cell phones, iPods, and other gadgets. ‘We create those atrocities through our consumption,’ says Ensler…”
The rest of this succinct summary and a video can be found here.
While a full report on the event can be found here.
First off let me say that I agree with Graham Ward’s assessment on the back, this is excellent theology for the up and coming generation. I might, might be willing to even go so far as to call it a manifesto. Either way it is an exceptional peace of work and well worth a read. Below is a brief summary/review of the book. read more…
In A Different Mirror historian Ronald Takaki–who also happens to be a surfer, I’m just saying–makes a case that the hidden origins of American slavery lie in an underlying class struggle which became apparent in one of the early colony’s first revolts. The following is a brief synopsis of his argument.
read more…
Cornel West links Reagan and the Religious Right to the KKK and reminds us, pace Plato, that the unexamined life is not worth living. After listening I am reminded that philosophy has been, should and can be all about the love of wisdom, and all I want to do is listen to Hip-hop and tell the Moral Majority to go to… read more…
