Julius Excluded from Heaven - Desiderius...

This rather short dialogue is written in the style of the Ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes (though it is nowhere near as rude and crude as his plays) and is a simple interaction between Pope Julius and St Peter (with Julius' guardian spirit providing some snide comments as the dialogue progresses) after Julius arrives at the pearly gates and discovers that the keys to the kingdom of heaven that were given to St Peter are not the keys that Julius happens to have in his pocket. Basically it is a criticism of what the church has become in Julius' time and how Pope Julius, the supreme authority in Western Christendom was simply another power player in the political world of the time, and as such while he may go around with the title of 'Most Holy Father', it is just that – a title given to him by the world and nothing more.

 

Once again, as I was reading this dialogue I could not help but see how similar the church of Erasmus' age and the church of today happens to be. Sure, the church is supposed to be a moral compass, but in our day and age this moral compass seems to require a lot of recalibrating. For instance we have the church running around condemning people for 'sexual sin' and abortion, yet are doing nothing to actually provide support and assistance for those in real need, nor are they condemning unrestrained greed, corruption on politics, or environmental destruction. Also, like the church of Erasmus' age, it has become little more than a boys club, and while positions in the church may not be purchased directly, we still see such positions being handed out to the 'most worthy' individuals in the congregations, usually though who are quite well off. In fact I was told of one particular church that would hand out to elderships to those who had happened to have succeeded in life (which usually meant that they were giving a substantial amount of money to the church).

 

Pope Julius

 

Then there is the question of indulgences, namely where the church would sell admissions to heaven in the after life, and it didn't just rest with the living, you could also buy indulgences for the dead. The funny thing is that we see things like that going on today – did you know you can buy real-estate on Mars? To me it sounds a lot like an indulgence, namely something that somebody purchases that actually has no value whatsoever. Okay, you can apparently 'name' a star, but my research revealed that the name of the star does go on record, and it is a fundraising activity by an astronomical organisation (though I still haven't gone ahead and named a star after Schrodiger's Cat). As for the church, they may not sell indulgences directly, but there is a doctrine that goes around that basically says the more that you give to the church the more that God will bless you now and in the life here-after – what they are suggesting is that it is like the stock market – we buy into the Church and God will pay us dividends now, and also guarantee an entrance into heaven.

 

Another interesting thing that is raised is how the Pope can't actually do anything wrong, even if he does things that are wrong. It sounds remarkably similar today were the wealthy are able to get away from crimes much easier than those of the lower classes. As a friend of mine suggested most serial killers are white because they are less likely to be searched, or questioned, by authorities than are people of colour, which means that if somebody of colour happens to have the tenancies that give rise to being a serial killer they are usually caught, and taken out of society much sooner than a white person. Mind you Julius' position went much further in that being the Pope he could simply wipe away any consequence of any sin that he may have committed. In a way it is also similar with the concept of war crimes – I do not know of any post World War II Western leader that has been brought to The Hague for committing war crimes, but then again war crimes are only ever committed by the loser in a war.

 

As for the political nature of the church, well it seems that this is also the case today – one of the reasons that the church has become so powerful in the United States is that it has taken control of the Republican party, but even here in Australia, elements of the church have put their claws into the political system, and whatever their moral position is, it is their economic agenda that has me concerned because it is an agenda of small government, light taxation, and limited regulation – they may wish to make homosexuality a crime and punish people having an abortion by charging them with murder, but they will do little for the child once it is born and condemn them to a life of poverty and destitution. They also hate welfare because they believe it leads to laziness, and that those who are poor are poor because they are there by choice, not because of some other circumstance in life.

 

Another example of how the church interferes politically is with a program the Australian government developed to attempt to deal with bullying with schools, however the Christian right were so incensed that 'it promoted homosexuality' that they canned it, despite the fact that bullying in schools has a tremendous psychological effect upon the victims and the families involved. Sure, they might jump up and demand that we stop playing the victim, but as soon as society turns against the church all of the sudden they start screaming persecution.

In fact they also love crying out how they are being persecuted – you cannot criticises the church, or what it does, without being told that you are persecuting the church. However they claim unfair when the left calls them bigots for their stance against the LGBT community. I have been to churches where criticism is shut down through a variety of ways – you are denying Christ, you have unworked out sin in your life, you obviously don't understand the Bible, we cannot change our position because once we do it is a slippery slope into liberalism. No wonder people are deserting the church in droves.

 

In my own case, I had to retain myself out of that phony smile, which is like a nervous tic on every teenage girl. And this meant that I smiled rarely, for in truth, when it came down to real smiling, I had less to smile about. My "dream" action for the women's liberation movement: a Smile boycott at which declaration all women would instantly abandon their "pleasing" smiles, henceforth smiling only when something pleased them.

Reading Shulamith Firestone's The Dialectic of Sex is like reading the Communist Manifesto for the first time in life in 21th century. One might say what a utopia or perhaps what a dystopia (an Atwood would be preferred!), for it is not only a commentary on women's right and sexual discriminations. It goes much farther than that. To biology, to nature itself.

I remember I had a friend some years ago who was kind of losing her faith on God and religion but yet not completely and one of her main concerns was that a creature like woman was completely against God's justice. Why a women should have pms why they should bear children why they are weak and such other biological issues. As an atheist it was not actually understandable to me, when there was no god there was no room to ask about a creator's justice. Now I understand that what she made question of, was not unrelated.

Shulamith Firestone was a radical feminist and a founder of Women's Liberation Movement; she wrote this book when she was 25. She was graduated in art and after publishing this book she left politics, continued her life as a painter. Her other work which is a collection of short stories is Airless Spaces.

First I have to confirm that radical feminist or feminism itself is not a threat for male humanism or more bluntly it's not ani-men or hatred for them. Because we have a feminism in philosophy, sociology or other kinds of behavioral sciences and one horrible feminism in public depicting some angry women (Bitches!) demanding some unusual requests. I actually had to comment it somewhere because each time I carry around a feminist book with myself people look as if they are watching a peculiar reader: Why???! (with a very affectionate voice) why Elham?!

Perhaps if we compare sexism with racism things would be much clearer, but actually I'm not that hopeful. When someone was oppressed and weak during centuries and even from the ancient times when the evolutionary biology created her, everybody thinks that she must continue being like that, because it is her nature. It is in her nature to be a sex object. It is her nature to bear children. It is in her nature to rear children. Motherhood is in her nature. She is naturally not created for some works. She naturally and therefore officially has to be shut up ("Move on little girl; we have more important issues to talk about here than women's liberation" Firestone was told by the National Conference for New Politics Director Willim F. Pepper). When a black /a working class /a third world man demands his rights, if he has something to say he is free. No needs to explain more than that. But a woman first should prove that she is a full human being (and after all they will say she speaks like a man!).

OK, that's true that nature itself is guilty. But should it be continued like that?! Should a human being remain a slave to her (or his) biology?!

Pregnancy is barbaric.

Of course things can be changed for equality between men and women. And it should be corrected that "a complete equality" . A woman should be as equal as man in child bearing. If men cannot do that, women must not be obliged to do that so. This is part of Firestone's proposed world.

The only reason that applying artificial wombs is not acceptable or is horrible is that we have a patriarchal society (patriarchal world) with male supremacy with exclusion of women from sciences.

If Marx says that the ultimate cause of social discriminations is capitalism and seeks it through historical materialism and from the very first stages of economic development, he was missing something. The ultimate cause of all discriminations is family itself.

The original division of labor was between man and woman.

The philosophy of Feminism has direct relationship with Freudianism and in fact both grew from the same soil. It is not accidental that Freud started his work at the height of the early feminist movement. A big part of women and children oppression reason comes from Oedipus and Electra complexes.

This book is a missing link between Marx and Freud.

…

Some books have many things to say. And this book does. Let it be heard!

Okay Kant may not be satire, nor is he French, but as I was finishing off this academic analysis of the second half of his A Critique of Pure Reason I could not help but think that there is some connection between his writings from two-hundred years ago and the tragic events in Paris over the last week. I guess in many ways it has a lot to do with freedom of speech and with the idea of censorship, which may not be what Kant was necessarily writing about, but he does explore the idea of freedom, especially freedom to be able to think outside of the dogmatic circles of his day. In another way many of us here are writers (and while we may not be paid for the writing that we do, those of us who write reviews, blog posts, or even academic essays are still writers) and as such the brutal murder at Charlie Hebdo no doubt struck a chord – it did so with myself.

 

 

However, moving on I should say a few things about this particular book. Bennett outlines the reason for writing this book to make the second half of Critique of Pure Reason more accessible to many of us. Personally I didn't really think that he was all that successful in that regards because, to me, it seemed to be little more than another dry academic text to go along with the plethora of other academic texts on the subject. In a way I felt that maybe I would get a lot more out of reading Kant as opposed to reading a book about him.

It is interesting though to examine the philosophy of the earlier period because it seems that the discipline was much broader than it is today. I remember going to a meeting of the philosophy club at one of the universities in Adelaide and most of the discussion seemed to be how philosophy relates to ethics. While it is true that ethics is an important part of philosophy, it is not the only aspect and to ignore the other aspects really does not do it justice.

In Kant's days, and earlier, philosophy and science were in the same thing, and it is only recently that the two disciplines have gone their separate ways. For instance Aristotle wrote about a lot of things, including literary criticism, science, ethics, and even constitutional law. However these days when we think of a philosopher many of us get the picture of some guy with his head in the clouds who has no understanding of the real world in which we live.

 

 

What was really surprising was the amount of maths that Bennett was using in his work, though I must admit that this did end up losing me (which is probably why the original work would have been a better read). However, he does talk about the dialectic in areas such as the concept of infinity (how can there be a synthesis of the finite and the infinite?). Infinity is also quite interesting because in some ways it can really create a lot of headaches. We, in many ways, are not capable of truly understanding the infinite especially when our minds are only able to understand the finite. I remember asking my Dad once about how we knew that numbers were infinite, and he told me to think of the biggest number possible and then add one. In the same way numbers are infinite in more ways because by going down the negative it is infinite, and by looking at fractions it is also infinite.

The other thing that I noted was that there was a lot of discussion of the nature of God. This is not surprising because much of philosophy is trying to understand the world in which we live and also the nature of reality as we perceive it. The title of Kant's work does give us a clue as to the direction that he was heading because in a way he is writing against the earlier philosophers such as David Hume, Rene Descartes, and John Locke, who saw the world through a purely rational mindset. Kant does not necessarily seem to believe that it is all that helpful to view the world in such a way because we seem to be trying to encapsulate our understanding within a sphere that can only be measured rationally. The rational mind suggests that because we cannot prove the existence of God then God must not exist, however that logic is flawed in the sense that just because we cannot prove something does not mean that the proof does not exist, nor is the lack of a proof a proof in and of itself.

However, this book was a little disappointing because even though it was an interesting read, Bennett did not seem to be going anywhere, and when I came to the last sentence of the last paragraph I was left thinking 'gee, is that all there is?' In fact, there was no conclusion, at all, which sort of left me scratching my head because if Bennett is an academic I always thought that their academic treatise's were supposed to have conclusions.

 

I have written a post about the Charlie Hebdo attacks and the limitations of Freedom of Speech on my blog.

This is one of those books that I am wondering why it actually took me so long to get around to reading. I guess a part of it had to do with the title (when I was somewhat more fundamentalist in my faith, anything that reeked of another religion would be automatically discarded), but then I guess it also had to do with the fact that it was only recently that I ended up picking up a copy of it, and when my bookclub decided to have a session devoted entirely to, well, controversial books, it gave me an excuse to read it.

Within fifteen minutes of starting the book I suddenly discovered that this was the type of book that I was really going to enjoy (though it did start to drag a little at the end). This is one of those books that I consider a true, modern, American novel, and I am even inclined to put it into the category of 'a great American novel'. Pirsig refers to this novel as a kulturbarer, which is a Swedish word which means, well, culture bearer. He admits that when he started out writing this book he had no intention of writing such a great novel, and even suggests that when he had finished it most of the publishers refused to touch it (and those publishers are probably all kicking themselves now). The reason he suggests that the novel is a culture bearer is because it is one of those books that works to define the culture of the country in which it is written.

So, how is 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' a culture bearer? Well, I would suggest that it works to explore the nature of the modern American culture, both its breadth and its depth. This book is truly a post-modernist work in that it touches upon both the real and the esoteric (as I will go on to explain as I explore three of the aspects of this novel). As I read this book I was sure that it was a work of fiction, that is until I got to the afterword which suggests otherwise. I am still left in doubt as to whether the source of this book was real or not, and even Pirsig throws this into doubt – is what he is writing about real, or is it simply a figment of his imagination. I don't really want to go into too much detail about that though because that will give away one of the important aspects of this novel. However, what I will look at (as suggested by my title to this commentary) are three of the ideas that Pirsig explores – Motorcycles, argument, and art.

 

Motorcycles

I am sure everybody knows what a motorcycle is, but if you don't, here is a picture of one (or at least the one I pictured him riding, because he never actually tells us):

 

 

though he could have been riding something like this:

 

 

Anyway, the motorcycle, to me, represents two aspects – technology and freedom. The reason that I raise the issue of technology is because Pirsig starts off exploring a number of conflicts (and these conflicts become important later on in the book). The use of the motorcycle as technology creates a clear conflict with nature, as there is a suggestion that there are groups who envisage technology as not only being in opposition to nature, but also seeking to destroy nature, not only through pollution, but also through development (rivers are diverted, forests are cut down, and cities arise as a form of artificial landscape). However, Pirsig points out that the motorcycle is an unusual form of technology in that when one is riding through nature it gives the rider a much closer experience of the natural world. As he explains as he begins his journey, when he travels he stays away from the freeways and instead travels along the smalls road that wind their way through forests, farms, and towns. Further, as he suggests, travelling in a car is basically travelling in an enclosed space and you view nature similarly to watching television, whereas when you travel on a motorcycle, you are immersed in the natural world, which is why I identify riding a motorcyle with freedom (though you will still never catch me on one).

 

Art

Pirsig uses the term quality, rather than the term art because what he is talking about is the creation of, well, stuff. Prior to industrialisation things were built in what was known as the cottage industry (such as the blacksmith, the cobbler, etc). If a blacksmith were to survive as a blacksmith he (or she) would have to build things that last – that is things of quality. If the blacksmith's work was shoddy then people would go and look for another blacksmith. However industrialisation changed that because the work went from the hands of the individual and into the factory where items would be manufactured on an assembly line. Further, as the western economic system developed, the desire to create things that lasted began to diminish as the corporate bosses sort ways to increase their profits, and by building things that lasted meant that their profits would be limited – so the factories began to produce things with built in obsolescence.

So, what has this got to do with art? Well, remember how I explained above about how technology and nature were in conflict because technology was seen as a way of destroying nature? Well, art is a fusion of nature and technology, so that through technology the natural world is morphed into art. Take for instance the countryside:

 

 

 

By using technology on the wilderness you come out with the garden:

 

 

and thus you have an artistic creation (Though some would argue that gardens are an abomination, however I am not one of them since I am a big fan of art).

However, as our society advances, certain economic forces begin to see that art has no real value and is simply a distraction towards the maximisation of profit. Take for instance these buildings in Melbourne;

 

These buildings were, I believe, constructed at the turn of the 20th Century, and as you can see, there is an artistic side to these buildings, despite their commercial uses. However, as the 20th century progressed, aspects of society saw this style of building as being pretty much a waste of money, and too lower the costs of construction began to build buildings like these:

 

 

Yet, the need for art within the workspace has come to be seen as a necessity. People working in a dull and drab office tend to be much less productive than people working in a bright office. In fact I have seen this within the company that I have worked at: when I started the office was dim and bland, and in an attempt to increase productivity (and to stop the number of people walking out the door) the powers that be decided to invest in the office, and within a few months the office was bright and colourful, and surprisingly staff retention began to increase.

I suspect that also works within the office culture as well. In an office where the culture is one of a cutthroat battle to climb the ladder as fast as possible, productivity suffers, however an office environment that is friendly, supportive, and where people can talk about things that are not directly related to work can have a substantial increase in productivity. It appears, at least in some aspects of our capitalist society, that people have come to realise that art matters, and that society exists beyond the simple desire to make money.

Thus Pirsig brings us to one aspect of the title of his book, and that is 'the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance'. Throughout the book Pirsig talks about maintaining and working on the motorcycle and offers warnings against using so called professionals. To him, taking a hands on approach means that one does things correctly, rather than relying upon another person who may not do the work properly. In fact, he even goes as far as suggesting that one should machine their own parts because by doing so one can be assured that they have the correct part. Thus, by working on the motorcycle oneself, it moves away from simply being little more than a technical skill, and becomes in itself a form of art.

 

The Art of Argument

I was initially simply going title this section 'Argument' but in line with the discussion above, I thought it necessary to take on this new title. Pirsig identifies two forms of argument, rhetoric and the dialectic. Rhetoric is a form of argument where you seek to persuade a person of an opposing point of view around to your point of view through find sounding speeches. However, the dialectic is a form of argument where one seeks to find a common ground and bring the two opposing sides together to create a merged position. I am sure everybody has seen this diagram of Hegel's dialectic:

 

 

though Hegel was not the first person to develop this form of argument. This form goes as far back as the ancient Greeks – Hegel only created a diagram to provide clarification of this form of argument. Christians tend not to like this form of argument though because it moves away from an objective truth to a more relative form of truth, however to ignore the dialectic is to ignore a foundational aspect of our culture, and in fact the dialectic does come into play in the Bible. For instance what happens when we bring the thesis of God together with the anti-thesis of humanity? We come to the synthesis of Jesus Christ.

However, I am not interested in how the dialectic applies to Christianity, but rather how the dialectic works with this particular book. Pirsig explores Greek philosophy extensively in this book, and talks a lot about the great philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. However, these philosophers are rhetoricians in that they saw an objective form of truth and would not move away from it. Pirsig contrasts that with the sophists, who have a relative form of truth, and in a way they are the dialectics. Yet he points out that we only see these sophists through the eyes of one person – Plato. In parts Pirsig seems to see rhetoric as the stronger form of argument, however this book is actually very dialectical in composition. I shall explain:

He begins with conflict – between technology and nature, between the classical and the romantic, and between reason and faith. However, as the story progresses we begin to see these conflicts resolved through the dialectic, and this is very evident, as I have explained, with nature and technology. As I have demonstrated, the thesis of nature, and the antithesis of technology comes together to form the synthesis of art. Yet one also has the conflict of classical art and romantic art, which no doubt comes together to form, well, I guess modern art. Yet despite these syntheses going on, there is also the rhetoric, as is demonstrated at the end, where the philosopher that Pirsig follows (Phaedrus – a character based upon the Platonic dialogue of the same name), ends up destroying the dialectic of the Chairman of the faculty with his well argued rhetoric.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plato's Earlier Dialectic - Richard Robi... Though obviously I disagree with Robinson on the fundamentals, this is a superb book --