Pithy quotes from our current reading which give us pause to reflect

Interesting you bring this up, and now that you mention it, I’m surprised SK didn’t find a way to bring Ishmael into Fear and Trembling. I had not thought about this.

Yes. Abraham had a son from Sarah’s maid, Hagar. After Ishmael was born, and Abraham was a devoted father to him, Hagar ridiculed Sarah for being barren. Sarah insisted Abraham send them away.
So, Abraham actually sacrificed both his sons (and one of their mothers) — Ishmael to benefit the universal, that is his household, and Isaac to God.

He had acted as both a Knight of Infinited Resignation as well as a Knight of Faith.

1 Like

It was Ken Myers, or one of his guests, that remarked about the high culture of the Nazis, of drinking fine wine and listening to Wagner, while burning Jews.

I don’t say that to disparage the Germans you know, but it’s a sincere historical observation.

Azusa Street was not perfect, but it was a work of God. Can you believe that in 1999, Life Magazine had Azusa Street as number 68 of the 100 most important events and people of the past 1000 years.

A minister in Pasadena wrote in 1906,

they rant and jump and dance and roll in a disgusting amalgamation of African voodoo superstition and Caucasian insanity, and will pass away like the nightmares of hysteria that they are.

And a 100 years later, Allan Anderson writes in To the Ends of the Earth,

The experience of the Spirit and belief in world evangelization are hallmarks of Pentecostalism, and pentecostals believe that they are called to be witnesses for Jesus Christ to the farthest reaches of the globe in obedience to Christ’s commission. And they have been remarkably successful. They have contributed enormously to the southward shift of Christianity’s center of gravity and provided a powerful argument against the inevitability of secularization.

I don’t know Ken Myers from Adam or what he says/said to whom in what context.

I have no idea what your reference to the abhorance of Nazi culture and behavior has to do with German Christians then or now. And certainly in the context of my comment that German Christians rejecting the phenomenon Americans know as revival.

If Myers is trying to explain through Nazism why the Azusa Street revival didn’t make it in Germany, he is entirely on the wrong track. It didn’t take hold in Michigan, either. Maybe it’s all those pre-Nazi German (and Dutch ones) farmers here, too. The Frozen Chosen.

As far as the effectiveness of any one group’s missions efforts, including mine, I have found that insiders, including my kind, are not impartial and cast history according to our vision for it.

1 Like

Ken Myers is great. I may have had the privilege of introducing @Mervin_Bitikofer to him last week.

It was to contrast what seemed akin to demon possession with actual demon possession.

WIth no explanation or context to connect ideas, your reference sounds like you are equating German temperment and culture with Nazism.

Nazism was as much of a peculiarity as Azusa Street. Why these things take hold is beyond me.

You may have indeed provided a link (introduction to Ken Myers and Mars Hill Audio) to me - but that did not culminate in me taking any deep dives at the time. So I too still don’t know much about Myers or what he may be about. Like Kendel, I’m more likely to engage if you bring up something specific he has written or stood for and how it relates to whatever topic is at hand in some given thread. In short … that ‘introduction’ has yet to be fulfilled as such.

I thought you listened to his interview with Alan Jacobs about Pullman’s book

I remember listening to some interview … one with Pullman himself in it recently. I can’t remember the other gentleman’s name, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t Myers. … Ahh - yes, I think I’m recollecting now a shorter youtube piece where I did hear someone (Myers?) speaking of Pullman’s dangerous obsessions. Perhaps it was that which led me to listen to the interview with Pullman himself. And that had a curious effect on me! I had been pre-conditioned (by my own Lewis-enthusiastic biases, and by all the subsequent bias-confirmation input I received from that video interview) to expect the worst from Pullman. So imagine my surprise when, in the interview he turned out to be a real and decent human being! And while I’m still probaby going to differ with him at root over his reactions to Lewis or transcendant concerns generally; I nonetheless thought that he did have legitimate concerns and grievances to be addressed, and that he did a commendable job (in that interview at least) listening to and engaging with his conversation partner and acknowledging the other’s points.

So it was a real object lesson on how today’s strategies of demonizing any/all enemies can really backfire when one chances to meet /see the real person as their own representative and discovers they aren’t anything close to the great Satan they had been made out to be. [Or didn’t seem to be anyway - I do acknowledge that just ‘being nice’ doesn’t necessarily make somebody not dangerous - perhaps they are even more so. But one does not these days ignore the packaging, and especially the messenger when taking stock of the message itself. Also … I do remember that the prior (Myers?) interview speakers had acknowledged that Pullman had not been as forthcoming about some of his own antagonisms as they would have liked - so it was on their radar that Pullman seemed to them to be holding back on some ‘real issue’ where more sparks would have flown. But it didn’t much mitigate the fact that they also seemed to me to neglect any of the real concerns that Pullman did bring up. In short … engagement with him and his concerns only as ‘the enemy’.]

2 Likes

Oy vey :slightly_smiling_face: in the interview Alan Jacobs talked about how his senior literary class was using Pullman because he is such a gifted world builder.

Thank you for that correction! And now I am remembering hearing that too! Oy - that my memory even demonizes the so-called demonizers! Who will deliver me from the mess of snakes inside me as well!

3 Likes

Short of Jesus returning, none of us are going to make it out of here alive… that was a reference to a Hank Williams song

3 Likes

I myself am only on the back half of the second part in Iain McGilchrist’s The Matter With Things, in chapter “17 Intuition’s claims on truth” but in hearing from @Kendel that there may be more to say in the thread on meaning which she started a while back I got interested to give a quick browse to what comes up in the next to the last chaper of Iain’s book, titled: “27 Purpose, life and the nature of the cosmos”. (The final chapter is titled “28 The sense of the sacred”.) Since I’ve had a peek ahead and the subject is one of intense interest here, I thought I’d share an excerpt having to do with the preservation of teleology:

Darwin is often thought to have done away with purpose. Brought up to believe not only in an engineering God but in one who was benevolent, too, Darwin was genuinely and appropriately troubled by his observation of cruelty in nature, just as he was genuinely and appropriately awestruck by his observation of nature’s beauty. He did not exclude that there was what he called ‘design’ (purpose) at a higher level, while the lower level remained unplanned. In a famous passage from a letter to Asa Gray, the most important American botanist of the nineteenth century, he wrote:

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.15

When Gray reviewed Darwin’s legacy for Nature, in June 1874, he wrote: ‘Let us recognise Darwin’s great service to Natural Science in bringing back to it Teleology; so that, instead of having Morphology versus Teleology, we shall have Morphology wedded to Teleology.’16 Darwin replied: ‘What you say about teleology pleases me especially, and I do not think anyone else has ever noticed the point. I have always said that you were the man to hit the nail on the head.’17 (Much earlier, in a letter to Jeffries Wyman, Professor of Anatomy at Harvard, Darwin had written: ‘No one other person understands me so thoroughly as Asa Gray. If ever I doubt what I mean myself, I think I shall ask him!’).18

His son, Francis Darwin, wrote that ‘one of the greatest services rendered by my father to the study of Natural History is the revival of Teleology’;19 and the idea was corroborated by Thomas Huxley, ‘Darwin’s bulldog’:

perhaps the most remarkable service to the philosophy of Biology rendered by Mr Darwin is the reconciliation of Teleology and Morphology, and the explanation of the facts of both, which his views offer … it is necessary to remember that there is a wider teleology which is not touched by the doctrine of Evolution, but is actually based upon the fundamental proposition of Evolution … The teleological and the mechanical views of nature are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive.20

A wider teleology: a broader understanding of purpose. This is an important point: there may be several factors operating at different levels. It is noticeable that those who believe in purpose rarely, if ever, deny the existence or importance of chance, or of mechanism as an almost universal causative factor at the local level; while those who believe in a mechanistic materialism rarely allow the possibility of there being purpose at any level, or anything other than mechanism involved.21 This may be part of the ‘either/or’ mentality that is attracted to mechanistic belief systems in the first place, and to their focus on detail.

The word ‘evolution’ – which, incidentally, appears for the first time in Darwin only in the sixth and final edition of On the Origin of Species – means a spinning out, an unfolding of what is latent within. As we have seen, Bergson, to whose philosophy the concept of evolution was central, points out that this can be conceived in two ways: as like the unfolding of a lady’s fan, on which the painting is fixed and the process merely brings what was already there to our eyes; or as a genuinely creative act in which what is brought ‘out’ is hitherto not just unknown but unknowable, because the evolution actually brings it into being for the first time.

It seems that Darwin’s ambivalence about purpose hinges on this difference: the first kind – limited, wholly pre-designed and finished – he cannot accept; the second – neither micro-controlled nor wholly random – he can.

2 Likes


      Joy & Strength (For better resolution, click on image or link)

Wednesday, while I was driving over the I-69 freeway bridge, going south on Chandler Road, this piece came on the radio. In the context of a larger discussion, Carl Sagan’s wife, Ann Druyan, is remembering when Sagan finally received the photo of Earth he had asked and asked to be taken from Voyager, a “one pixel world.” Then there is a recording of Sagan reading from the book he wrote about the photo. These are segments from Chapter 1 “You Are Here” from Pale Blue Dot. This is not the odd, wooden man I knew from Cosmos.

The ship was speeding away from the Sun at 40,000 miles per hour. But in early February of 1990, it was overtaken by an urgent message from Earth.

Obediently, it turned its cameras back toward the now-distant planets. …The spacecraft was 3.7 billion miles away from Earth, so far away that it took each pixel 5½ hours, traveling at the speed of light, to reach us.

The Voyagers were guaranteed to work only until the Saturn encounter. I thought it might be a good idea, just after Saturn, to have them take one last glance homeward. From Saturn, I knew, the Earth would appear too small for Voyager to make out any detail. Our planet would be just a point of light, a lonely pixel, hardly distinguishable from the many other points of light Voyager could see, nearby planets and far-off suns. But precisely because of the obscurity of our world thus revealed, such a picture might be worth having.

This is how the planets would look to an alien spaceship approaching the Solar System after a long interstellar voyage.

From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest.

But for us, it’s different. Look again at that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there—on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on
the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.

4 Likes

Thanks for the heads up. I enjoyed hearing it both for the opportunity to reimagine the context of those times we lived through and for the perspective itself.

1 Like

I wasn’t paying attention at all at the time. Hearing Sagan read those words on the radio yesterday, though, and particularly these…

brings to mind many of the formal and informal discussions I’ve read or been a part of here and elsewhere, regarding meaning in and of life.

Compared to ALL, we are utterly insignificant not.

The greater the infinity by which we divide our tiny 1, the sooner that 1 approaches nothingness. Poof. Entirely devoid of meaning, significance, influence, purpose, anything. The vastness is crushing in comparison.

However, looking at the pixel we see the entirety of what in the visible universe is ours for the time we are here. For now, perhaps forever, we have precisely that one pixel that is ours. To us who live here, there is nothing more meaningful, significant, influential, purposeful, all.

Moreover, if we please, we have every right and the ability to see as meaningful the pinpoints where we reside on that pixel as the very center of the ALL because to each of us, that place is, even if no one else cares. Naturally, there is nothing more meaningful than our home and its residents.

1 Like

And yet… this little speck never becomes nothing, and in all that space, all that stuff, is there anything as spectacular as a person who can act without being acted upon.

If there are other people out there, then I am sure they will at least consider the beauty of being so unique and the emptiness of what it is to be alone.

1 Like

Our perspective on matter (all of it, as well as nonmatter) is essential to how we understand ourselves (collectively and individually). We can beam the focus of our attention away from home to all that we are not and see only insignificance and meaninglessness.

If we beam our attention toward our subjective centers of our universe, and look around a bit, we should see how not alone we are. It’s a small world. And even that is vast to each particular individual here.

Sagan’s points about how our perspective of our world should affect as well as effect behavior is worth hearing and taking to heart.

This thought exercise I’ve described is independent of an understanding of a relationship with a god or the God, much less Jesus himself (I’m assuming this is the entirely independent agent you have in mind). Of course, such a relationship changes things significantly. And should intensify the value and meaning we recognize in all the the other inhabitants of this small world, our Neighbors.

I am not inclined to see our little planet as a lonely place in the vastness of what surrounds it. There is too much here to be done in the limited time I have.

1 Like