12.31.07
And or or?
The Zen riddle is that if it is not I who made myself and it is not another who made me, then neither made me so I disappear into nothingness. The conundrum that is dismissed as ridiculous though in the Buddhist dialogue presented in Darrida for Beginners, is that I am both made by myself and by another. Is Eastern Orthodox Christianity the only belief that allows both/and? Coming from a Protestant perspective, the veneration of Saints is a very hard hurtle to get over because it seems impossible to a binary, either/or thinker that we can be saved both by God and by Mary, the Second Eve, for example. This is why the reformed have to do away with free will, so that they don’t have to take her, any other Saint, Sacraments, or any other other as a source into account.
But in God’s economy, he provided for plurality. Not in a Pantheistic sense because free will (still not sure how that differs from voluntarism) is necessary to be obedient to God and enter into His heavenly kingdom. “Thy will be done” as Mary said, can only be said by a person with free will. And it is this subjection of her will to God’s that makes her a source of our salvation, both by example, and because of the fruit of her will and her womb and her prayers.
I think that it is this both allowance that enables us to comprehend reality better. This is how we love our neighbor and ourself, it is also how we see Christ in everyone. The other person is Christ because he is made in God’s image and because he is united to Christ because his very life is based in inspiration. Yet he is not Christ because he does not have the same hypostasis as Christ who is a distinct Person with a divine and human nature. And he is not Christ if he sins.
Creation is both God and not God. Christ is God and a created human. I am saved by God and the Saints and by everything and everyone in the universe, including myself. In addition to learning more about Buddhism, I’m also trying to work through The Deconstruction of Buddhism to see how Derrida sees it – not sure yet. But he seems to seek the membrane between without saying neither side exists. That instead they supplement (both in completion and in addition) each other.
12.29.07
Is it or not?
Now I can see how Elder Sophrony and Father Seraphim Rose possibly came to Orthodoxy. First they studied western philosophy, and I suspect that the tradition of conflict, opposition, and marginalization lead them to Buddhism to escape the fear and self-protective defensiveness and exclusiveness inherent in the western system. Derrida For Beginners ends by discussing Buddhism, but the author seems to believe that Madhyamika (Middle Way) Buddhists have the best criticism of deconstruction. At first glance this seems like the author’s, not Derrida’s agenda.
In the 80’s, after Derrida’s American disciple, Paul De Man, was found to be supportive of Nazism in the 40’s, Deconstruction came under intense fire. Derrida came across as digging himself into a hole in his attempts to rehabilitate his friend’s reputation.
“But he also responded emotionally, finding his critics’ responses to be based on fear, and stated that he, himself, felt fear…. If Derrida has taught us one thing, it is the importance of the marginal. And in this whole discussion, this is the first time that emotion has upstaged intellect and taken center stage since Derrida’s childhood. And that leads to a Buddhist criticism of deconstruction.
“… Through meditation, the Madhyamika Buddhist will first of all try to deconstruct her own painful emotions – such as anger. Attacked by the deconstructive logic of Buddhism, painful emotions taper off to nothing – like a Zen riddle.”
But like Nietzsche, Buddhism is based on a belief in nothingness. Elder Sophrony and Seraphim Rose found that dissatisfactory, and embrace Orthodox Dispassion, and Apophatic Theology instead. Still, I like that Jewish Derrida’s love for anti-semitic De Man made him want to scrutinize and redeem what De Man may have meant by his writings. Love indeed covers a multitude of sins. And this open-mindedness and quest for peace between “opposites” makes me want to read him more. I don’t think Derrida tries to cover up the truth, but that he instead seeks to read between the lines in a deeper way, which I find valid. I haven’t been able to close the door on him yet, and I hope I never will. I do not feel it my obligation to determine if he was “saved” or not. But I find that he has some helpful things to say regarding finding the road to salvation and illumination. And I hope that he’s still on it. To me he sort of fits in with the expression, “Orthodox know where the Spirit of God is, but we do not know where it is not.” And besides C.S. Lewis spoke of the Dao in The Abolition of Man.
12.28.07
It depends on your definition of what is is
Besides not believing in God, or that there is a center of truth, or absolute truth, or that there is any meaning in anything, and believing that ambiguity neither governs nor doesn’t govern every written thing that includes non-written things, I think Derrida has some great things to offer. Derrida for Beginners is a fun read, despite it’s rated R content. It is creatively presented with cartoons, interesting text blockings, fonts, and sizes. It sort of reminds me of how the Death to the World people present their zine. What really rings true for me is his deconstructing the focused on and the marginal. For me this is the doctrine of Recapitulation, which St. Maximus explains so well. Minorities, women, animals, and the earth have all been marginalized in our society which has had devastating consequences.
I think though that he would condemn and thus marginalize hierarchy and authority. This is what the Protestants have done in response to Catholicism, and what the 60’s were all about. Hierarchy and authority can obviously be abused by the greedy and power hungry, but in reality God-given authority is a duty to serve, protect, and nourish, as God does His creation. But God does not do it in a heavy handed, controlling way. He humbles Himself and digs under the lowest microorganism to lift it up out of love. But He doesn’t raise said microorganism to some position that it selfishly envies, say lionhood. That would be silly. He instead helps it be the most functional and radiant microorganism possible through its reciprocal humility and obedience. It is the only way the microorganism can be happy and at rest, and probably more glorious than we are aware. It will get tired and feel unfulfilled if it tries to be king of the jungle.
12.27.07
It’s a beautiful day in the neighborhood
I’m adding Turtle Mom’s lovely and inspiring blog, Turtle Rock to my blogroll and google reader. I just saw that she may have tagged me for her Christmas Q&A, but I fear that the moment is now gone as I took a blog break over the extended weekend. Thanks anyway! (if that was me) and I hope that you are having a very blessed Nativity season.
Christ is born!
12.26.07
Individual and/or Group
I watched the documentary, Derrida, and I must say I really like him as a person. I’m still not exactly sure what deconstruction is, but funny thing, I’m not sure he does either. A couple of people asked him if it was like the mysticism of Kaballah or like the Jerry Seinfeld shows’ giving equal significance to breakfast cereal and personal relationships. He brushed them off denying the connection but not really positively explaining it either. Some have accused him of obfuscation, but I’m still intrigued. I find him a poignant person and I sympathize with him. Part of me wants to say I empathize, but the main thing he talks about in this documentary is one’s relationship with the Other. The people who asked him about Kaballah and Seinfeld were trying to make a connection of sameness. I think we all try to recognize patterns to establish relationship. This is what relating can be about – finding sameness and commonality. I wonder if finding similarities is a way of possessing someone. We both like or went through such and such so we belong to the same exclusive club and this connection with “you”, who I perceive has an enviable position gives me a similar one. But nature is what all humans have in common, difference is what makes us individuals, or persons. Of course we may also belong to specialized groups, but maybe we attach too much significance to that, even having the name, Christian. I really liked what he said about what he considers the false categorization of animals into one large group, which can lead to abuse, and how this view distinguishes him from other philosophers.
He also talks about how he can never know how he is perceived by the Other. He seems pretty caught up by that. My armchair psychoanalysis, rooted in finding commonality with someone I so far respect, says that his childhood background of being ridiculed for religious reasons, though he was a Jew during antisemitic pre WWII Algeria, made him wonder how Others could see him, not as an individual, but belonging to a group worthy of being stoned. Also, he was an anomaly in his family. His parents never read his books or discussed his ideas with him, his own brother said he was different. Yet he was very attached to his mother. He felt totally devastated during his early years at school, and cried for his mother and was confused about where she was. Such attachment insecurities but dependance at the same time is something I’m rethinking right now and am not ready to go into. But I used to think the prolonged, painful attachment was based on something substantial to attach to in the parent, and now I’m thinking it’s based on something misrepresented and warped. Lord have mercy.
At first I thought there was antagonism between the documentor and the documentee because Derrida refused to open up a lot of the time while being filmed in his home. But there were other segments where he was interviewed elsewhere where he seemed more at ease, open and loquatious. But then while reading the deleted scenes and expanded interviews, I found out they were done by the same person, just different settings. I have theories about that. Anyway, to me the most poignant piece from his own home is where he is eating by himself and seems in his own, sacramental, perhaps vegetarian (?) world.
For Christmas George gave me Derrida for Beginners, Writing and Difference, and Grammatology (Derrida says something especially interesting about writing this book), and I’m looking forward to hopefully understanding him better.
12.19.07
St. Gregory of Nyssa: Luminous Darkness
This article at Monachos on St. Gregory of Nyssa’s Life of Moses describes an apophatic approach to God which is very helpful. God’s unknowable “darkness” can seem like emptiness, or stinginess on His part in revealing Himself. I am helped by this explanation of how our desire to know God is met.
12.17.07
Serbian Saint, New Martyr Avakum (Habakkuk)
This Saint highlights Turkish/Muslim agression in the Balkans
Commemorated on December 17
The holy New Martyr Avakum (Habakkuk) was born in Bosnia in 1794, and was named Lepoje by his parents. Lepoje’s father died when he was still a young boy, so his mother took him to the Mostanica monastery, where his uncle was the spiritual Father. He grew up in the monastery, and later became a monk with the name Avakum. When he was eighteen, he was ordained a deacon by Metropolitan Joseph (Sakabenta).
In 1809, the monks took part in an unsuccessful revolt against the Turks, and had to flee for their lives. They settled in the Annunciation monastery in Trnava near Cacak, where the igumen was St Paisius.
After the collapse of Karageorge’s revolt in 1813, the Turks began a reign of terror against the Serbs. Disease also swept the area because of the many bodies left unburied. The people attempted another revolt under Hadj-Prodan Gligorijevic, and the monks of Trnava became involved in it. The rebellion took place on the Feast of the Cross (September 14), but it was crushed by the Turks. Many people were captured, and some were executed on the spot as a warning to others.
Some of the prisoners were sent to Suleiman Pasha in Belgrade, among whom were Sts Paisius and Avakum. The holy deacon Avakum sang “God is with us” (from Compline) in the prison cell, while St Paisius prayed. The Turks offered to free anyone who would convert to Islam. Some of the prisoners agreed to this, but the majority refused to deny Christ, and so they were put to death.
The Turks tried to pressure Avakum to save himself by embracing their religion, but he refused even to consider it. His former spiritual Father, Gennadius, accepted the offer of the Turks and urged Avakum to follow his example. The courageous deacon declared that he was a warrior of Christ, and preferred to die rather than deny Christ.
St Avakum was sentenced to be impaled on a stake, which he was forced to carry to the place of execution. His own mother urged him to embrace Islam, then to seek forgiveness later because he had been forced into it. The saint thanked her for giving him life, but not for her advice.
At the place of execution, the Turks asked him one more time to consider his youth and not to die before his time. Avakum laughed and asked, “Don’t even Turks eventually die?”
They replied, “Of course they do.”
“Well then,” he said, “the sooner I die, the fewer sins I will have.”
Because of his courage and steadfastness in his faith, the Turks decided not to impale him. They killed him quickly by stabbing him in the heart with a sword on January 27, 1815.
St Avakum the deacon is commemorated on December 17 with St Paisius.
[on St. Paisius]
St Paisius was taken from prison and forced to carry a stake to the place of execution. He was impaled, and the stake was set into the ground. The holy martyr exclaimed, “Glory to God.” Then the vizier clapped his hands to signal his soldiers to draw their swords and begin killing some of the other prisoners. Forty-eight people were killed, and their bodies were raised up on posts. After suffering for some time, St Paisius surrendered his soul to God, thereby obtaining the crown of martyrdom on December 17, 1814.
(from oca.org)
12.16.07
I knew it couldn’t last
Alas, the Derrida bubble is broken as I suspected it would be. Derrida’s language is obscure enough for me to read into it what I want, but it looks like Mr. Robinson has labeled him as gnostic,
Aiding the Gnostic in this process was the fact that every text could be subverted by constructing alternate readings. Every text contained within itself its own undoing because there was no personal source for meaning (Derrida’s Deconstructionism). Every thesis required yet another antithesis, a new reading. And new meanings could be given to old terms by “discovering” them through these new readings. Gnosticism is then necessarily opposed to the concept of tradition and therefore law (Hooker). Consequently the Gnostic development carries within itself its own infinite privation for it never is complete and its own infinite productivity because it is always producing new answers. There is never any answer that persists and the only authoritative answer is the one presently given. (Newman) This is why there were so many different types of Gnosticism and why modern scholars despair over producing a unified account of it. The dialectic produced every possible answer to a problem: “Don’t like this answer? Well no problem, we’ve got another!” This produced in turn new followers of a new sect. Either there would be an individual enlightened beyond the rest who could guide, manage and adjudicate these developments (the Pope, the Man of Wisdom, et al) or there would be a free for all. Avatars or divine messengers were the former, which is why they were so widely esteemed but never ultimately so. They were guides through the infinite circle of dialectic which is why the Gnostics denied the full divinity of Christ. Christ was just rung on the cosmic ladder, not its terminus.
The above linked article is about the Incarnation, which gnosticism denies. He really clarifies a lot of concepts in it including distinctions vs. dialectical opposition (ha ha, or considering the season, ho ho), nature and person, free will and predestination, the Incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ and Recapitulation. I heartily recommend it for anyone working through these distinctions.
Meanwhile, I think I’ll still poke around Derrida because I get to decide how I take what he says, which has so far been a positive experience, if that is enough qualification. I may have gnostic, delusional, and universalistic attractions though which I need to be healed of. So far I have to get burned while coming to the destructive end of things before I have been able to purge them from myself, by the grace of God. Right now I’m thinking I need to really figure out what is being taught and try to compare it to Orthodoxy to be convinced. I pray I don’t get sucked into error though. Lord have mercy.
12.14.07
C’est Amazant!
I’m reading a selection of Jacques Derrida’s Writing and Difference ,Chapter 1, and am finding him talking about St. John Chrysostom, recapitulation, apophaticism, essence, ontology, free will, inspiration, eternality, and liberating beauty. So is “structuralism” the description of fallen creation, and “deconstruction” the liberation/revealing of creation to its intended state? Structuralism is detached forensic examination, and Deconstruction the releasing of subatomic, organic energy, or recapitulation through repentance/writing?
That is what I’d like him to mean, but I have ordered the documentary, Derrida, from Netflix and put Derrida for Dummies, I mean Beginners on my Amazon wishlist in order to see what he’s about.
12.12.07
Photographs and the works of Mother Alexandra, Princess Ileana of Romania
This site has whole books written by the Foundress of The Monastery of the Transfiguration in e text and amazing photographs of Mother Alexandra and her mother if you go to their home page.
