Individualized Crest

My sister recently sent me an individualized crest based on some information I had given her some time ago. Each element of the crest is personally meaningful to me or my partner. I really like it. Thanks Marcia!

Check out her website.

René Descartes (A translation)

Quaecumque sub perceptionem nostram cadunt, vel tanquam res, rerumue affectiones quasdam, consideramus; vel tanquam aeternas ueritates, nullam existentiam extra cogitationem nostram habentes.

Cum autem agnoscimus fieri non posse, ut ex nihilo aliquid fiat, tunc propositio haec: Ex nihilo nihil fit, non tanquam res aliqua existens, neque etiam ut rei modus consideratur, sed ut veritas quaedam aeterna, quae in mente nostra sedem habet, vocaturque communis notio, siue axioma. Cuius generis sunt: Impossibile est idem simul esse et non esse: Quod factum est, infectum esse nequit: Is qui cogitat, non potest non existere dum cogitat: et alia innumera, quae quidem omnia recenseri facile non possunt...

Whatever things fall under our perception we consider as (1) things or the affections of things, or (2) as eternal truths, that have no existence outside our thoughts.

But when we recognize that something is not able to be made out of nothing, then the proposition: “Ex nihilo nihil fit” is not a thing that exists, nor even considered as a mode of something, but as a kind of eternal truth, having its seat in our mind, and is known as a common axiom or notion. Of this class are: “It is impossible simultaneously to be and not to be; What is done, cannot be undone; The man who thinks is not able to not exist when he thinks [He who thinks must exist when he thinks];” and innumerable others, all of which cannot be easily counted...

What is the meaning of Jesus? (To a comrade)

Don't mind at all.. feel free to post whatever you write me.

What or who is Jesus? Is this not the question you pose? He is neither angelic nor heroic. In fact, he is a failure. But let us not read this statement outside of its proper context. He is a failure precisely insofar as his life led to no real break in the situation. He came from nowhere, for a time was a someone, accrued those followers who glimpsed in him something higher than those animal interests so common in our species. But in the final hour all left him: his monument was little more than the tattered clothing of a common Jew, once a disciple "committed unto death" in this Nazarene cause, left behind when their owner fled for his life at the first sign of opposition. Pilate certainly never said the words "Ecce homo!" Perhaps only to ridicule this worm standing before him. Perhaps only appended to the gospel letter long after the fact. Here was no man, but something much less!

But you understand the radical break in history the death of this worm would wreak. Had the story ended with the crucifixion we would be left with any other self-deluded messianic fool, a lesson for other fools. History is replete with them. The life and death of this madman had zero consequences within the previous order. All those who were formerly willing to die with him (and declared so!), now returned to the sea whence they had been called with tail between legs. Zero consequences=zero Event. Ah but the world and ages this void would soon fill! No angels, no heroes present.. but grace was present.

We will not speak of "historicity." A truth is not of the historical order. We will speak of a break within a situation, a "creative novelty" if there ever was one. We will speak of maximal consequences, of the maximal existence of an inexistent. Why else is the Nazarene's "biography" so dispensable for St. Paul? It is clear that it is so because it is the biography of a madman and failure. It is a lesson for fools. But St. Paul is no fool! For him it is clear that the Resurrection retroactively reinstates this man from Nazareth: not his virgin birth, not his life among his disciples (Paul has no interest in biography), but his Death. This is so because the Death immanentizes the possibility of the Resurrection.

If we are to locate the meaning of Jesus in the regime of the given, it is here at this impossible moment, at this hole punched into the cosmos, a void circumscribed by being's appearance. That this void had such consequences is not a fantastic determination. This is merely its historical and political one. Fantasy is not a proper designate here. It belonged to the previous order of Messianic nationalism (an order Judas himself defended and grew disenchanted with). We are reminded of René Magritte's famous painting of a pipe with the inscription "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" beneath it. Here too might we not inscribe the field of the historical Nazarene with the words: "Ceci est un Immortel"?

Correlation

A man who catches birds with a net

Should have a long reach

Sky-windows make difficult spaces

For men with short arms.

More difficult still

For birds who know only liberty.

A jail to free you with, (to free the catcher)

A group of old men sitting quietly

Watching birds and other feathered things.

Glass and shiny excrement

A rock is more glorious

Crushing you with no regret

Its shape is elemental

A force of nature (a primary force)

But you are its disintegration

Up dear bird, fly...

silhouette - correlation

Trinity and Politics (Kathryn Tanner)

I attended a lecture last night entitled: "The Trinity & Politics: Is the Trinity Really the Best Guide to the Proper Way to Live Together?" given by Yale Divinity School professor Kathryn E. Tanner. In a nutshell her argument was that Trinitarian relational models are fraught with complications due not only to certain ambiguities concerning the relations of the Trinity, but the ability to interpret Trinitarian relations along similar lines of more monotheistic models, i.e. hierarchical, patriarchal, non-individualistic (in the sense that personal identities are often blurred), subordinationist, etc. She is certainly correct about this and I agree that Trinitarian models have been over-hyped.

What then should the model be? Well one potential model is Christ himself, who as the God-man, is the exemplar of human-Trinitarian relations, not just immanently, but economically, i.e. not just between the persons of the Trinity itself, but between God and humans. How should Christians relate to one another and the Other? Not by using the Trinity as a guide to living interpersonally, but by looking to Christ in his relations to the Father and the Spirit, and in his relations to other people.

Afterwards I had the privilege to speak with Dr. Tanner regarding her lecture. Let's move away from this Trinitarian morass in favour of another model, yes. But my claim is not that Jesus is the better option here, but a more radical one. Jesus as an exemplar is itself fraught with ambiguities and pitfalls. I asked Kathryn if her version of Christ isn’t in fact an idealized one. What of those scriptures where Jesus obviously discriminates against others (it is only the woman’s faith in him that surprises Jesus, whereas her initial appeal for help was ignored) Matt. 15?

Not only, I argue, is her Jesus idealized, it doesn't take into account the impossibility of using Jesus as a model. Jesus may be human, but he is also, as the 2^nd person of the Trinity, intrinsically different than other human beings. Yes he is fully human! But he is simultaneously something quite different. Wasn’t this Watt’s critique, that Jesus, as the unique son of God, is in a very different position than the rest of humanity and so had an advantage, even if this advantage was practically denied by Jesus? The difference is that while Jesus may have denied his divinity (kenotic movement etc) and became a wretched human (weak, mortal etc), unlike other humans he had the ability to divest himself of divinity in the first place. There will always be a minimal gap between Jesus and other humans no matter how much like the poorest of them he became (and this without taking the miracles into account).

The radical move would have been to leave aside not only the Trinity, but Jesus as well. What Christians need is not an already impossible model, an idealized God-man, but a model who can have no special claims to divinity, who is intrinsically like us, who models in his/her life a radical fidelity lived out in the field of social relations.

Techno-Digital Apocalypticism

Just reflecting tonight on the techno-digital-post-human future. Last year for example, Craig Venter and a team of twenty scientists publicly announced that after 10 years and $40 million dollars they were able to create the first reproductive synthetic life form.

Craig Venter and Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0.

The team manufactured over a million base-pairs of the genome without using any natural DNA. In addition, they engineered genetic "watermarks" out of genes and proteins so that future scientists could identify which cells were synthetic. These watermarks can be spelled out to make a variety of names, phrases, and even an email address to contact the creators. In the case of Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0, one of my favourites would have to be Joyce's "To live, to err, to fall, to triumph, to recreate life out of life."

What else tonight? Well here's another one regarding human-tech interface. A quote from Ray Kurzweil:

“Today, we treat Parkinson’s with a pea-sized brain implant. Increase that device’s capability by a billion and decrease its size by a hundred thousand, and you get some idea of what will be feasible in 25 years. It won’t be, ‘OK, cyborgs on the left, humans on the right.’ The two will be all mixed up.” The Guardian, 2007.

There are many examples in the media lately about new human-tech interfaces that will boost human efficiency or health. The ethical war rages. I wonder what this will do to our definition of "life" and "human"?

Ian Sample, Guardian.