Stuff

The semester is in full swing now. I'm TAing again, though without grading papers; I just have to meet with groups in the Intro to Philosophy class who will be giving presentations, to make sure they know what they're talking about and have some sort of way of presenting it which can result in a decent grade. It's not a paid position, but it does yield credit toward graduation.

I also am about ready to turn in my thesis proposal. My more specific thesis topic now is a study of D.T. Suzuki's presentation of Zen, and more recent criticisms of it (especially insofar as they run against his claims to be an enlightened Zen practioner, and hence above dualistic thinking, in which he nonetheless indulges in the forms of nationalism and a reverse orientalism (e.g. The East is spiritual, intuitive, and what not, and the West is mechanistic and analytic and this is all bad).)

In other news, I feel like I've made a breakthrough in my own life. I've been feeling like I have to know the truth, that this is of vital importance, but that at the same time to know anything one must know everything. How many arguments which look watertight can be blown apart with a single observation? So this put me in the not-too-comfortable position of only being able to do a less bad job rather than to actually do a good one, but where not trying at all is worse.

But, going off of some stuff I posted 2 posts ago (on logic and mysticism), with some help from William James (thanks, Scott), I've been able to turn around my view of the world. It is now for me a place of wonder and exploration; if views can be more or less insightful as practical partitions of reality, but none of them is completely true*, then I don't have to worry about getting it all right, but there still is benefit to understanding.

The problem is, this probably puts me outside of conservative Christianity. Not that I would consider myself a liberal, mind you; I just think that the mental demands which many conservative strands of Christianity make are unrealistic when actually followed through to their conclusion (at very least for the average person, though maybe even moreso for the scholar). As I was writing about in the one poem below, it almost makes a virtue out of gambling with your future and the message which you pass on to others. Trying to hold to all of those beliefs without closing my eyes to the realities in the world was itself the root cause for me of turbulence, frustrations, and impatience with others; if the fruit has anything to do with the tree, that can't be what faith is about.

Struggles and Skepticism

Currently reading:
On Christian Teaching
   by St. Augustine

Ok, so I'm going to put down some of my current intellectual struggles right now, and hopefully someone can help me with them. I've written a few times about my frustration with the church, and doctrines such as perspicuity of Scripture. Here's my overall problem (similar to the case with the perspicuity of Scripture post): It seems that Protestantism needs perspicuity of Scripture and sola Scriptura in order to stand up (basically, what I mean by that is that a person can pick up Scripture and get the important bits without this reading being mediated by a specific tradition). The problem is, while I can see ways in which these doctrines could work, I still can't see the basis for them. They seem to be thrown out there because we Protestants need them, but I don't accept pragmatic arguments like that for establishing truth. So, I need a basis, but I don't see one.

Without this basis, I have a hard time holding to Protestant views of justification and sanctification. Yes, many Protestant scholars make good cases for Protestant views. Many RC and EO scholars, though, have read the same passages and don't even find them troubling. This at least makes me suspicious of Protestant claims, especially when at seminary I keep reading bad expositions of them (not that all are bad; I remember that Seifrid's Christ, Our Righteousness was pretty good, and I enjoy reading N. T. Wright, but the latter doesn't toe the traditional evangelical on the pertinent issues and the former leaves frustratingly vague how we go about living in Christ). I'm not a Bible scholar, don't have time to look up all of the heated exegetical debates, and am deeply skeptical about being able to get anywhere in those debates if one actually listens to all sides (a feature commonly lacking in theological discussions of any kind, which further deepens my despair because a person who can't understand the view of another is probably simply reading her own view into Paul). Add to this that the more I read Paul, the easier I find it to read "faith," "grace," and "works" against certain dominant Protestant interpretations, and the problem only grows thicker.

Given that I'm still struggling to get good answers to the grounding of Protestantism, I'm leaning more and more toward converting to Eastern Orthodoxy. Other options seem to be liberalism/post-modernism, which can be non-institutional without that firm doctrinal foundation, and Roman Catholicism. The former is attractive, especially since I don't want to have to submit to anyone (I am far too arrogant), but then I'm left wondering if I'm doing much more than Hick is talking about in Interpretation of Religion. Catholicism would be attractive because I wouldn't hear the "m" word ("mystery") thrown about nearly as freely as in Protestantism or EO, and it doesn't have quite the same anti-intellectual bias at the popular level that conservative versions of the other churches tend to have. However, I do think that the Reformation had too many good points against the Catholic church to have been unjustified in their schism, and a church which justifies a schism against it has a huge mark against it.

This, of course, would be a huge step, but the frustations with Protestantism don't seem to be going away, and I'm having trouble getting the answers I need. Of course, now I have another issue. I'm becoming more and more convinced that I need to do something, even I don't know what that something is yet. But then, anything I do will upset other people who will be quite profoundly affected because they either a) simply want what is familiar and comfortable, and can't be bothered to reflect on the underlying issues, or b) come to snap judgments on everything and can ever see anything from another point of view. To what extent would I be selfish if I were to make such a change? To what extent do I have a duty to the truth, even if that hurts others close to me and involve my forcing my will upon them? Worse, it's not like I can ever have certainty about anything, so what do I do when I'm caught between shutting up that voice of conscience inside me for the sake of another (and thus ignoring what is most valuable), and possibly leading them astray by force due to what I consider to be right? And how the Niflheim is there supposed to be any peace in any of this?

If conservative protestantism is true, then how are holding on to faith and struggling to find the truth in order to believe it (so as to know what faith even is) not the hardest works which one could have to do? I hear the refrain of "just have faith" or its variations again and again, but I need to know what faith even is. What do I have faith in? How do I have faith? How can I have this faith before knowing what it is in order to have faith that I will have faith, and know that I will know whatever truth I need? How do I have any sort of peace while waiting for this faith? It's not like I can simply do nothing and wait for God, because there is no such thing as doing nothing. I also desperately need some purpose in life, I so badly need some sort of spiritual satisfaction and have needed it for so long, that I am convinced that something needs to be done; if that's not where God is leading me, then quite honestly I can't really trust his leading any more because he's doing nothing to help me move away from it. The old way simply isn't working, and I'm so very tired of rationalizing.

Intermission

Currently reading:
The Myth of the Eternal Return
   by Mircea Eliade

I'll most likely put up the rest of the argument sometime before too long (maybe in some sort of illo tempore). I need to track down citations, and that's always my least favorite part of papers. Who cares whether or not the person actually said that as long as I can make it sound creative, after all?

In the meantime, I just had some thoughts on studying which I thought I'd jot down. It seems like curiosity used to be enough to get me to read anything. Curiosity can be a vice when it pulls one away from what is really important. However, sometimes there is an innocence about curiosity as well, a self-forgetfulness as one simply and artlessly gives oneself over to understanding another (whether that be a person, culture, idea, et cetera; not that those are entirely separate). This innocence is lost as we go on to have to write paper after paper, and seek a job in what we once loved. "Pragmatism" sets in, we start having to cast a critical eye on everything we look at in order to determine its worth for research material, for building our career, for getting us into the right schools, for the eventual use it could be to society. This leads to getting wrapped up in our own concerns, and using the words of other people for our own ends. To some extent, this is a necessary stage an academic must go through; there needs to be a deeper reflection on ones studies. However, this stage too must be transcended where one again can come to a text and devote oneself to it for a time in a deeper, more concentrated way. This is a way which does not ignore the practical issues, but at the same time realizes the worth in listening to the words of others and the occasionally limited, fallible nature of various practical judgments.

Thesis (Again) and Tutoring

I may actually have a thesis topic. For real this time. I think I've become almost embarrassed to state that at this point. However, I have reason to believe that this time, it might really stick. Why? Because it's not my idea. I finally gave up my own intellectual ramblings which were leading nowhere; the only topics which I could have come up with that were any good would have required a reader who will be on sabbatical next Fall. So, taking the advice of Uncle Win (I believe I did this for my senior paper too), I simply asked my adviser for something that he was interested in. He said that he didn't have any specific research projects of his own going on right now, but that a thesis on D. T. Suzuki may be interesting. He then proceeded to email me a bunch of resources for the topic. Given that someone who knows more about the topic than I do thinks that it would work, and it sounds interesting, I think I'll stick with it. I really have no reason not to at this point.

Some of you may be asking who D. T. Suzuki is. He's the guy who is more or less responsible for bringing Zen to the West. As such, he's also been a pretty important influence on American conceptions of religion and spirituality in general. The thesis would focus on Suzuki's contextualization of Zen (though I don't know yet what specific angle to take, whether Suzuki's own historical context and how that influenced him, the modifications he made, or differences with mainstream Japanese and Chinese Zen/Chan Buddhism). There have even been some scholars who have questioned the status of Zen as a form of Buddhism, which runs directly counter to Suzuki's claims that Zen is going right back to the founder himself. So there's a lot of material to work with.

In other news, I have been signed up with my first student to tutor. I'm slightly apprehensive; I've always been a bit shy, and this job will force me to go out and have to deal with people. On the phone, even (I despise phones). Oh well; it's good money doing something that I generally like doing which will be of use to someone, and who can ask for more from a job than that?

Anger as Distraction

Anger so often seems to be a way out of inner struggles. It is a way of shifting blame sometimes; but even when it is over a real issue, it can be a mask, a protective guard. To be angry (barring situations of appropriate, righteous anger) is to not have to face ones inner fears. It is a defiance of reality instead of an acceptance of the sometimes harsh and absurd nature of things. For that reason, it is often a lack of faith that God really will come and be with one in ones loneliness.

And thus it is with my feelings towards people so often, in particular concerning the faith. I'm not going to say that there aren't very real issues. However, I too often lash out, even if most of the time only mentally, because it gets my mind off of the reason why I'm frustrated; I am lonely, I don't fit it in for various reasons that are not likely to change anytime in the near future if at all, I have to take on the responsibility for learning that which I should have gotten from the larger community, I reject the foundational beliefs of the society in which I live, I live in almost constant contradictions between what I believe, what I can reason, and what I experience. Anger doesn't solve any of these problems, and in most cases a more appropriate response would be compassion and an attempt to understand those who I see misunderstanding others. Anger keeps me from actually trusting God through the situations, from letting the pain be used to teach me that which I've been too stubborn and proud to know. And who wants useless pain?

Tied to that, it's been freeing going through a study of Ecclesiastes; I realize that everything that I can do is hebel, absurd/meaningless/vanity, and knowing myself I cannot help ruining it in any case. So I guess there's nothing to do but let God bring some good out of the mess that is me.

Ok, I figure that I might as well write that for someone to listen to, as I probably won't come tomorrow morning.

This Post is Untitled

Currently reading: The Beauty Of The Infinite: The Aesthetics Of Christian Truth by David Bentley Hart

So, life has just gotten a lot less hectic. The semester is over (I should be getting grades back tomorrow - I'm still a trifle apprehensive about that), and I am done with Starbucks as of last week Tuesday. So now I have some time off to study effectively, and make up for the fact that I've been mostly a general studies philosopher until now. Of course, what happens is that on any given day, I'll have either discipline or concentration, but never both; I can either sit and stare at a text for hours on end and get through 30 pages, or goof off online most of the day and cram 30 pages into a well-oiled brain. Plus or minus 1/2-1 page of a Latin text with 16th century Italian shorthand as I start reading Henry of Ghent (it's still easier than reading Sanskrit). I'm frustrated by the fact that I seem to tire so easily; my mind has a set amount of energy at the beginning of the day, whatever I actually need to get done, and it never seems to be apportioned the way I need it.

In other news, I just came across the following website: http://www.meontology.net. I think it's a little too cluttered, though.

On Rabbits

Our rabbit Tiger loves to escape. When we would put him in a pen made up of cardboard boxes, he would spend so much time nudging at cracks, jumping over low spots, and running headlong into weak points in the wall. We never could build a pen which would hold him in; even when I tried taping boxes together, the little bugger pulled hard enough to take them apart again.

Now, we finally got him a real pen. No escapes from this one. Tiger finally has a place which is decently larger than his cage where he can run loose for long periods of time, as we do not need to watch him constantly.

So what does Tiger do with this newfound freedom? He still tries to escape. He'll endlessly dig up the cloth at the edge of the cage, hoping that he'll discover a way out eventually. He'll poke his little nose in between the wires. Sure, the new setup is not ideal, of course he'd rather have the run of the house, but it's a step up from his cage. But he'll spend his time looking for a way out instead of playing while he has time.

How many times am I like Tiger?

End of Semester, etc.

Currently reading: The Philosophical Vision of John Duns Scotus
by Mary Beth Ingham and Mechthild Dreyer

End of Semester

The end of the semester is nigh. And good thing, too; it's probably been one of the worst semesters I've had. But, in two weeks the 17 hour load will be gone, I will be done with coursework, I can actually start reading the books I'm interested in (ok, continue reading, but without guilt), and soon after I can quit Starbucks and maybe get a job as a tutor, or something else with some positive level of job satisfaction. I was going to hold on until the end of the summer, but I got turned down for the Logic adjunct professorship at Trinity and so I really have no reason to delay the decision.

The New, Improved Medieval Me

Summer reading list: medieval philosophy and theology. I had gotten a bit disenamored of the medievals last fall, but they still had an odd fascination for me. I finally realized why: I was trying to treat them as analytic philosophers. Now, while the level of rigour and analysis is similar, modern philosophy doesn't much like systems. Analytic philosophy in particular tends to be concerned with discrete problems. While analytic philosophers themselves may out the problems together into a larger whole, they don't do this so much in their writings. So I can read Plantinga on modal logic and on epistemology without having to connect the two.

When I had tried this on Scotus, however, I only got bogged down in what seemed to be endless details. It was Aquinas that brought me back, however, through contemporary Thomists Gilson and Clarke; I was able to see the whole which made the parts meaningful. So I thought, I wonder if Scotus' thought was this developed? As Scotus did not leave behind a Summa, it is more difficult to see this in his thought, but the book I'm reading through right now (see top of this post) is helping me to see the bigger picture and getting me re-interested. That, and realizing that Scotus is his own philosopher/theologian and not just an Aquinas alternative.

Thesis

So, with all the reading I want to do, as well with preparation for a doctorate program in the area, I have to wonder if it may be appropriate to change my thesis topic yet again. Sure, I've been telling everyone for a semester that it was going to be Kierkegaard and Shinran, and that's interesting enough, but I have done anything official yet. On the other hand, I need to do something quickly; my one reader is on sabbatical in the Fall, so I have to have at least an idea of the flow of the paper by the end of the summer.

Our New Pet Tiger

Joy and I decided that we wanted a pet, but a dog or a housecat would just cause too many problems. A dog need more attention than we can give right now, and a cat would leap up and destroy all of Joy's knick-knacks. So, enter the Tiger: a lovable lop with tan coloring and black stripes. Intelligent critter; can get out of almost any setup of cardboard boxes we make to pen him in. So most likely we'll need to get a real pen so that he can exercise without constant supervision.