A Jester in the King's Court

So, the idea of identity has been lost in the contemporary world. Or rather its changed. People no longer see themselves as something, but rather as something in relation to something else, or something manifested one way in some situation and in another in another situation. The self becomes less objective and more subjective as it were.

Some see this as a huge step forward. We are no longer bound by what we ought to be, or by what we seem to be, but we can define what we are. It’s a very Sartian view of the self. My essence, my identity is defined by how I see myself and what I will to be.

It seems that media has some contributing factor to this identity disassociation. The entire premise of the entertainment industry, at least as it was, is that people pretend to be what they aren’t so others can watch and relate/respond to what they present. The introduction of reality TV has changed this a bit given that now people do not need a character written before hand for them to act out, instead they manifest themselves in any manner they like on TV.

Further, news has been replaced by “infotainment” (which is a word according to spellchecker) in which facts aren’t presented, so much as spun. If Obama opens the door for his wife when going out to dinner, Fox News will say, “Obama is against women’s rights and thinks Michelle cannot open her own door” since they want to present Obama as the devil. On the other hand, MSNBC will say, “Obama is a chief humanitarian, full of grace and kindness” since they are in Obama’s back pocket. And clearly CNN will tell us what people are tweeting about Heidi and Spencer Pratt.

The world has moved in such a way that facts are not presented as facts, but rather as ammunition for supporting any understanding of the world one wishes to have. The postmodern/poststructuralist would be fast to say that everything has always been interpretation. Derrida’s claim is that we interpret the world around us and interpretation is merely all that we have. With this idea in play, one that I am not yet discrediting, it makes sense that “fact” becomes a dubious term, and identity becomes a less than concrete idea.

This leaves us with the question that Os Guinness has asked in many Vertias Forums, “How does one live in a world of hype, spin and lies?” I think that question is a good one for sorting out truth in the post-postmodern milieu, and is a trajectory for establishing one’s work with identity.

To be continued…

Principle #2: The Jet Li Principle

Topic: Identity (Part One)

Disclaimer: This post started getting lengthy and I realized that I better make it a multi-post topic. There is no resolution in this first entry…also considerably less laughs than I usually aim for.

Admittedly, I’ve never seen a Jet Li movie. Until I looked up his IMDB listing, I could only name one movie he had ever been in…ironically enough, that movie is named The One. I never saw it, but I heard many good things about it. The premise is roughly that this guy is able to travel through various timelines and find alternate versions of himself. Once he finds them, he kills them in order to absorb their life force. I don’t know if his plan worked at all, Wikipedia didn’t mention it when I cross checked to make sure I had the name right, though it did tell me that the Rock was originally cast for the movie. Huh.

Anyway, the plot roughly indicates that identity can be spread throughout the multiverse, with each person feeding off the same life force. Yes this could open up a platonic discussion, but that’s not where I’m going with it. Instead, I’m going with the idea that a person’s identity can be spread across a litany of places. I read an article a few months ago asking how people define themselves in an era where they can present themselves in various ways immediately thanks to the beauty of social networking. I don’t have the link to the article sadly, but what it said struck a chord with me.

I personally have this blog in which I am sarcastic yet attempt to say something of worth, I have a Facebook on which I post some topics to start debates, yet mostly quote TV and movies. I still have my old Xanga account in which I’m a completely sarcastic and snide college student, and I have a Myspace where 37 bikini clad women a day want to be my friend…and who can blame them.

Beyond that I have my friends from ECCU who know me in a professional sense, my CBU friends who know me as an engaged academician, my GGBTS friends who know me as a disinterested scholar and my church friends who know me as youth pastor and the guy that talks way to fast on stage when the pastor is out. Then there are the purely internet friends who I can believe anything about me that I darn well want them to.

Granted, in my case I’m pretty much always the sarcastic goof off that thinks he knows a lot more than he actually does, yet seems to actually know more than some people give him credit for. But, we live in a society in which it is completely possible to have nine or ten different identities that a single person presents. And, I personally believe that when a person becomes bifurcated to the umpteenth degree, its incredibly unhealthy.

How many times today do we hear about people having to go “find themselves”? That term makes no sense. Because you must be a “you” that is going to find “you” but what “you” are you already?

Next: Media, Hollywood and Identity Disassociation

The White Elephant Gift Exchange (WEGE on the street…i.e. “Let’s get wege tonight!”) has become a holiday tradition. If you are unfamiliar with this custom, it goes as follows:

1) Find something that you do not want anymore
2) Wrap it up
3) Go to Christmas party
4) Put your gift with the others under the tree with disproportionately nice ornamentation when juxtaposed to the “treasures” now laying underneath it
5) Draw numbers for the pecking order of junk taking.
6) Steal the nicest piece of junk…or the 1 nice gift because someone didn’t understand the rules
7) Go home with new junk

Now, I had the pleasure of trying to explain this to a person who is originally from a not-so-western country. The conversation was an interesting one. He asked me the amount of money that we should spend on the exchange, and I said, “No, its not like that…just bring something you might not want anymore, or a gag gift or something”….my friend seemed confused and asked, “So…I bring trash?”. I said, “No…not trash…just something you don’t want anymore”. This concept seemed hard for him to grasp…but he finally thought he got it and brought a Bible from the 1800’s…I tried…oh well….

I realized though…how odd is the concept of “Just bring something you have that you don’t want” to people from the second of third world? Could the WEGE be a more American/Western concept? Can you imagine a missionary in Zimbabwe explaining what the WEGE is to the Zimbabweans? “Just bring something you have that you don’t want” “Um…I don’t have anything….well, aside from AIDs and lice…can I bring those?” “Um…how bout we just skip the WEGE and just go see an actual elephant”

I personally love the WEGE, I think its hilarious, an I wish I was Jewish so I could have 8 crazy nights of WEGE….but I think we should at least stop for a moment and realize what it says about what we are blessed with to have such a surplus of things that we can view some of them as junk that’s good for a laugh…whereas so many people across the world don’t have water, food or shelter…3 of the 4 most important things to survival. The 1st of which is clearly air….and the top 5 being rounded out of course, by a good po-po-po-po-po-poker face.

Topic: Christmas Movies and Essences

Philosophy is funsies. In what other discipline can you use the sentence, “I’m sorry, but your ontological presuppositions leave you in a state where you are forced to affirm an epistemological infinite regress.”? I mean sure you use it every day if you work at Gymboree, but beyond that….

Anyway, another side effect of studying philosophy is that you end up applying the terms, principles and debates to everyday life. This is fun when you are talking with fellow philosophy nerds, but rather a bore at most parties. Then again, at most parties it just fun listening to the inebriated people repeat the word “monophysite” back to you after you use it to describe their inherent use of the phrase “Gimmie one more…” whilst at the bar.

Case in point for today’s seasonal discussion, what makes a movie a Christmas movie, as opposed to a movie that takes place at Christmas? This question started brewing in my head last year when someone said that “Love Actually” was their favorite Christmas movie. I reacted with a bit of disdain for that statement because, let’s be serious…as likeable as Hugh Grant is when singing Good King Wenslease, that does not a Christmas movie make.

In the philosophical world, there is a debate surrounding essence, and what makes a thing what it is. Classicalists tend to think that there is an intrinsic essence to all things that define them as what they are, Nominalists think that essences are projections of universals on the unifying elements of nature, existentialists think that essences are completely defined by the existing cogniscent individual defining reality and purpose as they see fit, and the consperiscists that believe the world is run by an illuminate, Obama was born in Kenya and that we never landed on the moon. This last group is not related to philosophy I anyway whatsoever, but are always good for a cheap laugh.

So, what makes a movie a Christmas movie? Is it something innate, or is it self-defined? Granted there are the hyperspiritual people that will say the only true Christmas movie is the Nativity because is about Jesus. Ok, true….as a Christian I am required to say that (seriously, its in our bylaws), but now that we are done with that, seriously, what defines Christmas movies?

When I watch Elf, or the Santa Clause trilogy (it’s the Back to the Future of Christmas) or Christmas Vacation, I classify them as Christmas movies without a second thought. However when I look at Gremlins or Love Actually and in some cases Home Alone, I don’t necessarily think “Christmas movie” I think, “Movie in which Christmas plays an accidental or secondary role” which translates from nerd to English as, “Movie that takes place during Christmas”

I think the reasoning is that Christmas is central to the plot of the former movies, and the changes in the characters are by products of “The magic of Christmas”, whereas the other movies could take place at another time of the year, or not mention Christmas at all, and I wouldn’t notice a real change to the movie at all. Granted, I can conceive of the Christmas Carol being the Easter Carol, or the only poplar in France, Bastille Carol, and yet I think there is something utterly Christmas-centric about the story. Is it that a person in the story needs to undergo some type of transformation in the movie? I’m not sure….what do you think is the essence of Christmas cinema?

Capitalism is wonderful thing. It’s the thing that makes it so that children get to see “Back to School” sales in May, Halloween candy in July and it also allows me to wrap my assorted Labor Day meat’s in Santa Claus paper. And seriously….what would I do if I was not able to Christmas wrap my Labor Day meats?

Obviously this is driven primarily by a want for profit, though it has some philosophical underpinnings, i.e. modern man’s inability to be satisfied in the present and irrevocably desire the future. This trait of our society is why I start day dreaming about next semester’s classes ½ way through the current term, and why the contemplative life s one that no longer exists; however you can look like it does if you own a Snuggie…oh monkery!

Despite the fact that it isn’t profitable, Thanksgiving is falling out of the American mindset for other reasons as well. Sure the fact that only grocery stores make money off it has assisted to affirm the already dying holiday in its passing. Beyond that however, the concept it really has no place in postmodern America.

The name of the holiday is “Thanks giving” and when first instituted the concept was one of expressing thanks for the blessings we have been provided. Postmodern America has fundamental issues with the very concept of giving thanks for 2 reasons:

1) Postmodernism is a completely self-centered philosophy that teaches people that they are at the center of the universes. They define reality, meaning and truth. If a mindset is tainted with this philosophical stain, its easy to see how the idea of gratefulness seems to be lost. This isn’t to say that every postmodernist is this way, nor that every non-postmodernist isn’t. If you look at everything in the American culture you see a targeting of the ego. Self I what matter. The individual deserves everything the world has to offer. If everything that a person gets is not a blessing but a right, what is there left to express thanks for?

2) To give thanks implies an object of the action of “thanking.” I cannot “give thanks” without something or someone receiving the thanks. In an increasingly secular society that is pushing all references to God out of the public consciousness, there seems to be a more difficult time finding an entity to thank.

When the two points are added together, the increased difficulty in finding an entity to thank, and the given presumption that I deserve everything any ways, it leads to the death of a holiday that is focused on thanking God for His provision. I personally am nota huge Thanksgiving fan, mostly because I don’t love Thanksgiving food. In my world it would just be called “Stuffing and Pie Day”. However, I love what T-Day is about, and it’s a sadly telling thing that our present society cannot fit such a holiday into their worldview.

This is post 1 in an ever expanding list of “Principles” that I’ve somehow started to develop. There was an old list of theses from High School…but they are about as deep as a High Schooler can be…so I’ve decided mid-20’ss is the way to go.

Principle #1: The SNL Principle (Chronological Snobbery)

I was a lucky child. Since my Mom was a single parent and had to work all day, yet wanted spend time with me (as anyone would), I was allowed to stay up rater ate at night. This may have lead to me being a 27 y/o that can’t get to sleep before midnight, but it also allowed me to be a 2nd grader that was sad when Johnny Carson retired. Truth be told, had I known how unfunny Leno would turn out to be, I’d have probably cried.

This means that as a child, I became a fast fan of Saturday Night Live. I watched it every week, I watched it’s re-reruns during the summers and I made many people laugh with my impersonations of Dana Carvey impersonating Bush and Perot. And the Church Lady. I loved the early 90’s SNL. In the mid-90’s, all my fav cast members were let go and replaced with unfunny losers like Will Farrel, Chris Katan, Cheri Oteri, Molly Shannon and they even let that moron Norm McDonald do Weekend Update. I hated the new cast, and I perpetually bemoaned how not funny they were.

Then something happened. I realized I was still watching it, and laughing at Mr. Peepers and Celebrity Jeopardy. SNL was still funny. Then some of those cast members left and people like Jason Sedakus and Kristin Wiig showed up. And everyone said, “Why can’t these people be as funny as the old cast was when they first started??” But, no one liked them when they first started. They hated them.

Now, all of a sudden, people seem to find this new cast funny. And, they are right. Because its always been funny. The problem is we grow so attached to things being 1 way that any change makes us initially hate the new way of doing things. We have no argument against the new way, and we work ever so hard to make ourselves hate the new thing, often against our own will; however we still manage to do it.

The fact is, this goes so far beyond SNL. It happens often with worship music, civil rights and changes in relationship. I have no prescription to fix this aside from to remind everyone that new is not always bad, and that the things that are old and comfortable now were once new and contemptible. What the 20-40 generation in the church call “old boring music” once were new drinking songs that got brought into the church with new lyrics.

Sociologically this is called Chronological snobbery, thinking either that what is either older or newer is better purely because of its position in time. Practically though, how many relationships have been cut off or halted because they are no longer what they once were, and no one wanted to see if the new norm was a good norm? And how many ways of doing church have been stamped out because they aren’t the way its always been done. And how many SNL cast members have been fired because no one will ever be able to be as funny as Tina Fey, and Wayne’s World is too brilliant to duplicate?

Thanks to an independent study that I’m doing right now, every time I try to think of something to blog, my mind goes to one of the 3 following topics:
1) Divine Simplicity
2) Divine Spatiality
3) The Validity of classifying any of the Divine Attributes as Incommunicable

So, trying to spare you all the pain of reading such things…I ask…what would you like a Sblog on?