BACK
I got back from Philly late last night. The trip was fairly eventful. I met several new people: I met Ron Silliman finally at the Arts Alliance reading sponsored by the U. of Alabama Press. Ron has very large eyes which are bright blue. He enjoyed the readings or so it seemed and laughed a bit with his old friend Bob Perelman. Perelman's poem about a drawing that Andy Warhol made about Frank O'Hara's penis was wonderful. At first Frank didn't like the drawing but when Warhol got more famous he did. The poem got at the economics of artistic evaluation quite well.
I met Marcel Cornis-Pope an amazing Romanian critic whose work I've followed for years. I wanted to talk with him for hours but there were many others who wanted to talk with him as well. I told him about the huge jar of hot peppers I had seen in the refrigerator at Andrei Codrescu's apartment in Baton Rouge. He told me that all Romanians keep those to ward off vampyres.
I met an old school friend John Powell and talked with him a great deal about old friends, theology, and our children, among other things.
I met Aaron Belz again.
I read in the archives on Marianne Moore's poetry at the Rosenbach Museum library.
I went in fancy grocery stores with 200 varieties of cheese.
Next to the Convention Center after giving my paper on a Christian humor theory derived from Baudelaire and two kingdoms theory I went into a Pennsylvania Dutch restaurant and ate shoo-fly pie and a chicken salad sandwich on white bread.
Here are a few of the books I picked up at the Convention Book Center:
Richard Brautigan, by various authors including Joanne Kyger and Ed Dorn, from McFarland.
P.G. Wodehouse in Hollywood, a bibliographical book from McFarland about Wodehouse's contributions to Hollywood.
Philosophy of Mathematics, a journal issue devoted to Kurt Godel.
Paterson Review, a journal issue devoted to Allen Ginsberg.
Richard II, Henry VI, and Henry IV Part I, from Thomsen Wadsworth, who now owns the Arden series.
Kenneth Burke on Shakespeare, a hardcover copy from Parlor Press; and Kenneth Burke on Symbolism.
A book about Andy Kaufman, the comic, from Minnesota Press.
A book on how to teach TRistam Shandy from the MLA Press. It's twenty years old now and the editor told me it sells about five copies a year.
A copy of my own book Andrei Codrescu & the Myth of America, which I gave to Marcel Cornis-Pope.
A copy of another book of mine Gregory Corso: Doubting Thomist (Southern Illinois) which I plan to give to a west coast critic who has asked me a copy.
Generally I can't even afford my own books but at MLA the books are half-price or in some cases they give them out for free especially at the end of the conference when the sales managers are packing up.
Some books I wanted but didn't have the money for: Conversations with Jack Kerouac from Mississippi, and a book about St. Paul, by Giorgio Agamben, and another book by Agamben on Man and Animal, both from Stanford. I waited for the prices to go down at Stanford, but they didn't.
Driving home I couldn't find my ticket to get on the tollway called the Northeast Extension which goes from Philadelphia to Scranton. In Scranton fifty cars backed up behind me while I fished around for the ticket. The guy finally let me through with a write-up. As soon as I got home I found the ticket in the back seat. It will cost me $5.70.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Friday, December 29, 2006
I'm in Philadelphia giving a paper at the Modern Language Association annual conference. My paper is on Baudelaire as a Christian humorist.
Meanwhile, I'm reading Marianne Moore archival material at the Rosenbach Museum. I was here last summer, and have three more hours to go in the morning! It's a neat arrangement. You order files, and they bring you all the goods for example all these ancient typescripts and hand scribbled notes on every specific poem. They have 30,000 documents!
I asked to look at the archival file for the poem "Enough" -- which is about Jamestown, 1607-1957. It didn't work out but we still don't know why.
"a paradise in which hope dies,
found pests and pestilence instead,
the living outnumbered by the dead.
The same reward for best and worst,
doomed communism, tried at first."
Those are some of the lines in the poem. Is she saying that communism was tried at Jamestown? Or that communism was a similar social experiment, but that it didn't work out? Reading Moore is often like reading an intractable crossword puzzle. It's not nonsense though. there is always a very specific meaning that she was getting at. But it sometimes takes years to get at that meaning.
I think most poets are like that.
Poetry isn't like watching a James Bond movie where the jets fly right through your face dropping bombs.
It's a puzzle, and it goes on for years. I have been working on Moore for about a decade and now suddenly feel that moment of critical mass like in a crossword puzzle where you've gotten the few easy ones, and now there are enough verticals and horizontals that filling in the rest of it starts to proceed almost of itself. But then I often get stuck again, and can't fill in an odd corner or two.
After a decade I've done about twenty of her poems with some good depth. I've read the biography and another ten books, and visited her church and met some of her old friends. She's beginning to materialize. She's no longer just a ghost.
Meanwhile, I'm reading Marianne Moore archival material at the Rosenbach Museum. I was here last summer, and have three more hours to go in the morning! It's a neat arrangement. You order files, and they bring you all the goods for example all these ancient typescripts and hand scribbled notes on every specific poem. They have 30,000 documents!
I asked to look at the archival file for the poem "Enough" -- which is about Jamestown, 1607-1957. It didn't work out but we still don't know why.
"a paradise in which hope dies,
found pests and pestilence instead,
the living outnumbered by the dead.
The same reward for best and worst,
doomed communism, tried at first."
Those are some of the lines in the poem. Is she saying that communism was tried at Jamestown? Or that communism was a similar social experiment, but that it didn't work out? Reading Moore is often like reading an intractable crossword puzzle. It's not nonsense though. there is always a very specific meaning that she was getting at. But it sometimes takes years to get at that meaning.
I think most poets are like that.
Poetry isn't like watching a James Bond movie where the jets fly right through your face dropping bombs.
It's a puzzle, and it goes on for years. I have been working on Moore for about a decade and now suddenly feel that moment of critical mass like in a crossword puzzle where you've gotten the few easy ones, and now there are enough verticals and horizontals that filling in the rest of it starts to proceed almost of itself. But then I often get stuck again, and can't fill in an odd corner or two.
After a decade I've done about twenty of her poems with some good depth. I've read the biography and another ten books, and visited her church and met some of her old friends. She's beginning to materialize. She's no longer just a ghost.
Monday, December 25, 2006
CHRISTMAS DAY 2006
We had our daughter Sofia Sara Annika baptized today. Yesterday was Sunday so many people see that as the Christmas service and then last night was for the singing of the hymns such as Silent Night and Hark The Herald Angels Sing and Little Town of Bethlehem. That service was completely packed. This morning the only small children at the service were my own and there were only about 30 people in attendance.
Our church is fairly spartan unlike a Greek Orthodox or a Catholic church. The only image on the walls is a cross. Some neuroscientists have said that the mind can only see three things at once. This would imply that to crowd a church with icons is counterproductive. So in a sense the aesthetics of the bare cross, and the pastor speaking to one side are in fact more visible and richer in meaning than a church stuffed with icons. There was another small banner hanging from the ceiling with a tiny felt donkey and in a manger a baby.
To the side of the baptismal fount was a red banner with these glittering words:
REJOICE!
SOFIA
SARA
ANNIKA
IS A
CHILD OF
GOD
DEC. 25, 2006
Our Sofia became a kind of icon of Jesus throughout the service since the sermon kept talking about babies, and our baby was actually mentioned in the sermon! She didn't appear self-conscious at all. Just went about her business of rocking and sucking her thumb and smiling at mommy.
Now we're back home with all kinds of electronic devices. This computer, the children's new cameras that keep flashing, talking horses, racing cars that fly along when you push a button or pull a cord. But there is also a giant-sized Thomas the Tank Engine set (I love Thomas!). I've been tossing chocolates and licorice and thinking about setting up the giant Thomas set, but the kids are so fascinated by all their other gifts that I think I'll just wait.
I got two histories of America, and a water-massage system for my feet. It works. I have my feet in it right now. You put in a quart of hot water and it blows bubbles on your feet, and continually reheats the water, and four pulsing bars rub the bottoms of your feet in perpetuity.
We had our daughter Sofia Sara Annika baptized today. Yesterday was Sunday so many people see that as the Christmas service and then last night was for the singing of the hymns such as Silent Night and Hark The Herald Angels Sing and Little Town of Bethlehem. That service was completely packed. This morning the only small children at the service were my own and there were only about 30 people in attendance.
Our church is fairly spartan unlike a Greek Orthodox or a Catholic church. The only image on the walls is a cross. Some neuroscientists have said that the mind can only see three things at once. This would imply that to crowd a church with icons is counterproductive. So in a sense the aesthetics of the bare cross, and the pastor speaking to one side are in fact more visible and richer in meaning than a church stuffed with icons. There was another small banner hanging from the ceiling with a tiny felt donkey and in a manger a baby.
To the side of the baptismal fount was a red banner with these glittering words:
REJOICE!
SOFIA
SARA
ANNIKA
IS A
CHILD OF
GOD
DEC. 25, 2006
Our Sofia became a kind of icon of Jesus throughout the service since the sermon kept talking about babies, and our baby was actually mentioned in the sermon! She didn't appear self-conscious at all. Just went about her business of rocking and sucking her thumb and smiling at mommy.
Now we're back home with all kinds of electronic devices. This computer, the children's new cameras that keep flashing, talking horses, racing cars that fly along when you push a button or pull a cord. But there is also a giant-sized Thomas the Tank Engine set (I love Thomas!). I've been tossing chocolates and licorice and thinking about setting up the giant Thomas set, but the kids are so fascinated by all their other gifts that I think I'll just wait.
I got two histories of America, and a water-massage system for my feet. It works. I have my feet in it right now. You put in a quart of hot water and it blows bubbles on your feet, and continually reheats the water, and four pulsing bars rub the bottoms of your feet in perpetuity.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
I have terrible, wonderful dreams. Almost every night I wake up about 5 am. Sometimes I have had flies crawling all over my body, and wake up and realize oh goodness, it was just a dream. Last night I dreamed I was in a place called the Chelsea Hotel. I was informed by the poet Michael Andre that the Chelsea on 23rd street in New York City is a place that Corso frequented. I'm supposed to know this place in order to know Corso.
I dreamed I was in it. A giant man along the lines of Lurch came after me. I shot him in the head and was appalled because I've never shot anybody. I put him into a pile of laundry and he turned into a boa constrictor. I've been watching too much Animal Planet.
I don't know if the dream was about Corso but it was about Bohemia. As I lay there at 5 am, I reflected that Bohemia is a matriarchal counterprinciple to patriarchy where rules apply. Bohemia is where tough dudes with long hair follow their whims. And the devil takes the hindmost. It's been that way at least since Falstaff.
Corso was unusually hard on proprietors, and they tended to hate him, just as the proprietress of the brothel where Falstaff stayed hated him.
The manager of the Chelsea couldn't stand Corso. George Whitman at Shakespeare & Co. in Paris also hated Corso. I imagine that anyone with property would hate Corso. He didn't respect other people's property. He started off stealing and ended up in Dannemora. He may have quit stealing later on, but continued to mooch and mash other people's property. I remember in the seventies in Boulder when Corso smashed all of Ginsberg's classic jazz albums from the fifties. Somehow there is a line of continuity in Corso's life having to do with the destruction of property. It was one of his properties.
He claimed that he was helping Ginsberg release himself from his earthly possessions in order to help him to attain enlightenment. I doubt if that was his true motive when he smashed a large collection of Ginsberg's classic jazz albums in summer 1977 at the Boulderado apartments. What WAS his motive?
I dreamed I was in it. A giant man along the lines of Lurch came after me. I shot him in the head and was appalled because I've never shot anybody. I put him into a pile of laundry and he turned into a boa constrictor. I've been watching too much Animal Planet.
I don't know if the dream was about Corso but it was about Bohemia. As I lay there at 5 am, I reflected that Bohemia is a matriarchal counterprinciple to patriarchy where rules apply. Bohemia is where tough dudes with long hair follow their whims. And the devil takes the hindmost. It's been that way at least since Falstaff.
Corso was unusually hard on proprietors, and they tended to hate him, just as the proprietress of the brothel where Falstaff stayed hated him.
The manager of the Chelsea couldn't stand Corso. George Whitman at Shakespeare & Co. in Paris also hated Corso. I imagine that anyone with property would hate Corso. He didn't respect other people's property. He started off stealing and ended up in Dannemora. He may have quit stealing later on, but continued to mooch and mash other people's property. I remember in the seventies in Boulder when Corso smashed all of Ginsberg's classic jazz albums from the fifties. Somehow there is a line of continuity in Corso's life having to do with the destruction of property. It was one of his properties.
He claimed that he was helping Ginsberg release himself from his earthly possessions in order to help him to attain enlightenment. I doubt if that was his true motive when he smashed a large collection of Ginsberg's classic jazz albums in summer 1977 at the Boulderado apartments. What WAS his motive?
Friday, December 22, 2006
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
THE BEST ARTIST?
My daughter Lola wants to be an artist. She practices hard at it and can already do a horse or a house better than I can and she's only seven. The other night I was washing her up and as she looked in the mirror, she said with some envy, "A mirror is the best artist."
Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the best artist of all?
My daughter Lola wants to be an artist. She practices hard at it and can already do a horse or a house better than I can and she's only seven. The other night I was washing her up and as she looked in the mirror, she said with some envy, "A mirror is the best artist."
Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the best artist of all?
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Friday, December 15, 2006
WHO MURDERED THE AUTHOR?
Was it Roland Barthes in the basement with a poisoned pen?
Was it Jacques Derrida in the kitchen with a knife?
Was it Michel Foucault in the attic with a lead pipe?
Answer: all three.
Motive: envy.
At least since Plato there has been a murderous rage on the part of philosophers toward poets. Plato ousted the poet from his ideal Republic unless they were willing to illustrate his theories and write nothing else.
Marxism harkens back to Plato. It announces nothing new. It is the work of a tyrant who wishes to destroy all cultural production that does not emanate from his own pen. Seized upon by Lenin, Stalin, and other would-be poets such as Mao, it led to a hundred million deaths. Poets were largely figured in those deaths. In the case of Pol Pot he went so far as to destroy EVERY LITERATE PERSON, simply so as to prevent the possibility of a poet from emerging amongst the masses.
Literature departments in America and Europe were set up to promote literacy. However, there is a secret envy among the personnel. They want to be more important than the writers they study. So, the growth of Marxist theory has been a way for Cain to legitimate the murder of Abel. Critics have always been envious of poets. And so to argue that poetry is really only a deficient form of theory was never very far behind. And then the notion of the "death of the author" (a rather passive phrase that denies any involvement in that death)is naturally much to the liking of the administrators of that murder in our six thousand colleges and universities which have in fact operated as miniature Gulags and killing fields to destroy writers and poetry and substitute ideology in its place.
Was it Roland Barthes in the basement with a poisoned pen?
Was it Jacques Derrida in the kitchen with a knife?
Was it Michel Foucault in the attic with a lead pipe?
Answer: all three.
Motive: envy.
At least since Plato there has been a murderous rage on the part of philosophers toward poets. Plato ousted the poet from his ideal Republic unless they were willing to illustrate his theories and write nothing else.
Marxism harkens back to Plato. It announces nothing new. It is the work of a tyrant who wishes to destroy all cultural production that does not emanate from his own pen. Seized upon by Lenin, Stalin, and other would-be poets such as Mao, it led to a hundred million deaths. Poets were largely figured in those deaths. In the case of Pol Pot he went so far as to destroy EVERY LITERATE PERSON, simply so as to prevent the possibility of a poet from emerging amongst the masses.
Literature departments in America and Europe were set up to promote literacy. However, there is a secret envy among the personnel. They want to be more important than the writers they study. So, the growth of Marxist theory has been a way for Cain to legitimate the murder of Abel. Critics have always been envious of poets. And so to argue that poetry is really only a deficient form of theory was never very far behind. And then the notion of the "death of the author" (a rather passive phrase that denies any involvement in that death)is naturally much to the liking of the administrators of that murder in our six thousand colleges and universities which have in fact operated as miniature Gulags and killing fields to destroy writers and poetry and substitute ideology in its place.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
INCLUSION/EXCLUSION
For a while I played with the notion that the Republicans were about exclusion and the Democrats were about inclusion.
To some degree that's true.
But the more I look at it, the more it seems that there is an exclusivity regarding Democrats and an inclusivity regarding Republicans.
For instance, the Republicans seem to be MORE likely to push people of color to the top as long as they are also people of faith who are more less fellow BELIEVERS.
Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, and many others have gotten to the top of the Republican party irrespective of their race.
It's harder to find similar characters for the Democrats. I think there is a glass ceiling for people of color among Democrats. Yes, the Democrats are for people of color but only so long as they remain in their place at the bottom of the heap. Is there a secret exclusion at the heart of the Democratic party that doesn't exist in the Republican party?
Inclusion and exclusion are huge topics. Who is a Democrat? What on earth do you have to believe to be a Democrat? Joe Lieberman is a Democrat and Al Sharpton is a Democrat.
Is there such a wide ideological difference among Republicans? Which two Republicans could be said to be the most divergent?
Lutheran Surrealism has yet to find another member of its class. For a while Tom Hunley was the only other Lutheran Surrealist. Our charter stated that to be a member of Lutheran Surrealism you had to be a practicing Lutheran and also deeply steeped in the lore and practice of surrealism. Hunley fit these criteria. However, recently he has joined a Baptist church because his Lutheran church fired the pastor he liked.
Should we make an exception and keep our only affiliate? We are totally in a crisis over this. Do I even have the right any longer to determine the criteria?
What about Carl Sachs who was raised Jewish but is much more steeped in Kant than we are, and whom we deeply need for our discussions?
And would Carl even be willing to call himself a Lutheran Surrealist even after he has suddenly indicated in the comment box that he is willing to VOTE Lutheran surrealist?
Sachs has many of the attributes of a Lutheran Surrealist: he likes to argue, he likes to laugh, and he likes to put puzzling questions and he rarely takes arguments personally.
What about WW -- who was raised as a Lutheran but thinks it's Hitlerite and so has become a vegetarian and of all things a Presbyterian?
I would like to draft in whales but do they really have the capacity for consent or are they in reality just so much blubber with a spout?
I need members of this group, and yet am so querulous. I truly believe that no two people can ever really agree on anything. If they did, wouldn't it be boring and make life impossible? If two Lutheran surrealists were ever to agree even on what it takes to be a Lutheran surrealist we'd immediately have to disband because any time two people such people could form into a club then instantly both would wish to resign as no Lutheran Surrealist (like no Groucho Marxist) could ever be a member of any class that would include themselves.
How does one make the impossible possible? How does one be TOTALLY INCLUSIVE and yet TOTALLY EXCLUSIVE? I don't know. I do know how to make the possible impossible, however, and will try to stick with that. Constantly taking a new position which will define LUTHERAN SURREALISM once and for all while searching for a universally set of principles with which all Lutheran Surrealists must violently disagree.
For a while I played with the notion that the Republicans were about exclusion and the Democrats were about inclusion.
To some degree that's true.
But the more I look at it, the more it seems that there is an exclusivity regarding Democrats and an inclusivity regarding Republicans.
For instance, the Republicans seem to be MORE likely to push people of color to the top as long as they are also people of faith who are more less fellow BELIEVERS.
Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, and many others have gotten to the top of the Republican party irrespective of their race.
It's harder to find similar characters for the Democrats. I think there is a glass ceiling for people of color among Democrats. Yes, the Democrats are for people of color but only so long as they remain in their place at the bottom of the heap. Is there a secret exclusion at the heart of the Democratic party that doesn't exist in the Republican party?
Inclusion and exclusion are huge topics. Who is a Democrat? What on earth do you have to believe to be a Democrat? Joe Lieberman is a Democrat and Al Sharpton is a Democrat.
Is there such a wide ideological difference among Republicans? Which two Republicans could be said to be the most divergent?
Lutheran Surrealism has yet to find another member of its class. For a while Tom Hunley was the only other Lutheran Surrealist. Our charter stated that to be a member of Lutheran Surrealism you had to be a practicing Lutheran and also deeply steeped in the lore and practice of surrealism. Hunley fit these criteria. However, recently he has joined a Baptist church because his Lutheran church fired the pastor he liked.
Should we make an exception and keep our only affiliate? We are totally in a crisis over this. Do I even have the right any longer to determine the criteria?
What about Carl Sachs who was raised Jewish but is much more steeped in Kant than we are, and whom we deeply need for our discussions?
And would Carl even be willing to call himself a Lutheran Surrealist even after he has suddenly indicated in the comment box that he is willing to VOTE Lutheran surrealist?
Sachs has many of the attributes of a Lutheran Surrealist: he likes to argue, he likes to laugh, and he likes to put puzzling questions and he rarely takes arguments personally.
What about WW -- who was raised as a Lutheran but thinks it's Hitlerite and so has become a vegetarian and of all things a Presbyterian?
I would like to draft in whales but do they really have the capacity for consent or are they in reality just so much blubber with a spout?
I need members of this group, and yet am so querulous. I truly believe that no two people can ever really agree on anything. If they did, wouldn't it be boring and make life impossible? If two Lutheran surrealists were ever to agree even on what it takes to be a Lutheran surrealist we'd immediately have to disband because any time two people such people could form into a club then instantly both would wish to resign as no Lutheran Surrealist (like no Groucho Marxist) could ever be a member of any class that would include themselves.
How does one make the impossible possible? How does one be TOTALLY INCLUSIVE and yet TOTALLY EXCLUSIVE? I don't know. I do know how to make the possible impossible, however, and will try to stick with that. Constantly taking a new position which will define LUTHERAN SURREALISM once and for all while searching for a universally set of principles with which all Lutheran Surrealists must violently disagree.
Monday, December 11, 2006
I watched a film on the International Film Channel last evening entitled Super Troopers. It was so funny. It was so stupid and so funny. My favorite part was a gratuitous moment where one of the state troopers shows up sodomizing a grizzly bear for some reason. I was correcting papers and this scene just threw me into a sustained fit of chortling that I was afraid I would not be able to stop.
Then this morning a friend asked me if I had sent Temping to Adam Sandler to try it out for an acting part.
I started to think of other actors, too, who might be interested. Perhaps Ben Stiller.
The character has to be nebbish who nevertheless can suddenly have charm.
Troy Verne, the brilliant midget on the Geico commercial, would be ideal for Marcel Nations. He has a hedonistic sinister quality. I caught him on the Surreal Show when he got drunk and pissed on the carpet. That was so odd. Was it scripted?
"It's my birthday! It's my birthday!"
Troy is also Mini Me in the Spy Who Shagged Me.
Danny Devito would also be terrific as Marcel Nations.
What other actors? Who should play Liisa? Billy Bob Thornton would make a good Bingsley Atworth.
Then this morning a friend asked me if I had sent Temping to Adam Sandler to try it out for an acting part.
I started to think of other actors, too, who might be interested. Perhaps Ben Stiller.
The character has to be nebbish who nevertheless can suddenly have charm.
Troy Verne, the brilliant midget on the Geico commercial, would be ideal for Marcel Nations. He has a hedonistic sinister quality. I caught him on the Surreal Show when he got drunk and pissed on the carpet. That was so odd. Was it scripted?
"It's my birthday! It's my birthday!"
Troy is also Mini Me in the Spy Who Shagged Me.
Danny Devito would also be terrific as Marcel Nations.
What other actors? Who should play Liisa? Billy Bob Thornton would make a good Bingsley Atworth.
Friday, December 08, 2006
THE LINGUISTIC TURN IN RETROSPECT
About thirty years ago something in the academy occurred that was called The Linguistic Turn.
In essence, the Linguistic Turn, based largely on Saussure, was an argument that whoever controlled the language controlled the society. The French communists who were in the forefront of the linguistic turn (Lacan and Lacanians, but the whole Tel Quel group) believed that everything was a linguistic contruct. They therefore believed that God was a linguistic construct, too.
Class and gender and even race were considered linguistic constructs. To deconstruct those constructs would change the society itself, they reasoned.
Lutheran surrealists on the other hand believe that reality exists, and that God exists, and is real. We believe that the 10 commandments pre-exist us, and are unchangeable axioms of the human universe. The linguistic turn, thus, to Lutheran surrealists, is a gnostic heresy.
When we break any of the ten commandments no amount of political correctness can change that fact.
When we jump up and come back down to earth we realize too that gravity exists. The introduction of lexical levity by Tel Quel did not change the fact that gravity is not a social construct even though they wished it to be so and published Alan Sokal's hoax which said that it was so.
The Language Poets came out of the Linguistic Turn.
Political correctness came out of the Linguistic Turn.
Lutheran Surrealism comes out of a Christian context and believes in a higher reality of the marvelous beauty of our limitations, and part of that beauty is the humility that we feel before the unlimited nature of God. God is real and He is everlasting, and our words are nothing unless they are aligned with Him.
About thirty years ago something in the academy occurred that was called The Linguistic Turn.
In essence, the Linguistic Turn, based largely on Saussure, was an argument that whoever controlled the language controlled the society. The French communists who were in the forefront of the linguistic turn (Lacan and Lacanians, but the whole Tel Quel group) believed that everything was a linguistic contruct. They therefore believed that God was a linguistic construct, too.
Class and gender and even race were considered linguistic constructs. To deconstruct those constructs would change the society itself, they reasoned.
Lutheran surrealists on the other hand believe that reality exists, and that God exists, and is real. We believe that the 10 commandments pre-exist us, and are unchangeable axioms of the human universe. The linguistic turn, thus, to Lutheran surrealists, is a gnostic heresy.
When we break any of the ten commandments no amount of political correctness can change that fact.
When we jump up and come back down to earth we realize too that gravity exists. The introduction of lexical levity by Tel Quel did not change the fact that gravity is not a social construct even though they wished it to be so and published Alan Sokal's hoax which said that it was so.
The Language Poets came out of the Linguistic Turn.
Political correctness came out of the Linguistic Turn.
Lutheran Surrealism comes out of a Christian context and believes in a higher reality of the marvelous beauty of our limitations, and part of that beauty is the humility that we feel before the unlimited nature of God. God is real and He is everlasting, and our words are nothing unless they are aligned with Him.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
EVOLUTION OF THE LUTHERAN SURREALIST ENCLAVE
People ask me all the time: why are you so in favor of George W. Bush? It surprises even me but W. has been like Christmas for the evolution of the Lutheran Surrealist Enclave.
As nearly everyone has surmised, Lutheran surrealism is a Bohemian art movement.
Like the early Christians in ancient Rome, we believe in love and beauty, but we add mandarin oranges (we are also mandarins in a sense), we like peacocks, and Mead composition notebooks for $1.59 with marbled covers.
We see the surrealist enclaves of the 20s as parallels to the enclaves of the early Christians. But we are dead set against the Marquis de Sade or anyone who would hurt women or children for fun.
We like Jewish people. We support the state of Israel. We like W. because he supports Israel. Kerry and Dean did not. They wavered. They thought that Al Qaeda and the countries that support Al Qaeda were equally worthy to Israel. They are not.
They are not because there can be no Lutheran Surrealist enclaves in Islamic lands that have taken up an Al Qaeda philosophy. Firstly, we believe in the equality of women. We think it would be boring to have illiterate women around. The freedom for divergent thinking in the Bush household (his wife is a librarian) is directly in opposition to the lack of divergent thought in the household of Osama Bin Laden. In Iran, the universities are under attack. In the revolution of 1979 humanities professors were shot unless they were ardent Islamists. In the book Reading Lolita in Tehran one gets a sense of the infantilization of the intellectual Bohemia under the new regime throughout Iran. While there have been traces of Bohemian enclaves such as the Sufis under Islamic regimes their sense of humor and paradox is nowhere to be found among the Taliban or among those nutcases currently in power in Tehran. Bush recognizes this. For whatever reason, Democrats do not.
Democrats aren't even Democrats. They are communists. Throughout American academia a new variety of sameness has occurred that enforces political correctness, smashing everyone into uniformity. Thought has suffered as universities have been transformed into political reeducation centers based on the Maoist thought-control of the Cultural Revolution. Quite obviously this is not a good vantage point for Lutheran surrealist encalves to flourish.
When we think of a country or university our sole criterion is: is it a good place for a Lutheran surrealist enclave?
Are the Republicans as bad as the Democrats have made them out to be? In their beginnings they were the party to knock out slavery. They succeeded by laying down a half a million lives. It was indeed a tremendous sacrifice. This has in turn led to the rise of jazz, blues, and rock and roll. The Democrats were not willing to lift a finger to help the slaves. Copperheads, carpet baggers, and creeps, Democrats were only willing to help themselves. Humorless sods without universal principles. George Bush wiggles both ears at once while talking about Jesus.
American political life has never meant very much to me except insofar as it provides possible breeding grounds for Lutheran surrealism enclaves. Today there is only one Lutheran surrealist (Tom Hunley has abandoned us and joined a Baptist church). Humans at this stage of evolution are skeptical at best of Lutheran surrealism. We have tried to approach the great whales including Keiko (star of Free Willie 1, 2, and 3) but he turned a cold shoulder. We have designs on the remainder of great ape populations, especially orangutangs, who seem to share our sense of languour as necessary to creativity. Butterflies, gazelles? Perhaps they will join us as we herald the new regime of lawful Bohemian leisure that we envision.
People ask me all the time: why are you so in favor of George W. Bush? It surprises even me but W. has been like Christmas for the evolution of the Lutheran Surrealist Enclave.
As nearly everyone has surmised, Lutheran surrealism is a Bohemian art movement.
Like the early Christians in ancient Rome, we believe in love and beauty, but we add mandarin oranges (we are also mandarins in a sense), we like peacocks, and Mead composition notebooks for $1.59 with marbled covers.
We see the surrealist enclaves of the 20s as parallels to the enclaves of the early Christians. But we are dead set against the Marquis de Sade or anyone who would hurt women or children for fun.
We like Jewish people. We support the state of Israel. We like W. because he supports Israel. Kerry and Dean did not. They wavered. They thought that Al Qaeda and the countries that support Al Qaeda were equally worthy to Israel. They are not.
They are not because there can be no Lutheran Surrealist enclaves in Islamic lands that have taken up an Al Qaeda philosophy. Firstly, we believe in the equality of women. We think it would be boring to have illiterate women around. The freedom for divergent thinking in the Bush household (his wife is a librarian) is directly in opposition to the lack of divergent thought in the household of Osama Bin Laden. In Iran, the universities are under attack. In the revolution of 1979 humanities professors were shot unless they were ardent Islamists. In the book Reading Lolita in Tehran one gets a sense of the infantilization of the intellectual Bohemia under the new regime throughout Iran. While there have been traces of Bohemian enclaves such as the Sufis under Islamic regimes their sense of humor and paradox is nowhere to be found among the Taliban or among those nutcases currently in power in Tehran. Bush recognizes this. For whatever reason, Democrats do not.
Democrats aren't even Democrats. They are communists. Throughout American academia a new variety of sameness has occurred that enforces political correctness, smashing everyone into uniformity. Thought has suffered as universities have been transformed into political reeducation centers based on the Maoist thought-control of the Cultural Revolution. Quite obviously this is not a good vantage point for Lutheran surrealist encalves to flourish.
When we think of a country or university our sole criterion is: is it a good place for a Lutheran surrealist enclave?
Are the Republicans as bad as the Democrats have made them out to be? In their beginnings they were the party to knock out slavery. They succeeded by laying down a half a million lives. It was indeed a tremendous sacrifice. This has in turn led to the rise of jazz, blues, and rock and roll. The Democrats were not willing to lift a finger to help the slaves. Copperheads, carpet baggers, and creeps, Democrats were only willing to help themselves. Humorless sods without universal principles. George Bush wiggles both ears at once while talking about Jesus.
American political life has never meant very much to me except insofar as it provides possible breeding grounds for Lutheran surrealism enclaves. Today there is only one Lutheran surrealist (Tom Hunley has abandoned us and joined a Baptist church). Humans at this stage of evolution are skeptical at best of Lutheran surrealism. We have tried to approach the great whales including Keiko (star of Free Willie 1, 2, and 3) but he turned a cold shoulder. We have designs on the remainder of great ape populations, especially orangutangs, who seem to share our sense of languour as necessary to creativity. Butterflies, gazelles? Perhaps they will join us as we herald the new regime of lawful Bohemian leisure that we envision.
Monday, December 04, 2006
THE DUMBEST ACTS OF GENIUSES
I don't quite have the title down. But the idea would be to assemble a book of vignettes and anecdotes about the world's brightest people and the dumb things they have done.
Thales falls into a well while looking at the stars.
Wittgenstein leaves a thousand pounds of bird seed out near his cottage in Wales. The birds, whom Wittgenstein loves, get fat on the bird seed, and are decimated by the village cats.
Albert Einstein gets lost while crossing Princeton campus and has to call his wife for directions.
Luther's remarks against the Jews written while he was suffering from constipation. "Here I sit. I can do no other. God help me."
Immanuel Kant takes ten years to consider a marriage with a young woman. By the time he decides to propose, she has been married for many years and has children.
What would be the point of the book? Dunno. Maybe just to bring out the humanity in our saints of the intellect.
What's the dumbest thing your favorite intellectual hero ever did?
I don't quite have the title down. But the idea would be to assemble a book of vignettes and anecdotes about the world's brightest people and the dumb things they have done.
Thales falls into a well while looking at the stars.
Wittgenstein leaves a thousand pounds of bird seed out near his cottage in Wales. The birds, whom Wittgenstein loves, get fat on the bird seed, and are decimated by the village cats.
Albert Einstein gets lost while crossing Princeton campus and has to call his wife for directions.
Luther's remarks against the Jews written while he was suffering from constipation. "Here I sit. I can do no other. God help me."
Immanuel Kant takes ten years to consider a marriage with a young woman. By the time he decides to propose, she has been married for many years and has children.
What would be the point of the book? Dunno. Maybe just to bring out the humanity in our saints of the intellect.
What's the dumbest thing your favorite intellectual hero ever did?
Saturday, December 02, 2006
COMMUNISM SATANIC
It's a very clever move on the part of Satan.
To make a system for saints, and realizing that since humanity is sinful,
that they will never be able to lift themselves to the challenge of sharing and sharing alike.
Therefore, they crash and burn out, and license sets in.
Communism: A brilliant Satanic trap.
It asks us to be saints. But we end up as imps and pimps.
Far smarter is the two kingdoms ideology of Augustine that recognizes limitations and argues that we are all out for ourselves, and that this is a given.
A system based on humanity's humanity is capitalism.
Tempered of course by soup kitchens and government hospitals.
History is a canard. It doesn't move forward. We are what we are now, until the world ends. We have to have a system of laws that reflects an accurate understanding of human character.
Hobbes yes, because he recognizes our fallen character. Hurray for Hobbes! Hurray!
It's a very clever move on the part of Satan.
To make a system for saints, and realizing that since humanity is sinful,
that they will never be able to lift themselves to the challenge of sharing and sharing alike.
Therefore, they crash and burn out, and license sets in.
Communism: A brilliant Satanic trap.
It asks us to be saints. But we end up as imps and pimps.
Far smarter is the two kingdoms ideology of Augustine that recognizes limitations and argues that we are all out for ourselves, and that this is a given.
A system based on humanity's humanity is capitalism.
Tempered of course by soup kitchens and government hospitals.
History is a canard. It doesn't move forward. We are what we are now, until the world ends. We have to have a system of laws that reflects an accurate understanding of human character.
Hobbes yes, because he recognizes our fallen character. Hurray for Hobbes! Hurray!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
