I got to the bottom of this little YouTube debacle: remember this? You should, it was just posted less than 36 hours ago. "Tamtampamela" is a YouTube user who has been posting videos putting forward an outlandish, religiously fundamentalist viewpoint that sounds ridiculous.
Because she means for it to sound ridiculous.
Because she is a troll.
From a little research I did, it appears that she is a regular contributor to the forums on the Landover Baptist website, where she is known as a specific kind of troll called a "Poe" (don't ask me why), someone who satirizes an absurd position, usually of the fundamentalist variety, with such a straight face that you cannot at first blush tell the position is being satirized - hence showing the irony inherent in fervently holding to a belief that most people, even religious people, think is ridiculous.
What does this have to do with the stated intentions of this blog? Simply put, the majority of people who have seen her video have fallen for her troll. With the forty or so previous videos she has done over the past year plus (true troll dedication), it was just a handful and little harm was done. But in this video, by taking on such a sad event and giving voice to a position so controversial, harm is being done. A true asshole, knowing that this troll is "Pamela Foreman" who lives in Tampa, has been putting an address and phone number for a person with the same name in Tampa all over the internet. Only problem is, its not her, and this innocent woman and her family have been threatened and the sheriff's department is protecting her.
Simply put, "Tamtampamela" is able to carry off a only slightly wacked version of a viewpoint we are all familiar with and most of us aren't wise to the deception. I'm not saying this to criticize those who were taken in. I was myself, initially. But further investigation (which I don't have time but do have the curiosity for) revealed the true nature of what was going on.
The school of poetical explication founded by the authors of the book "Understanding Poetry," Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren, says that the poem should stand on its own as a subject of interpretation, and that while knowing the historical background, author's biography, or what-have-you may shed interesting light, a good interpretation will stand or fall on how well it interprets the text itself, first and foremost. Although this school, called the "New Criticism," has come under fire in the decades since its appearance, it is still a very common-sense and sensible starting point for interpreting not only a poem, but any text.
With a video such as the one we have here, such an interpretive strategy is untenable. The level of irony is compounded by the postmodern moment that we're living in. I don't mean postmodern in a trendy, Parliament-cigarette smoking way. I mean it in the way that Jean-Francois Lyotard meant it when he speaks of the "self-adjustments the system undertakes in order to improve its performance." Postmodernity is marked by what Lyotard called a "legitimation crisis," and this applies not just to the legitimation of science but also of religion. The system's self-adjustments have lead to a ton of amazing products and technologies, but it has also lead to a self-adjustment in religious systems, of which a fundamentalist attitude has become more prominent, rising to meet the challenge of our pluralistic, postmodern, de-legitimized world.
Which makes videos like this very hard to interpret accurately.
I realize that by saying something like this video could be interpreted accurately, or that one interpretation could be more accurate than another, I am somewhat out of step with this moment in intellectual history. So be it. As long as a human can look at a disaster like the earthquake in Japan and feel sadness and empathy, can be moved to pray, send money and materials, and even go over and help in person, we live in a world where the legitimation crisis hasn't fully overtaken everything, where a semblance of right-and-wrong are still recognized, where perhaps even accuracy can be valued (if not truth itself).
But all this digitized content that floods our consciousnesses night and day makes it hard sometimes to recognize the humanity in others. And this girl, for the sake of a practical joke, has removed the humanity from her digital persona and given the world a fake shell of a human parroting other human shells.
As my friend JD said, "It's hard to be human in a post-human world."
Monday, March 14, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Reason and Intuition
Gary Wills, the historian, was being interviewed by Charlie Rose. I think the year was 2004, and though my memory may be faulty, he was speaking on his recent biography of St. Augustine and translation of the Confessions. Rose put a question to him about religious knowledge being discredited in a day and age of reason and science (a familiar old sawhorse) and Wills pointed out that knowledge comes to us through more than reason. "Poetry is a form of knowledge."
I remember that quote well. It was an 'a-ha!' moment for me, because it expressed for what I had been feeling and searching. Science and religion, many religious apologists try to express, are complimentary modes of knowledge which, taken together, present a complete (or "completer," if that's a word) picture of reality.
That's not a bad way of thinking about it, but it leaves the hermeneutical question wide open. Is it reality that science and faith give us together, or is it that reality is being interpreted by science and religion? If the interpretive tool of science is applied to reality, it gives us one picture. If religion, a different interpretive tool is applied to that same reality, we will have a vastly different picture. In the end, perhaps they are complimentary. But there is also a certain rub that will not allow them to sit as easily next to one another as religious apologists would like.
This is what bothers the Richard Dawkinses of the world about the claims of religion: they see, rightly so given their perspective, a rival account of reality. To a certain extent, it is true. But what they fail to do is account for the value of intuition in giving us purchase on a valid interpretation of reality.
Broadly, the claims of science can be thought of as "reason" and the claims of religion can be thought of as "intuition." Many a hard-headed scientist expresses frustration at the dreamy musings of the poet (a form of religious reflection, after all) but Dawkins waxes perfectly poetic himself while describing the cosmos in The Blind Watchmaker. Likewise, the poetry of John Donne, whether his more bawdy rhymes or his religious poetry, is the work of an intellect which was the rival of any 17th century scientist.
Perhaps we are getting back to the idea of "complementary windows on reality." That might be all I'm saying, but I think expressing it that way fails to render some of the richness of intuition's ability to render reality. Scripture, read proscriptively, is more of a "reasonable" book (in any religion); but read more poetically (regardless of one's belief), we begin to see it attempting to intuit the reality which lies beyond the measure of science, however the concept of "science" might have been rendered at the time of the scripture's writing.
John Ralston Saul's book Voltaire's Bastards put to bed exactly why reason plagues us: not because it is bad, but because one tributary of knowledge, he says, has swollen to become a river. Hence the rise of the bureaucrat, the technocrat, the expert, etc. (Perhaps John Lennon was intuiting this when he sang, "Expert, textpert, choking smoker, don't you think the Joker laughs at you?" The specter of Death (the Joker) hanging just beyond the "expert," laughing because he realizes that reason ultimately fails at the moment of passing...anyway, just a thought.) Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue posits a similar argument.
To move forward in this debate, religious thinkers need to acknowledge the interpretive validity (and sometimes dissonance) of science, and scientists likewise need to allow for intuitive expressions as providing a unique and valuable interpretation (also sometimes at loggerheads with science). Compatibility is a chimera, but that doesn't mean that work can't continue in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
Robert Duncan, a poet whose religious thought turned towards gnosticism, writes in his poem "The Structure of Rime VII": "The Rime falls in the outbreakings of speech as the Character falls in the act wherefrom life springs, footfalls in Noise which we do not hear but see as a Rose pushd up from the stem of our longing." Although probably only Duncan knows exactly what he meant (actually, probably not even him), the idea of poetry - of speech, and all that comes with it - being connected to the murky origins of life, noises that we see, longing - all these are areas which, like it or not, are veiled somewhat from our rational perceptive powers. It takes the individual with a mind's eye view to "peer" into the dusky elements of existence and make connections that are perhaps far too tenuous for the rigor of the scientist, but can still rise to his intellectual heights just the same.
Do the poet and the astronomer peer at the same reality from their different perspectives? I don't know, but I'm not about to discount the value of what both of them see.
I remember that quote well. It was an 'a-ha!' moment for me, because it expressed for what I had been feeling and searching. Science and religion, many religious apologists try to express, are complimentary modes of knowledge which, taken together, present a complete (or "completer," if that's a word) picture of reality.
That's not a bad way of thinking about it, but it leaves the hermeneutical question wide open. Is it reality that science and faith give us together, or is it that reality is being interpreted by science and religion? If the interpretive tool of science is applied to reality, it gives us one picture. If religion, a different interpretive tool is applied to that same reality, we will have a vastly different picture. In the end, perhaps they are complimentary. But there is also a certain rub that will not allow them to sit as easily next to one another as religious apologists would like.
This is what bothers the Richard Dawkinses of the world about the claims of religion: they see, rightly so given their perspective, a rival account of reality. To a certain extent, it is true. But what they fail to do is account for the value of intuition in giving us purchase on a valid interpretation of reality.
Broadly, the claims of science can be thought of as "reason" and the claims of religion can be thought of as "intuition." Many a hard-headed scientist expresses frustration at the dreamy musings of the poet (a form of religious reflection, after all) but Dawkins waxes perfectly poetic himself while describing the cosmos in The Blind Watchmaker. Likewise, the poetry of John Donne, whether his more bawdy rhymes or his religious poetry, is the work of an intellect which was the rival of any 17th century scientist.
Perhaps we are getting back to the idea of "complementary windows on reality." That might be all I'm saying, but I think expressing it that way fails to render some of the richness of intuition's ability to render reality. Scripture, read proscriptively, is more of a "reasonable" book (in any religion); but read more poetically (regardless of one's belief), we begin to see it attempting to intuit the reality which lies beyond the measure of science, however the concept of "science" might have been rendered at the time of the scripture's writing.
John Ralston Saul's book Voltaire's Bastards put to bed exactly why reason plagues us: not because it is bad, but because one tributary of knowledge, he says, has swollen to become a river. Hence the rise of the bureaucrat, the technocrat, the expert, etc. (Perhaps John Lennon was intuiting this when he sang, "Expert, textpert, choking smoker, don't you think the Joker laughs at you?" The specter of Death (the Joker) hanging just beyond the "expert," laughing because he realizes that reason ultimately fails at the moment of passing...anyway, just a thought.) Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue posits a similar argument.
To move forward in this debate, religious thinkers need to acknowledge the interpretive validity (and sometimes dissonance) of science, and scientists likewise need to allow for intuitive expressions as providing a unique and valuable interpretation (also sometimes at loggerheads with science). Compatibility is a chimera, but that doesn't mean that work can't continue in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
Robert Duncan, a poet whose religious thought turned towards gnosticism, writes in his poem "The Structure of Rime VII": "The Rime falls in the outbreakings of speech as the Character falls in the act wherefrom life springs, footfalls in Noise which we do not hear but see as a Rose pushd up from the stem of our longing." Although probably only Duncan knows exactly what he meant (actually, probably not even him), the idea of poetry - of speech, and all that comes with it - being connected to the murky origins of life, noises that we see, longing - all these are areas which, like it or not, are veiled somewhat from our rational perceptive powers. It takes the individual with a mind's eye view to "peer" into the dusky elements of existence and make connections that are perhaps far too tenuous for the rigor of the scientist, but can still rise to his intellectual heights just the same.
Do the poet and the astronomer peer at the same reality from their different perspectives? I don't know, but I'm not about to discount the value of what both of them see.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Egypt. (It was inevitable.)
The human drama of the tumult in Egypt is part of what makes the story so fascinating - Christiane Amanpour told to leave, Anderson Cooper attacked, clashes with police, oodles of rock throwing. President Mubarak's vacillation. And on and on...
But, the reason that the story is truly persistent as a topic of discussion is because it is next to impossible to interpret the various signs that are present in the story.
We understand instinctively in an event like this why abstract notions of sign/signifier meaning fail us. Perhaps the signifier "cat" is arbitrarily placed on that animal we are so familiar with, but my cat is still real, call him what you will. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Sure, but what is the outcome of all this in Egypt to be? A country in which terrorist have a stronger foothold? Or another repressive government? Or the chance for freedom for the ordinary citizens who seem to make up the majority of the protesters?
The exact nature of the protests, the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the exact nature of the Brotherhood itself compound the interpretive hazards exponentially. President Obama has tried to have it both ways, encouraging Mubarak to step down while telling the protesters to slow their roll a bit. Conservative pundits and politicians are divided over this - some want to promote democracy and see this as a democratic revolution, some are afraid of Al Qaeda gaining ground in the area through the Muslim Brotherhood.
The very interpretation of democracy, a truly abstract concept that nevertheless has real-world consequence, is under and behind any conversation and action that we will undertake in America towards this event. I remain hopeful that this is real democratic revolution in action, and that the outcome of all this will be more freedom.
But the reason I am hopeful in this way is not because I am knowledgeable enough to interpret even half of the events in Egypt. It is because I believe that people basically want to be free to determine the course of their lives - an interpretation of human nature that owes much to The Enlightenment and rationality in general, shockingly new concepts in our history.
But, the reason that the story is truly persistent as a topic of discussion is because it is next to impossible to interpret the various signs that are present in the story.
We understand instinctively in an event like this why abstract notions of sign/signifier meaning fail us. Perhaps the signifier "cat" is arbitrarily placed on that animal we are so familiar with, but my cat is still real, call him what you will. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Sure, but what is the outcome of all this in Egypt to be? A country in which terrorist have a stronger foothold? Or another repressive government? Or the chance for freedom for the ordinary citizens who seem to make up the majority of the protesters?
The exact nature of the protests, the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the exact nature of the Brotherhood itself compound the interpretive hazards exponentially. President Obama has tried to have it both ways, encouraging Mubarak to step down while telling the protesters to slow their roll a bit. Conservative pundits and politicians are divided over this - some want to promote democracy and see this as a democratic revolution, some are afraid of Al Qaeda gaining ground in the area through the Muslim Brotherhood.
The very interpretation of democracy, a truly abstract concept that nevertheless has real-world consequence, is under and behind any conversation and action that we will undertake in America towards this event. I remain hopeful that this is real democratic revolution in action, and that the outcome of all this will be more freedom.
But the reason I am hopeful in this way is not because I am knowledgeable enough to interpret even half of the events in Egypt. It is because I believe that people basically want to be free to determine the course of their lives - an interpretation of human nature that owes much to The Enlightenment and rationality in general, shockingly new concepts in our history.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Welcome to The Interpretation Blog
Those of you who are here probably know me already, and you're probably already bored. How could something called The Interpretation Blog be interesting?
Because, we don't acknowledge the extent to which interpretation colors our daily activities.
What I'd like this blog to become is an opportunity to examine events - daily, ordinary, personal ones, or events of world importance, and anything in between - and show how these events must be interpreted, how misunderstandings arise through misrecognition, misreading, and lack of honesty about our own and others' interpretive frameworks, and how acknowledgment of one's own interpretive strategy and the worldview (or lack thereof) underlying it contributes to our reading of events.
It is my belief that if we were all more aware of our predilections, biases, and convictions, we would be better able to articulate our own interpretations of events and simultaneously be more respectful and understanding of differing interpretations. This requires a lot of courage to be both bold enough to speak truthfully and to listen openly to those whom we may - fundamentally, completely - disagree with.
If this takes off as I'd like it to, I'd eventually like to bring in others who will bring their skills, observation, and knowledge to navigate contemporary existence and how interpretation is weaved throughout it.
I wish you all the best and please stop by often.
Because, we don't acknowledge the extent to which interpretation colors our daily activities.
What I'd like this blog to become is an opportunity to examine events - daily, ordinary, personal ones, or events of world importance, and anything in between - and show how these events must be interpreted, how misunderstandings arise through misrecognition, misreading, and lack of honesty about our own and others' interpretive frameworks, and how acknowledgment of one's own interpretive strategy and the worldview (or lack thereof) underlying it contributes to our reading of events.
It is my belief that if we were all more aware of our predilections, biases, and convictions, we would be better able to articulate our own interpretations of events and simultaneously be more respectful and understanding of differing interpretations. This requires a lot of courage to be both bold enough to speak truthfully and to listen openly to those whom we may - fundamentally, completely - disagree with.
If this takes off as I'd like it to, I'd eventually like to bring in others who will bring their skills, observation, and knowledge to navigate contemporary existence and how interpretation is weaved throughout it.
I wish you all the best and please stop by often.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)