Data, Knowledge, Wisdom and the Death of Literature.

Five years ago I posted an article about what effects this internet age is inflicting upon mentor-protege relationships, entitled Mentors, Proteges, and Printers. This same theme was alluded to in My Enduring Path to Mindfulness (from a martial artist point of view).



Recently, (March of 2015) I published my first work of fiction. The Symbiot. (It is available in both hard copy (print) and Kindle). Is is the first in what will be either a trilogy or four-part piece.








The second novel, The Hunt: Symbiosys, is written but due for release in the Fall of 2015. 
(This is preliminary cover art - more conceptual than anything else. If you're an artist and would like to summit artwork, please, I would be more than grateful!)


The third book (Necropolis) I am in the middle of writing. 
The series takes place in a Lovecraftian world, and without giving away any spoilers, Cthulhu makes and appearance in the third... sort of.

Now, I figured I had better do some of my homework, and in my meandering about, I stumbled across the fact the Cthulhu has a "Son" and "Daughter". (The words son and daughter might not be the best terms to use... maybe "spawn of" might be better as they are anything but human or human-like).

I googled Ghatanothoa and Cthylla only to discover that both appear in "Out of the Aeons" (by H.P. Lovecraft and Hazel Heald, 1933) and "The Transition of Titus Crow" (by Brian Lumbly, 1975), both books of which I have in my library and have read. But I didn't remember these monsters.

Now, in all fairness, I discovered Lovecraft at the end of High School and the early days of Collage. I went on a reading blitz and voraciously devoured anything and everything I could lay my hands on that was Lovecraft.... It is a great deal of material. Maybe I just missed it. Maybe it was one of those days on the bus I kept nodding off to sleep... who can say for certain? (Maybe it was because this was all 28 years ago!)

But I digress. Last night I pulled out my Arkham House printed edition of "The Horror in the Museum" (1970) - which is where you would find "Out of the Aeons".



The most obvious thing dawned on me when I read "Out of the Aeons". There is a beautiful art is the telling of a story. It is not simply a series of 'facts' or statements. It is a craft. It is truly the realm of the wordsmith; the weaving of a narrative. There is a pace, a theme, a flavour! There is not only an art to writing and telling a story, there is also an art, a pleasure, a pace, if you will - in reading a story... and I think that art is dying or dead.

The wikipedia google search for "Out of the Aeons" lays out - spoilers and all - of the entire short story. It basically butchers it. It was an annotated version of its Cole's Notes. The craft of these two writers (as well as yourself as the reader) was killed. The suspense, the tension, the feel is gone. Is this what the youth of today see & read? Are they missing the beautiful subtle nuances in favour of simple data? It knowledge being mistaken for its experience?

Sadly, I think so. Is the art of reading dying?

Misconceptions

A friend, and significant spiritual influence, of mine recently began asking questions of some old posts/ideas of mine.

The final question asked in The Christian Criterion: Lines of Division was, what exactly was the core teachings of Jesus.
I think this links itself to a much older question I once posed in Repairing the Torn Veil.

You really cannot make the claim of being an adherent to the teaching of Jesus without having a clear definition - and understanding - of exactly what it was that he taught. (And as the lesson of Matt Mikalatos' Imaginary Jesus hopefully has taught us, we are extremely subjective when it comes to this issue).

If we look at the four gospels exclusively (I want to keep this simple) what we see is a man performing miracles, and miracles occurring around this same man. (This is an important distinction).
I hope we can agree that - at the least - he was a great wisdom teacher.

I don't want to get bogged down into the arguments of whether he was divine or an incarnation of God, or the unique Son of God. I think this is missing the point, and if this becomes the main point, I believe we've totally lost our way.

I want to strip this down to the bare bones. I think we can agree, as a lowest common denominator, that he was at least a great wisdom teacher.

He taught through parables (and let's remember, the parables were a teaching tool, not the teaching itself). He taught (sometimes) through example, and he taught (or the recorders of these events) taught through symbolism.
But what did he teach?

From the context of Old Testament Judaism - he was Jewish and he was a rabbi - maybe a heretical one - but a rabbi never-the-less.
This cannot be ignored and this cannot be viewed through the modern day Christian lens.

~

I think some very common and fundamental terms need to be reviewed here.
The concept of "Holy", "Sin", "Sheol" (Hades?), Hell's prototype Gehenna, and even the afterlife to name a few.

"In the Hebrew Bible there is no eternal afterlife, only the survial of your name/culture/nephesh (meaning breath, life-force, spirit) through children. This is why we have the commandment to honor your mother and father; because by ignoring or forsaking them you effectively put a permanent end to their identity and heritage. Barrenness, the inability to conceive a child, meant a couple's total extinction, eradication from history." J. Snodgrass, "Genesis and the Rise of Civilization", pg. 135

The Old Testament held little to no concept of an Afterlife. Certainly nothing like modern day Christianity does.

It was an unclear, fuzzy idea at best. They held the idea of Sheol, an abode of the dead. Not a Hell of Eternal Conscious Torment, or even of suffering. Both the righteous and the morally corrupt went to Sheol. There was no moral judgement.
In fact, the concept of Sheol was very similar to the Greek concept of Hades. These were not Hell.
In Edward W. Fudge's "The Fire That Consumes", chapter 6, section "Sheol in the Old Testament" (pg. 81-82) we see this fleshed out in detail.

Even Hell's prototype, Gehenna, wasn't the Hell of Eternal Conscious Torment either.

"It is fair to say... Gehenna would convey a sense of total horror and disgust. Beyond that, however, one must speak with extreme caution.

"It is commonly said that Gehenna served as Jerusalem's garbage dump, "a necessary hygienic incinerator outside the walls"... Here the fires burned day and night, destroying garbage and purifying the atmosphere... In times of war the carcasses of vanquished enemies might mingle with the refuse... they were destined to be destroyed in the fires that were never quenched". Edward W. Fudge's "The Fire That Consumes", pg. 161-162

What we see is a reference to a very real geographical location anyone listening to the story would readily know of. No different to the local dump just outside my city. I know where it is. I know what it is. I could even go there and see it if I wanted to.
It was a parable and teaching tool that took on a life of its own and seems to have became something it was never intended to be.

Again, viewed through the lens and context of Old Testament Judaism, we do not find any sort of Hell of Fire and Brimstone and judgement.

...and what of the Holy and the Sinful?

"...we must be very cautious about assuming we know what "Sin" means in this context, or in any." J. Snodgrass, "Genesis and the Rise of Civilization", pg. 157

 Too often, we have been told/taught that Sin is somehow linked or associated with sex or desire or the like.

"The Sodom story is sometimes read as a "proof text" against homosexuality. But what these men are proposing is not consensual gay sex, it's gang-rape: forcefully and deliberately tearing away someone's dignity. Sex is not the crime they're punished for - the crime is abusing a guest

"The "sin" of Sodom is not sodomy, it's inhospitality." J. Snodgrass, "Genesis and the Rise of Civilization", pg. 158

But I think it's Marc Gafni who puts its clearest and best,

"In the original, "to sin" does not mean to be bad. It means literally to miss the mark... To sin is to miss the mark, to not properly understand the nature of reality. Sin is a form of ignorance, a false or partial relationship to reality." Marc Gafni, "Your Unique Self: The Radical Path to Personal Enlightenment", pg. 24-25

And this comes from somewhere and leads to something.

"We shape our God, and then our God shapes us... [if] that God is angry, demanding, a slave driver, and so that God's religion becomes a system of sin management" Rob Bell, "Love Wins" pg. 183

"Sin", from its original context, meant to miss the mark. Not to be morally corrupt or 'bad'.

It is interesting to note that what we today define as “holy” is absolutely not as the Hebrews defined it. The Hebrew word of holy is kaddosh, which does not mean a state of moral perfection nor has anything to do with morality. It means “otherness”, not natural, but supernatural, not of this world, but alien.
Not in the tribal sense of not of our tribe (an outsider), but something so unlike us as to be near incomprehensible.

When we see "Holy", "Sin", "Hell" through this lens, we seriously need to question what Jesus' teaching(s) were. Heaven, Hell, Salvation, all change meanings or become moot.

"Jesus is bigger than any one religion.

"He didn't come to start a new religion, and he continually disrupted whatever conventions or systems or establishments that existed in his day. He will always transcend whatever cages and labels are created to contain and name him, especially the one called "Christianity"

"Jesus is supracultural.He is present within all cultures and yet outside of all cultures.He is for all people,and yet he refuses to be con-opted or owned by any one culture.That includes any Christian culture. Any denomination. Any church. Any theological system." Rob Bell, "Love Wins", pg. 150-151

The symbolism - whether enacted by Jesus himself or whomever recorded/penned the story - of the tearing of the veil is, in all likelihood, the singular most important lesson in his entire teachings - maybe even superseding the crucifixion and resurrection.

What, I believe, we are seeing in his teaching, is, ultimately, the end of religion. All of religion.
But what does that mean, and what does that look like?
I think a good play to start is the following:

"Everyone agrees: we need to wake up... In what way are we asleep, and consequently, in what way do we need to wake up? Each stream of culture, including psychology, spirituality, evolutionary theory and more, answers this question differently... no major stream of knowing is smart enough to be entirely wrong...each claim... is true, but partial... The problem starts when a partial claim to truth claims to be the whole story. When parts pretend to be wholes... the result is cancer in the body or body politic." Marc Gafni, "Your Unique Self", pg. 44 

(This final pic is a link well worth following and checking out)

The Spiritual Sojourn of the Lay-monks

There would seem to be some sort of mass exodus from religious institutions going on. 

The decline is most prevalent in Europe, less so in Canada, and only beginning in America. 

It seems to be a sort of scale with those who identify with non-religion running parallel.

Europe - Canada - America.

High   -   Medium  -   Low.

And when we consider the rate of decay within the United States of America the direction of this would seem obvious. Formal organized religion is dying.

In Europe its churches are becoming more akin to museums.

In America they're being abandoned.

Many tote this as the success and rise of atheism, agnosticism, and secular humanism.

It almost reminds me of the spiritual equivalent of an Urban Wasteland.

Some would celebrate this as the death of God and spirit and the advent of a new age of scientism. But I think the 'religion' of scientism is dying as well. 

With the decline of official organized religious institutions some might even believe we are seeing the death of religion and spirituality itself.

...maybe...

I'm not so sure though. 

The death of official organized religion as an institution has little or nothing to do with spirituality.

Maybe when organized religion finally gives up the ghost, our innate Spirituality can be free to blossom without the inhibitions of the disease of Religiosity. 

No, not "New Age" hocus-pocus. No more Plastic Shamans, exploiting us for our money, their ego and power. I think we may be seeing the death of the business of religion.

I believe there are many spiritual sojourners out there. Urban lay-monks that are only beginning to navigate this spiritual urban wasteland left behind by Organized Religion.

They are not leaders of potential new religions.
They're non-centralized. Free. Reflective. Compassionate.
Conditional Grace is no grace at all.
There is no price-tag attached.
There are no conditions to be met.
Come as your are or fuck off.

Maybe - just maybe - we should begin keeping an eye open for them.

State of Emerge-ncy

I have long since stopped (or at least attempted to avoid) using certain terms. Postmodernism, postmodernity, pomo, Emergent, the Emergent Church, etc.

To me, I see religion in general as having entered a particular (and dangerous) stage. We no longer live in a world where the religionist can enjoy the luxury of isolation. Cultures have little choice but to meet one another and either embrace or clash. I see this spiritual conflicts as  "A State of Emerge-ncy" .

But I wonder if it could very well be some sort of veiled Discordianism. (Although I'm not sure using the word "veiled" is necessary or not. After all, how difficult is it to successfully identify a real Discordian?! Irreligious yet spiritual? And let's not forget, Atheism is itself a Belief-System too).

What I am really curious about, more specifically, isn't whether spiritual postmodernism is or isn't Discordian, but rather whether I am or am not. (Or whether you are or are not). I think I'd have to admit some of my methodologies are. But what's at the core beneath it?

And let's not allow subterfuge to misguide us here. I am not going in a direction that Discordianism is the blight of all things spiritual and, therefore, must absolutely be stopped.
No, not at all.

Could holding a belief in a "parody religion" - a deliberate mock or faux religion - be a postmodern approach to religion? More importantly, could this "joke methodology" exercise actually be part of a legitimate path to "enlightenment"?




(And on a completely aside note, I wonder if a parody could be our modern (Sorry! Our postmodern) equivalent to a parable?)