Amusing Ourselves to Death: The Degeneration of Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

There are some books which everyone ought to read and few people do. Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death is one of them. His analysis of the devastating effects of the entertainment age on the quality of public discourse offers uncommonly keen insights into the way thought and culture are shaped by technology, and the resulting trivialization of every aspect of society.

In an effort to make the essential concepts of this analysis accessible to people who quite understandably lack the time or the motivation to read the entire book, I have taken the liberty of condensing the main ideas of Postman’s book into a very brief summary, which I hope will at least be thought-provoking.

Of course, no abridgement can conceivably do justice to the original, especially an original of such rare caliber as this, and I naturally do this with some reluctance, part of which stems from the realization that I am not able to retain either the author’s original eloquence or the wealth of examples with which he demonstrates the legitimacy of his claims. But when you recommend books to people as often as I do, you realize that most of the time even the most sincere and glowing recommendations seldom arouse an interest strong enough to lead someone to read an entire book, and a synopsis of some kind is much more palatable.

All culture is a conversation. The transmission of ideas permeates every aspect of society, whether it is politics, religion, education or entertainment. What most people do not realize is that the form which public discourse takes is what regulates the content of that discourse. To some degree, the form actually dictates the content. The medium used to convey ideas provides a unique mode of communication and a unique orientation for thought and expression, and is highly influential in determining what kinds of ideas prevail. Technological developments inevitably alter the way ideas are communicated.

To illustrate how technology influences how people think, take the invention of the clock, which created a moment-to-moment metaphor in our minds, making us think of time as a series of independent, mathematically measurable sequences, dissociated from human events. The microscope, by revealing hitherto invisible biological structures, suggested the purely psychological possibility of a similar structuralizing of the mind. Enhanced medical technology improved health and simultaneously introduced the notion that the malfunctions of nature and the ravages of time are not final, that both the body and mind are artificially improvable.

For a given culture, truth is defined by and derived from the media of communication through which information is conveyed. When we understand media as epistemology, we see that a major medium shift changes the structure of discourse, encouraging certain uses of the intellect, favoring certain definitions of intelligence, and demanding certain kinds of content. Some mediums are more exclusive than others. Smoke signals, hieroglyphics and the spoken word do not have the ability to say the same kinds of things that a written alphabet does. The written word freezes speech and enables criticism and an entirely new conception of knowledge.

Of course, all medium shifts necessarily involve tradeoffs. When print-based epistemology replaces oral-based epistemology, things like modern science, modern prose, and individualism are made possible, but things like poetry, religious sensibility, and sense of community lose their significance. They continue to exist, but their value is seriously undermined and they become a residual epistemology.

The Age of Reason in America and Europe was also the Age of Exposition. America was founded as a typographic nation. One could almost say that it was founded on the printing press, which shaped the political ideas and social life of the country. Of course, today we have more printed material than early America ever did, but we also have other forms of communication which were lacking then: radio, telephone, television, photography, etc., which is why in early America the printed word wielded a monopoly that it does not wield today.

In a print-dominated culture, public discourse tends to be characterized by a coherent, systematic arrangement of facts and ideas, and the focus is on serious, logically ordered content and semantic meaning. The typographic mind is primarily rational. Engaging the written word and following a line of thought requires intellectual alertness, a strong attention span, and considerable powers of classifying, inference-making, and reasoning, as well as the ability to detect falsehoods, over-generalizations, contradictions and other abuses of logic. The written word is propositional and sequential and fosters an analytic management of knowledge.       

From colonial days onward, America boasted the highest literacy rates in the world. Literacy was not confined to the aristocracy. Not only books, but newspapers and pamphlets were widely popular, and the oratory of the nation, which was stately and impersonal, reflected its typographic nature. Sermons, lectures and political addresses were generally written speeches recited to an attentive and patient audience who had the ability to orally absorb complex arguments made by means of intricate, lengthy sentences. Oratorical charisma was designed to be easily transferable to the printed page. Because reading was not an elitist activity, and because the masses of the common people had access to the printed word and were capable of engaging in rational discussion, the emergence of a national public conversation was made possible.

The Age of Exposition is over. Today, our culture has abandoned typography for television, and simultaneously entered the Age of Show Business. We must realize that every technology has an inherent bias, and no technology is simply an extension of a previous technology. Television is not a new and improved version of the printing press; it is a totally different medium with a totally different message. To say that television is entertaining is an obvious and hardly threatening observation. But television is not merely entertaining. Television has made entertainment the natural format for the representation of all experience. Television doesn’t simply present entertaining subject matter; it presents all subject matter as entertaining. The distinction is subtle but essential. Entertainment has become the supra-ideology of all discourse on television. It gives us the impression that nothing is to be taken seriously and it produces a fragmented cultural conversation.

There are several reasons for this. For one thing, television is an image-based medium. It uses pictures, not words. Employing exquisite photography, accompanied with suitable music, it is aimed largely at emotional gratification and requires minimal skills to comprehend. With clips that average less than 3.5 seconds, the mind is never forced to concentrate or focus for long periods of time, but instead is trained to be passive and inattentive. Television inevitably implies a strict time constraint, and all material must be seriously abridged and summarized. Thus, television focuses only on the highlights, and there is no room for verification or extensive explanation. Details are overlooked. Doubt or uncertainty of any kind is impermissible. There is no time to pursue a particular line of thought, and no time for reflection. Sustained, complex discussion is simply not suited for television, which must compress the content of ideas in order to fit the requirements of visual interest. The show has to keep moving. It is all about performance. A televised ‘discussion’ is comprised chiefly of witty, one-line comebacks that give impressions, but have no depth. Television, by its very nature, cannot accommodate depth because it doesn’t have space for it. It orchestrates the transmission and exchange of images, not of ideas.

There is a vast difference between symbols that demand conceptualization and reflection and symbols that evoke feeling. Language is cognitive, appealing to the mind; images are affective, appealing to the emotions. Propositions are true or false. Pictures are not. You can like or dislike a commercial, but you cannot disagree with it, because it is not based on a propositional truth claim. Advertising is not a statement about the value of the product, but a pseudo-therapeutic drama focusing on the value of the consumer. Businesses focus on market research, not product research. Commercials do not convince, they entertain. Our thought processes are controlled by media that is image-centered rather than word-centered. These forms have no concrete message and do not say anything definite. Rather, they work by powerful implication to impose their special interpretation of reality on our minds. The philosophy television commercials expect us to accommodate can be summed up in the belief that all problems are solvable, and that they are solvable instantly, through the intervention of technology and technique.

Television is different from film, music and radio because it is the only technology that encompasses all forms of discourse, from sports and weather to scientific advances and government policy. The demands of good showmanship trump the demands of any particular discipline. Television dictates how the world is to be staged, and the metaphor persists even off screen, controlling the way that politics, religion, business, education and other essential social matters are conducted.

The shift in technology started with the world of news and reporting. Significant developments in this area began even before the advent of television, with the invention of the telegraph. Born out of the 19th century ambition to conquer space and make the world small by disassociating communication from transportation, the telegraph created a continental information grid that destroyed the prevailing definition of public discourse and introduced context-free information, the value of which was no longer based on its usefulness, but on its novelty, interest, or amusement, transforming news into a commodity. The new definition of ‘newsworthy’ that evolved from this alteration embraces irrelevance and amplifies impotence. The majority of the information the average person hears on the news is divorced from any possibility of meaningful action on the viewer’s part. Today, ‘watching the news’ is the act of listening to an anchor rattle off a series of disconnected and largely useless facts and events concerning people and places that mean nothing to the listener. News has become a show, revolving around all the essentials of a show – good actors, appropriate music, and sensational stories. It has turned into entertainment.

We see the political effects of this same phenomenon in the reduction of political campaigns to advertising that focuses not on a candidate’s carefully articulated sociological perspective on the world, supported by historical background, economic facts, and coherent arguments, but rather on an artificial projection of that candidate as a likeable, experienced, virtuous (and preferably good-looking) man or woman, who has easy, simple solutions to every problem. Politicians are no longer expected to be statesmen; they are expected to be celebrities, and they are assimilated into the general culture as such. This commercialized approach robs political discourse of authentic ideological content.

The trivialization of religion is perhaps even more blatant. When religion is translated from its traditional context into an entirely different medium, it is no longer the same thing. Television strips religion of everything that makes it a profound, historic, sacred activity; tradition, ritual, dogma, theology – it is all lost. A television show is not a frame for sacred events. There is no religious aura, no slice of enchanted space-time removed from the ordinary and profane world around us and transformed into an otherworldly reality. When religion is turned into televangelism and presented as entertainment, it is impossible for it to retain its essential focus and the door to idolatry is opened. Even if unwittingly, the preacher, with his indispensable charisma, inevitably takes center stage. Religion becomes a show. Furthermore, because people have no obligation to watch any particular television show, and will only watch a show if they want to, televised religion must offer people something they want. It must be something fun and emotionally satisfying. Thus, there is no room for complexity or stringent demands. But true religion has never offered people what they want; only what they need.

There are many more examples that could be made, but hopefully the ones included here are enough to convey an idea of the impact that a technology shift like the one our society has experienced, along with the resulting evolution of communication mediums, can have on a culture, as well as the potentially disastrous effects.

There is no reason to believe that medium shifts necessarily result in equilibrium. Some media are epistemologically superior to others, and typography is superior to television, for clear reasons. Of course, the shortcomings of television as a medium of communication do not lie in aesthetic considerations. There is no objection to the trivialities of television, as long as they are recognized as trivialities. It is when television becomes a medium for ideas which are allegedly ‘significant’, that it becomes dangerous. When television becomes the central agent of public discourse, the seriousness and clarity of that discourse is threatened and is in danger of degenerating into silliness and absurdity. When that happens, the culture loses its coherence and creates a generation of people who are so addicted to entertainment and so busy amusing themselves, that they are all but incapable of rational thought. And people who are incapable of rational thought are incredibly easy to control.

Cross-posted at The High Tide Journal 

 

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution

In Darwin’s Black Box, biochemist Michael Behe takes the theory of evolution to a molecular level, setting out to establish whether or not the origin of certain complex biochemical systems can be explained in terms of Darwinian evolution, natural selection, random variation, and gradualism. His findings are remarkable. Starting out with detailed examination of the functions of several different all-important biochemical systems, (including cilium, antibodies, the immune system, protein transport systems, and blood-clotting), Behe explains how every cellular process is initiated and controlled by highly sophisticated, finely calibrated molecular machines. He then goes on to demonstrate why the inherent complexity of many of these systems is indeed irreducible. Illustrated with brilliant analogies, his expositions are not only meticulously accurate, but also entertaining and readable.

An irreducibly complex system is one with no functional physical precursors. Irreducible complexity on a macroscopic scale has featured in many scientific discussions and many people are familiar with Darwin’s classic explanations of how complex structures such as the eye might have gradually evolved. But Darwin’s explanations are only addressed to a macro-level of anatomical steps and structures that Darwin believed were simple, but which we now know are not, thanks to improved technology. Our knowledge of the workings of microscopic biochemical systems is greatly increased, but the theory no longer matches the data, and no new explanations reconciling gradualism with molecular complexity are forthcoming. Instead, questions about molecular evolution are faced with a complete lack of relevant scientific literature on the topic and condescending silence on the part of the scientific community.

Maintaining scrupulous objectivity, Behe goes on to discuss the theory of intelligent design, which is based on the assumption that if a biological system was not produced gradually, it must have arisen as an integrated unit - it must have been designed. Analyzing the scientific community’s overwhelmingly negative reaction to a discovery that is as groundbreaking as the quantum revolution, it cannot be denied that the tension surrounding the theory of intelligent design has its roots in the supernatural ramifications of the theory. However, while historical antagonism between science and religion are regrettable, it must not be allowed to color our thinking and influence our willingness to follow the observational data wherever it leads. Science is a vigorous attempt to make true statements about the physical world, and a priori philosophical commitment puts artificial restrictions on legitimate scientific inquiry. Insisting that the behavior of the universe can be explained through purely material causes is scientific chauvinism. As Behe aptly states:

‘The philosophical commitment of some people to the principle that nothing beyond nature exists should not be allowed to interfere with a theory that flows naturally from observable scientific data. The rights of those people to avoid a supernatural conclusion should be scrupulously respected, but their aversion should not be determinative.’

Ultimately, no scientific theory can compel belief in a specific worldview, whether it is atheism, Christianity, or Buddhism, and there is no reason to be afraid that it will. We must give everyone broad latitude for their beliefs. People must be free to choose their own defining philosophical principles. But when Richard Dawkins insists that anyone who denies evolution is ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked, when John Maddox predicts that religion will soon have to be regarded as anti-science, when Daniel Dennett compares religious people to wild animals who may have to be caged, then we have reason to fear that aggressive intolerance will lead to coercion as people try to force their convictions on other people in the name of science.

When it comes to intelligent design, it is worth pointing out that the scientific community faced a very similar situation not too long ago. Until about eighty years ago, scientists believed in a stationary universe that was eternal and infinite. The idea of a finite universe that expands and had a beginning was extremely repulsive to many people, partly because it appeared to be friendly towards the Judeo-Christian creation account. Einstein hated the idea so much that he manipulated his equations in order to make them predict a stable universe. In the end, the observational data won out, and the Big Bang model succeeded. Today, intelligent design is in the same predicament. But as the weight of the scientific evidence shifts dramatically, we would do well to keep up with it. According to Behe:

‘A rigorous theory of intelligent design will be a useful tool for the advancement of science in an area that has been moribund for decades.’

Cross-posted at The High Tide Journal

The Everlasting Man: A Spiritual History of Mankind

‘There are two ways of getting home,’ Chesterton writes, ‘and one of them is to stay there. The other is to walk round the whole world till we come back to the same place.’ The Everlasting Man is for those of us who are having a hard time getting home by the first way. This refreshing and intensely unique work of Christian apologetics invites us to step back and make an imaginative effort to see the whole idea of Christianity from the outside.

The Everlasting Man is a brilliant annihilation of the clichéd assertion that Christ and his religion stand side by side with similar myths and religions, which Chesterton denounces as 'a very stale formula contradicted by a very striking fact.' It is the story of the spiritual journey of collective humanity.

In true Chestertonian style, there are sections that tend to be a little repetitive and wordy, but they are all so incredibly witty and entertaining that we forget to be exasperated. The author makes generalizations in order to emphasize his point, and probably oversimplifies some things, but his insight is remarkable. His reverent sincerity is not in the least compromised by his devastating sense of humor, and his knack for turning secular dogmas inside out and transforming them into solid arguments for the legitimacy of Christianity is astounding. By putting the Christian story into context, he endeavors to demonstrate that Christianity is a sensible, enlightened conclusion that has yet to be successfully contradicted.

The first chapter, which is really an attack on H.G. Wells’ Outline of History and focuses primarily on how man is fundamentally different from animals, is admittedly a little dated, and Chesterton’s speculations concerning prehistoric man show the influence of early 20^th century Darwinian thought. In the face of the intimidating ‘new science’ and the tremendous implications thereof, Chesterton felt the need to demonstrate that Evolution and Christianity were by no means mutually exclusive, and show how the secular Evolutionist's sociological explanations of man's religious development have no basis in fact.

Moving on, Chesterton provides an in-depth analysis of paganism, which is inestimably beneficial for anyone who is hopelessly confused as to why there are so many religions, and how to make any sense of the confused and chaotic history of mankind. He distinguishes the several universal elements of human religion, and explains the historical, mythological, and philosophical roots of Christianity and religion in general, highlighting the legitimate role of each and contrasting the Western and Eastern mindsets. He calls to our attention a certain awareness of God which manifested itself from the beginning of civilization in every mythology, in every culture.

Getting deeper into the ancient tangled tree of mythology, the book makes a crucial distinction between mythology and the two darker branches - demonism and eroticism - that grew up alongside it, complicating the scene. Eventually, the development of demonism led to a major conflict that culminated in the epic power struggle between Rome, which represented the best of paganism – honor, virtue, justice, structure, and an ethical concept of man and society – and Carthage, which represented the very worst – a demon-infested, devil-worshipping inhumanity. (I guarantee you will never look at the Punic wars the same way!) In the end, a Roman victory was what preserved a state of civilization capable of receiving the ultimate divine revelation – the Messiah incarnated.

The second half of the book is about the coming of Christ Himself, the escape from Paganism, and the growth and role of the Church. It explains Christianity’s relation to comparative religion, contrasting it with Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism and Hinduism, showing how all other belief systems overlap, and how Christianity is fundamentally different from every other creed and is the ultimate consummation of all genuine religion, transcending all others.

Chesterton also talks about the ‘melting pot’ movement that came to ascendance during the decline of Rome, blurring the lines of cultures and religions, and wantonly mixing gods and traditions from every corner of the globe. For awhile it threatened the newborn Church with extinction, not by extermination but by absorption and compromise, seeking to undermine the concept of a single almighty Deity, a concept that had been rigorously preserved for thousands of years through Judaism, which was the only creed with a god who was ‘narrow enough to be universal.’

In the end, the Christian story was what fulfilled all the mythologies. The Christian story was what broke the philosophers’ static and circular infinity and produced a philosophy that could move forward. The Christian story is the greatest story because it is true. The real purpose of The Everlasting Man is to retell that story in a new and revelatory way by putting it into context.

[Cross-posted at The High Tide Journal.]

Arguing About Slavery

As appropriate as the title is, William Miller’s landmark book is not really about arguing about slavery. It is about the fight for the right to argue about slavery in the first place – a subtle, but significant distinction. Miller takes us back to the pre-Civil War America of the 1830’s and 40’s, an America where any discussion of the issue of slavery at all was taboo. Arguing About Slavery is a compelling account of a fascinating and all but forgotten episode in the history of the greatest humanitarian victory of the age. The Civil War itself has a habit of eclipsing everything else around it. But the fact is that battle over slavery didn’t start with Sumter or the Confederate Secession. It started twenty-five years before Lincoln’s inauguration, on the floor of Congress.

The country was divided on many things, but slavery was not one of them. The North vs. South mentality, as it then existed, was based almost entirely on industrial threats to agriculture and the economic and social implications of this tension. The institution of slavery was practically embalmed in the Constitution itself; it had been the great compromise of the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. Now it was a part of America and the greatest contradiction of its time went virtually unquestioned by the republic that led Europe to liberty. Even the Northern states that had abolished slavery within their borders, ignored it elsewhere. It was an embarrassing reality that was best not brought up, because nothing could possibly be done about it. In 1830 Abolitionism was a pathetic minority movement that tried to survive in Maine and a few other northeastern states, and was resented and considered radical even by the North. The violent anti-abolitionist reaction to the formation of the American Anti-Slavery society reflected public opinion. It was not encouraging.

But, as is always the case in a good story, there were a few brave people who stood up to the tyranny, people who not only saw the evil of slavery as a crying shame, but had the foresight to realize that it must either be abolished or drag America down into moral and eventually social collapse. Enter John Quincy Adams, cast as the indomitable hero. After a long, productive life of celebrated public service, Adams, nicknamed ‘Old Man Eloquent’ returned to the House of Representatives at age sixty-three, to fight his final political battle.

Using the original transcripts of the Congressional proceedings, Miller tells how the change that started in the House of Representatives infected the rest of the country, and brought about a 180-degree transformation that was nothing short of miraculous. Full of wit and color, the story is told with lively characterization, wry humor that borders on comic relief, and plenty of historical context that makes the era come alive. In addition, we learn a great deal about the practical side of how Congress actually works, about rules and technicalities that are constantly being manipulated to serve a particular purpose.

The book doesn’t get to the Emancipation Proclamation or the Thirteenth Amendment. It ends with the overturning of the infamous gag-rule which had officially prevented discussion of slavery in Congress for years. It was the end of a long, tedious battle against the suppression of free speech and the right to question the moral justification of an accepted conventionality – the right to argue. It was the beginning of a much larger battle that would ultimately decide not only a massively important moral question, but also the destiny of millions of desperate human beings. But that battle could never have been fought if it weren’t for the movement that started in Congress with a few courageous men arguing about slavery.

[Cross-posted at The High Tide Journal.]

The Law - Part One

In 1850 a French liberal theorist by the name of Frederic Bastiat wrote a short book called The Law. It is an extraordinarily unique work - certainly not your typical revolutionary doctrine - and it provides a simple, concise sketch of some fundamental principles of government.

Reading it inspired me to put together a very brief compilation of what I have come to believe are some of the most important ideas about government.

History has painstakingly taught us that government in general is a necessary evil. There is no perfect government. Men are corrupt. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t need laws. But in the fallen state of mankind, enforced laws are necessary. There are some forms of government that are better than others, and it is worthwhile to figure out what those are. Most people think that the American republic is the best example so far of a national government. That is probably true. But, apart from being universally misunderstood, this monster which used to be called a republic is far from flawless and is screeching towards collapse at roller-coaster speed. Not quite an ideal. I think it would have worked out better and lasted longer if America’s Founders had incorporated some of these principles into the fabric of the government.

First off, to get at the root of the problem, we need to define ‘government.’ The words law and government have been used interchangeably, which is alright, but keep in mind that law is the practical application of moral principles and government is a social force. By its very nature, government is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us have a natural, God-given right to defend - even by force - our person, liberty, and property. Those rights do not exist because men have made laws, but on the contrary, they are what have caused men to make laws. Therefore it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force for the constant, collective protection of these individual rights. This government does not intervene in private affairs, and its only duty is to protect men from each other, for the common safety of all. Man must accept the privileges and the responsibilities of his existence, having no argument with the government, and having no reason to blame or thank the government for anything.

The nature of law is to maintain justice, and no society can exist without respected laws to a degree. Law must not contradict morality. It is founded on morality. The myth that ‘we cannot legislate morality’ is false. What else can we legislate? For example, the reason we have traffic laws is so that accidents will not occur, because vehicular manslaughter is murder and murder is wrong.

As seen throughout the entire history of the world, mankind has a fatal tendency towards satisfying his needs and desires with the least possible pain or labor. This is the origin of plundering the products of the labor of others. The only thing that will keep man from plunder is when it becomes more painful than labor. The purpose of the government is to use the collective force to punish plunder and protect property.

Unfortunately, in practice, the government does not confine itself to its proper function. In fact, it often acts in direct opposition to its own purpose, annihilating the justice it is supposed to maintain, destroying the rights it is meant to respect. It has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous, who aim to exploit others. The imaginary ‘rights’ of the government is one of the biggest lies in the history of the world. If an individual cannot lawfully encroach upon the person, liberty or property of another individual, than neither can the government. This point cannot be overstressed. What right to authority or dominance do men collectively wield that they do not wield individually?

The government cannot operate without a dominating force; this force must be entrusted to one man or one class of men, who will nearly always try to use it to benefit themselves. Thus it is easy to understand how law is exploited and corrupted and morphs into a weapon of injustice. The few practice ‘legal’ plunder upon the many, until the victims of this plunder recognize their state, and according to their degree of enlightenment, seek either to bring an end to it, or to join it. When the latter attitude prevails and the masses rise up and seize the power of government themselves, chaos generally ensues, followed by universal injustice and a battle of classes.

To be continued shortly.

Read 'The Law' online.

The God Who Is There – The Shift to Post-Modernism

Earlier this year I read a fascinating book called The God Who Is There by Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer combines philosophy and theology in order to give a historical explanation of how we got where we are. Here is a very condensed summary of Schaeffer’s point.

Man has always been looking for a universal. The whole tragic history of mankind is based on man trying to find a universal outside of Christianity, with which to explain the world and give meaning to life. The unifying factor of non-Christians is rationalism. Until the 20th century men were rational optimists, working from their finite selves in hopes of finding a way to make sense of the Universe. They were humanists. They were able to do this because they were, without realizing it, working with the Christian presupposition of absolutes and anti-thesis, which they had no logical right to do, because without Christianity there can be no absolutes.

But with the arrival of the twentieth century a shift in non-Christian thinking began to take place. Exactly when it all started cannot be pinned down, but as a general rule, it was the year 1890 in Europe, and 1935 in America. The shift spread gradually, in three different ways. First, it spread geographically, beginning in Germany, spreading across the Continent, crossing the Channel to England, and then crossing the Atlantic to America. Second, it spread through society, working its way downward from the educated upper classes to the lower working classes. Third, it spread from one area of thought to another, beginning with philosophy, then art, music, general culture and theology.

It all started with philosophy. Men began to realize the contradiction of supporting rationalism with absolutes and they tried to do away with absolutes all together. Philosophers Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Satre, Jasper, and Hegel began it. They were no longer rational optimists. They reached what Schaeffer calls, ‘the line of despair,’ and they went beyond it. They gave up hope of trying to find a rational universal that would contain all thought. Logic had failed to come up with a meaning for life, so they forsook reason and tried to find something, anything that would give life meaning. Thus Nihilism came into being. Nihilism, the belief that everything is chaotic and meaningless, is the simplest form of despair. But in the struggle to get out of despair, and find an answer to nihilism, one is led even deeper into it. The next level of despair is the acceptance of a blind optimistic hope of meaning, based on a non-rational ‘leap of faith.’

The ensuing dichotomy is that the rational and logical, result in lack of purpose and meaning, and the non-rational and non-logical result in some kind of an incommunicable, unexplainable, unaccountable existentialist ‘experience’ that can give meaning to life. This ‘experience’ is usually achieved by means of drugs and other forms of Eastern mysticism. But they could not reconcile the rational with the non-rational so they gave up the traditional idea of thesis and antithesis and replaced it with the concept of synthesis – the combination of partial truths to obtain a higher truth. But men cannot live with the conclusions of this system. In practice, one simply cannot entirely reject the methodology of antithesis, without a total alienation of man from himself, by some form of mental breakdown.

The result of inability to actually practice the conclusions of either of these worldviews, has led modern thought to the third level of despair, a level of mysticism, of ultimate Nothing. The artists followed step soon afterward. The pillars of modern art - Picasso, Gauguin, Cezanne, Van Gogh. They introduced impressionism. They tried to abandon the particulars, and instead strove to capture the universal on canvas. Their pictures and the tragic stories of their lives reflect their failure. Then Duchamp and others introduced the element of chance into Art. It lost all its meaning. Pierre Schaeffer did the same thing with Music, producing senseless cacophony that reflected the message of Modern man. There is no meaning. When it comes to the fourth category, the general culture, we find pop music that combines the concept of drug use, the psychedelic, and vague pantheism, heavily reflecting the decline of humanity. In the cinema, Nihilistic and Existentialistic films follow suit.

Karl Barth and the liberal German theologians opened the door of theology to the new mentality. In order to reconcile Reformation Christianity to the post modernist philosophy, they tried to do away with all the supernatural elements of Jesus, and recover the ‘historical Jesus.’ But they failed dreadfully. They discovered that if you remove the supernatural that is so intricately intertwined with the ‘historical,’ then there is no Jesus left. Then they could have either gone back to the original Reformation theology or gone ahead to nihilism. But they did neither. They created a new theology, a neo-orthodoxy, a religious existentialism that no longer held all the answers, and was in fact, an anti-theology.

Neo-orthodoxy seems to have an advantage over secular existentialism, in that it can use certain religious terms to provide an illusion of communication of the incommunicable ‘final experience,’ whereas secular existentialism cannot. Every word has two parts - the dictionary definition and the connotation. The new theology therefore uses words, such as ‘pantheism’ that can have no actual relation to the subject, but their connotation makes the hearer thinks that he knows what is meant. The secret to the strength of neo-orthodoxy is that it uses symbols, such as ‘god’ with a connotation of personality that provide an illusion of meaning. Its philosophy is ‘Do not ask, just believe.’ Men fall for this because it sounds spiritual and vibrant, and because they want a ‘greater reality’ and are sick of cliched religious phrases and forms. They do not realize the danger of using undefined words. They are taking a leap of faith into an irrational, semantic mysticism.

All these factors have worked together to make this monster called Post-Modernism. Humanity has stepped off the cliff, and fallen into madness. Today, every non-Christian is somewhere on a line between two points. On the one hand is the external reality about man, God, and the Universe. On the other hand is the logical conclusion of his false presuppositions, which are not compatible with reality. He is torn between these two consistencies. In order to rescue him from this dilemma, one must identify a man’s presuppositions, find the point of tension he is currently at, and then lead him farther and farther away from reality, to the logical conclusion of those presuppositions, until he recognizes the contradiction and realizes that his worldview simply doesn’t work. Then and only then can we bring in the solution, the thing that does work, God’s answer to man’s dilemma.

Book Reviews

These are some of the books I have recently finished, with some brief thoughts concerning each.

An Essay on Man by Alexander Pope = B
Four epistles, written in verse, and each covering one aspect of the nature of man. Namely, the nature of man in relation to the universe, in relation to himself, in relation to society, and in relation to happiness. The ideas and topics presented are generally profoundly obvious, though the poetic way in which they are written can make them difficult to follow in some places. The book certainly has a beautiful way of putting truths, and there are places where the meaning is involved and even controversial.

Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift = C
Must be appreciated for its inventiveness and originality, but is ultimately depressing and despairing. Extremely unrealistic, not only in the fictitious creations that populate Swift’s imaginary lands, but also in the actions of the characters and in the way events fall out. The protagonist is despicable and the book is filled with unnecessary vulgarity. The final conclusion is that man is entirely evil and irredeemable.

A Tale of A Tub by Jonathan Swift = C
Clever, but rather dull and difficult to follow. Written for a specific age and people, and was significant in its time, but is no longer very relevant.

The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis = A
Furnishes invaluable insights into the tactics of the Enemy, heightens spiritual discernment and awareness and provides the knowledge and means to apply the principles of spiritual warfare.

Are you Liberal, Conservative, or Confused? By Richard Maybury = A
Most enlightening book. Explains the state of politics and how they got that way, explains the real meanings of political labels. I must disagree with a few fundamental elements of the author’s worldview, but must also admit that it is infinitely better than the norm.

Founding Father by Brookhiser = B
Colorful biography of George Washington. Accurate, detailed and fairly unbiased, as far as I can tell. Was not organized very well.

Ethics of the Dust by Ruskin = B
A rather stilted account of the origins of crystals and minerals that seemed forcibly translated into dialogue and did not hang together very well. Fraught with plenty of moralizing, dull and obvious in some places but valuable and profound in others. Quite impressive for its day.

Macbeth by William Shakespeare = A
Rivaled by Hamlet only, Macbeth is about as good as Shakespeare gets.

Till We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis = A
A wonderful reworking of the myth of Psyche and Cupid, with deep spiritual insights.

The Time Machine by H.G. Wells = B
Very possibly the first of its kind, the Time Machine is an excellent combination of science fiction and romance that influenced many later writers. Story-line and climax well done. Weak in scientific/technical details and in original descriptions of the future.

Manalive by G.K. Chesterton = A
A fascinating, abnormal story that is not what it appears to be. It intriguingly combines crime and romance and leaves one inspired and satisfied. Excellent writing.

Yours, Jack by C.S. Lewis = A
A complete collection of Lewis’ letters to numerous correspondences. Reveals details about Lewis’ personal life, his worldview, his steadfast faith and his reasons for it, and provides encouragement and inspiration to the individual reader.

The Dark Tower by C.S. Lewis = B
An unfinished story that deals with time travel, alternate realities, and higher dimensions. What would have been an improvement on Well’s Time Machine, if it had ever been completed. Also includes a valuable collection of other short stories Lewis never published.

Eragon by Christopher Paolini = B
I wanted to find out what all the hullabaloo was about this. It was an enjoyable read, with an intriguing story-line and a colorful cast. Much too obvious in its emulation of Star Wars ideology and Lord of the Rings imagery. I fundamentally disagree with New Age philosophy that Paolini promotes in this book.

Black by Ted Dekker = B +
Switching back and forth between alternate realities - the modern action-packed thriller and ancient mythological fantasy, Black is a classic story of the struggle between good and evil, of a mission to save the world. Emotional and involving with a marvelous reworking of the Fall. Weak writing and poor character development in some cases. Right on the line between A and B.

Charles the First - A Character Sketch

I have spent a lot of time studying the English Civil Wars this past year, and I find them very interesting. As the instigator of the Civil Wars, Charles I provides intriguing discussion matter.

Responsible for one of the bloodiest periods in English history, and the first King in the history of England to be tried and executed by a court of law, Charles I deserves some examination. He was a devout man, by all appearances, and constantly assured himself and his followers that their side was the right and just one. It seemed that he was very convinced in the belief that his cause was right, but it is difficult to think that anyone could honestly believe the Royal Prerogative was worth dividing England in civil war over. Yet this he was willing to do.

Later on, when the war was well under way, he championed, in the eyes of the world, the finest elements of chivalrous Old England, the ancient tradition of the monarchy, and a large percentage of the nation - all these things gathered to make a noble stand against the rebellious, divided, greedy and unstable Parliament, Cromwell’s Ironside Army, and the threat of foreign invasion by the Scottish army. Then the conflict over Royal Prerogative was brushed aside, the original ideas of Pym were all but forgotten, and the King’s cause was for awhile seen as good and just by many - then even he may have been able to see it as simply crushing a rebellion, defending God’s chosen, the sovereign King.

But that was not how it started, and he, of all people, must have known it. Going back to the root of the matter, it was not so. Because the things the Parliament originally fought for were worthy things - the right of the freeman to be fairly tried in a court of law, the right of appeal, the freeman’s rights to his property, laws against arbitrary taxes levied by the King without the consent of Parliament, laws to avert the threat of Popery, prevention of absolute monarchical power, opposition to the Personal Rule. There is not a wide selection of explanations to justify the King’s hostility towards such rational and necessary reformation.

The conclusion we must draw is obvious. Charles wanted absolute power. He did not want to be governed or counseled. He had no justifiable reason to spill the blood of his own people, fighting for or against him in the unnecessary bloodshed that ravaged England for several years. He was a dictator. Not the first in the history of the world, nor in the history of England, but the bare facts are that his cause was not just in any sense of the word, and while we cannot know whether or not he believed it to be, we can make a reasonable guess.

Not that the King’s selfish intentions excuse the monstrous behavior of Cromwell and his henchmen. It is still quite impossible to choose sides. By the end of it, the war had become nothing more than a power struggle between two dictators - the only notable difference is that one of them had at least a hereditary right to the throne and the other did not. The original conflict was almost completely abandoned. But even during the dark hours of Cromwell’s reign, (in which we see that his means of governing the country were no different than his predecessor’s) hope is in sight. The Restoration of what the nation liked to think of as the Old Kingship, but what was really the New Monarchy, brought about the fulfillment of the original purpose of the Opposition.

A Journey Into Prydain- Part Two

A Journey into Prydain
Part Two

(Go here if you haven't read the first installment of this review)

So much for the history behind The Prydain Chronicles. But there is another issue, however sensitive, that I feel the need to cover. What about the magic in these books? Magic is a very delicate subject. If you look at the Old Testament you will notice that seers, prophets, diviners, angels, evil spirits and supernatural miracles are all there. They are there because they actually existed- and still do today. And it sure makes for an exciting read. Now, are they all wrong? Of course not. For example, certain men, prophets and angels had supernatural power or shall we say 'magic' bestowed upon them from God, himself. However, God forbade anyone to seek power from a source other than Himself. Certain witches and false prophets in Biblical times received their power from another source and they were condemned by God. Remember, ALL power originated from God, even the Enemy used to be on God's side, was created by God as one of his glorious angels, AND RECEIVED HIS POWER FROM GOD. But overcome with pride, wanted more glory and so rebelled against God, using this power for evil purposes. But God will not allow his glory to be stolen without consequence. This, I believe is why 'magic' or power from any secondary source besides God is not good.

By the way, a major theme in The Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of the Rings is the RECLAIMING of this God-given power that the enemy has stolen and perverted. (That is why the mythological creatures are submitted to Aslan, the Christ figure.) I don't believe these works are flawless, but they are definitely worthy reads. It saddens me that some people see anything magic in stories and immediately condemn them without carefully studying God's Word and 'rightly dividing the truth.' I am sad for them because they miss out on the power of Story. God has given us Story to help us see the invisible and inspire us in the great battle between good and evil that is still going on today. I draw much of my inspiration to fight for truth by reading about the flawed characters of the Bible as well as characters from legend and history.

If you have read The Prydain Chronicles, you will understand that the story's theme is the classic Good vs. Evil and for that reason appeals to all kinds of writers. But the question is this? Did Lloyd Alexander's characters receive their power from the Source of all good or from elsewhere?

Even though he kept a defined sense of light and darkness, the source of 'power' or 'magic' was not always clearly defined in his stories. For example, there are three enchantresses (who I mentioned above as the Three Norns) who are not depicted as evil. They are not depicted as good either. A quote from The Black Cauldron:

"You still don't understand, do you? We aren't evil!"

"I should hardly call this good."

"Of course not. We're neither good nor evil. We're simply interested in things as they are."

Often, in ancient mythology, characters were 'neutral' and it is obvious Mr. Lloyd did the same in writing his stories. But we know from the Scriptures that there is no such thing as neutrality. We are either on the side of Good or Evil. So I think that this passage can be very confusing, even dangerous, especially for young readers. I think there are also a few other places where he stepped over the line.

But just because we disagree with a certain aspect of a book does not always mean that we have to condemn the whole book, but if such errors are prevalent, our conscience often lets us know that certain books just don't honor God - they honor another source and are not worthy of our time. (That is one of the reasons why I don't care for the Harry Potter Books.)

I have mentioned some faults of The Prydain Chronicles, but it does have a lot of good messages about courage, failure and sacrifice, all of which were very cleverly woven into the story. Even though the plot sounds very intense and serious - that is what I expected before I read the story - it is nothing of the kind. It is very humorous, maybe a little too much, but still very inspiring, very tender at times and sometimes made me cry. A good book always makes you laugh and cry before you are finished with it.

Although I can't say these books are superb literature, they are very good and I think a careful reader grounded in the truth, can enjoy these books as light reading.

Raora

Hereward the Wake - An Epic Journey to the Furthest Heights of Glory and the Utmost Depths of Anguish

At first glance, Kingsley's 'Hereward the Wake' is a rather ominous book. It has small print, old language that is now out of use, and a dismal introduction and preface. When I first began to read it, I made the mistake of tackling the preface. I read about three or four pages, put the book back on the shelf, and didn’t open it again for several months. When I finished Scott's 'Talisman,' (an absolutely wonderful book that everyone should read,) I picked Hereward The Wake up one more time, and decided to see if it would redeem itself in the first chapter. After the first chapter, I was hooked. It was absolutely thrilling and it improved with each subsequent chapter. It left Talisman and Ivanhoe far behind. I did not touch another book until I finished it, two days ago. You could almost hear the wild northern wind and the wilder northern sea singing through the pages. It has all the spirit of a Viking saga, and it is not far different.

The story is a true one, the outline of which Kingsley said that he took from the bishop Leofric's biography of Hereward's life. But Hereward the Wake is not a biography. True, it is history, not fiction, for the most part but it is also a story, a real story, with everything that a real story should have.

I will give an outline of it here, and then give my own thoughts on it afterward. The story is set in England, towards the close of Edward the Confessor's reign. Hereward Leofricsson, commonly called The Wake, is the son of Leofric (Not the bishop who wrote the biography of the Wake), a noble of Edward the Confessor's court and the ever-famous Godiva. He is a bold, daring youth, with the hot blood of all his Danish forefathers, and he lives with his mother in a town called Bourne, where his father is the holder. Early in his youth he is made an outlaw as a result of his unruly behavior toward the Church. I will not go into to whether or not I think he deserved such a fate - the details are too many to put down here, and if one reads the book they should be quite able to decide for themselves. He runs away north, to Crowland, fights for awhile under Gilbert of Ghent, in whose service he slays the Great White Bear, only a few of which were left in the world even in his time. Then he decides to be a Viking, and goes further north, from one wild island to the next, and gets into - and sometimes out of - all kinds of thrilling adventures. This may have been my favorite part of the book. He ends up in Flanders and there he falls in love with a wise and beautiful woman, Torfrida. She was interested, as was common in her day, in some fanciful ideas of magic - love potions etc. and that fact, called by some, and perhaps rightly so, as witchcraft, may prove to be an objection to some readers. But I can say that, while witchcraft is always wrong, it was only a passing fancy that she repented of soon after.

And then comes an end to his wild Viking dreams. News comes from England - Harold Hardraade, the hero of the Vikings, has been killed by Harold Godwinsson, who, in turn, has been killed by William the Mamzer. The Normans are conquering the land, slaughtering the chiefs, enslaving the people. After a difficult period of indecision, he decides to come back to the 'real world' and join the resistance against the Norman tyrant. His chief hope is that the Danes will come join him and place Sweyn, the only rightful heir, upon the throne. He and Torfrida embark on a long journey of danger, anguish, despair and heartbreak. As the situation grew more and more tense, I felt sure that Hereward and the last of his brave companions would die at Aldreth, fighting for England to the end. When I finally did come to the end I was shocked. I cried for the rest of the book, and I was tempted not to finish it. But I did, and I am glad that I did, though history is not always what we would like it to be. I will not tell you what did happen, but I will tell you that The Wake's death was far from satisfactory. Even so, as the merciless truth of history, it was not a complete failure - it had a memory of past glory, a shadow of what had once been and was no more, like the 'last echo born of a great cry.'

Beowulf

‘Beowulf’ is my favorite book this term. I read the original old-English poem, translated by Frederick Rebsamen, and I loved it. It definitely has its place among my favorites, and I highly recommend it.

The setting of the poem is up in the northern countries of Denmark, Sweden and Götland around the fifth or sixth century AD, and the hero of the poem is a Geatish warrior-lord – Beowulf. The author of the poem is unknown, but it is believed that he lived around 1000 AD. Probably the most well known event in the story is Beowulf’s arm wrestle with the monster Grendel who has attacked the Danes, and then his underwater fight with Grendel’s revengeful mother, the water-witch.

Later on in the story, Beowulf encounters a fire-dragon. (Now, listen carefully, does this sound a bit like the Hobbit or what? I always wondered where Tolkien got his ideas…)
Many years ago, this dragon stole a vast treasure-hoard from some Danish king or other who does not enter the story. He has never been a concern until an escaped slave stumbles upon the treasure while the dragon is sleeping and steals a golden cup in order to purchase his freedom. When the dragon realizes the loss, he ravages the entire countryside in revenge. The news is carried to Beowulf, who sets out to defeat the monster and bring peace to the land. The dragon is killed, and so is Beowulf. This last fight is so well-written and moving that I memorized it. You can read it below.

Interestingly, the poem has some Christian elements in it. God is mentioned thirty two times as ‘God,’ and over sixty times using another name – Shaper, Wielder, Glory-King, Measurer, Father, Deemer, etc. Throughout the story, it is shown how Beowulf, the magnanimous hero, trusts entirely on his own strength and courage, (see line 12) and in the end, it fails him. I thought that was very interesting.

The poem does not rhyme, because poems in the time that it was written used alliteration rather than rhyme. For example, (line 55) Flushed with fire fury to flash away the life. The alliteration gives the poem spirit and rhythm.

Today there are many versions of it in poetry and prose, and I have not read them all, but I think Rebsamen did a wonderful job in preserving the Germanic poetry in the translation. I also liked how Rebsamen created lots of compound words to capture the feel of the original language.

Here is the scene of the last fight between Beowulf and the dragon.

Notes: Wyrd is an old Germanic word for fate or destiny.
Naegling is Beowulf’s sword.

*See if you can find the alliteration and the compound words that the author has created.

“Wyrd will decide the way of this meeting
And man’s Measurer. My mind is strong
No more will I boast of monster in the past
Wait here in these woods in your webbed corselets
With shields and spears to see which of us
Will manage to survive vicious war wounds
Or kneel here to death. If luck moves with me
I will gather this gold, or give my life here
If cold death-bale carries me away.”
Beowulf rose then, with his round iron shield
War-helmet gleaming went with his years
Under the stone-cliff – in his strength he trusted
One against all, no way for a coward.
His tread was still young after years of war-clash
At borders of his land when boar-banners rushed
To the sounding of horns. He saw by the cliff-wall
A stone-barrow standing, a stream broke from it
Burst from the wall, bright with fire-flash
Blistering the sand - he could step no closer
Unburned by that breath nor bear that dragon-heat
Standing so close as his shield grew hotter.
Then from his breast, bolstered with anger
The lord of the Geats loosened a word-blast
Stormed stout-hearted - under steep gray-stone
His battle-stout voice boomed to the mound.
Hate was awakened the hoard-guardian knew
The sound of that leader – there was little time then
To settle for peace. From the stone-treasure cave
Burning breath-flame burst in a flash
Old anger-fire – the earth trembled.
The strong hall-king hefted his shield then
Sought some relief from that singeing blast
That ringed serpent was ready for combat
Greedy for revenge. The good warrior-king
Unsheathed his sword then, swift in its edges
Old treasure-blade. Each of those fighters
Warrior and monster was wary of the other.
Beowulf stood still with his steep iron shield
Death faced with death as the dragon coiled then
Swelling with fury simmering with rage.

Then Beowulf’s companion Wiglaf enters the scene:

He stepped through that hell-reek, hoisted his weapon
Brought help to his kinsmen, kindled him with words.
“Beloved Beowulf, bear up your heart
You said in your youth of glory in yore-days
That you never would allow while life held to you
The lowering of your name. Now known through the earth
Great-hearted Beowulf bear up your mind-strength
To finish this dragon – I will fight beside you.”
After those help-words the hell-serpent came
Raging gold-miser glaring with death eyes
Flushed with fire fury to flash away the life
Of that hateful challenger. Hard flame launching
Shriveled the shield-wood seared through mail-coats
Now helpless to bear that hot serpent breath.
The young hall-thane hid beside his lord
Held to the iron round hoping for relief
From those awesome flames-spears. The old battle-king
Remembered his glory-name mightily struck then
With his sharp blade-edge born so strongly
That is stuck in that neck. Naegling burst then
Broke upon that bone Beowulf’s trophy sword
Old and battle hard that best of honor-blades
Failed him at need. The finest of smith-steel
Could give him no help. His hand was too strong
Over-swung each sword as stories have told me
Struck too forcefully when he stepped to battle
Wonder-hard weapons did not work for him.
For the third time then, twisting in hate-coils
That monstrous fire-dragon mindful of his feud
Struck past that shield went straight to Beowulf
Bit round his neck. Beowulf stopped then
His life-force draining, in dark blood welling.
Then, as I heard, that hall-king’s champion
Young kin-warrior came to that monster
With craft and weapon-skill as his king had taught him
He ducked past that head, hot flame belching
Burned his hand then as he buried his sword,
Burnished treasure-blade in that black snake belly.
Then that great fire-breath grew feebler at last
That blistering blast bellowed more softly
As the blade took hold. Then Beowulf rose
Gathered his mind-thoughts, grasped his short-sword
Bitter and battle-sharp broad steel edges –
The Geat-lord struck severed the ringbones
They felled that fiend, found his life-core
Cut him to hell-death kinsmen together
King and his soldier so should a man
Be a thane with his lord. The leader of the Geats
Fought his last blood-fight the bourne of his deeds
Daytimes of this world.

The Brendan Voyage

Right now I am reading a book called The Brendan Voyage by Tim Severin. It is a very interesting book.

In the Medieval Ages, there was an Irish monk called St. Brendan, who supposedly crossed the Atlantic, all the way from Ireland to America, in order to bring the gospel message to the people there. Until 1976, hundreds of years later, most people considered the story a superstitious legend, on the grounds that in St. Brendan’s day, boats capable of performing the feat did not exist. But in 1976 Tim Severin, a man who believed that the story was more than a legend, set sail to prove its feasibility.

The Brendan Voyage, written by the same man, is a true account of his journey from Ireland to America. It’s amazing. Severin has a description of the boat that St. Brendan supposedly used, a map of the route taken, and a record of the adventures that the monk and his fellow preachers had on their journey. From this account, he creates the boat and prepares to sail across the Atlantic.

There’s one drawback, however. The boat in Brendan’s description, as well all traditional Irish boats, is an ancient Irish curragh made of leather ox hides. Everyone is positive that a leather boat will perish on the Atlantic – everyone except Severin. He completes the leather boat ands sets sail.

He is taking the prescribed route, following that of St. Brendan before him, from Ireland, up past Scotland, to the Hebrides, up to the Faroes, on to Iceland, from there to Greenland, and then to his destination, Newfoundland, off the coast of Canada. Rough seas and dangerous winds confront him everywhere in the wild northern waters. The idea is terribly risky. But in the end, he succeeds and proves the Legend of the Brendan Voyage.

I have not finished the entire book yet, but so far, it is great. The story itself is incredible. And the author has a knack for keeping the entire account interesting. It also has neat photographs of the different stages of the journey. I certainly recommend it.