(Ir)religiosity

Reading through Jean-François Lyotard’s The Postmodern Condition yesterday I was immediately struck by this quote.

The relationship of the suppliers and users of knowledge to the knowledge they supply and use is now tending, and will increasingly tend, to assume the form already taken by the relationship of commodity producers and consumers to the commodities the produce and consume — that is, the form of value.  Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold, it is and will be consumed in order to be valorized in a new production:  in both cases, the goal is exchange.  Knowledge ceases to be an end in itself, it loses its “use-value.” (p. 4-5)

This is exactly the temptation of social media, I think.  If used with restraint and discretion social media outlets can be very useful tools to share knowledge and information.  But we must recognize the danger of changing the nature of knowledge by commodifying into something to be consumed rather than something to be internalized or reflected upon.  Then the act of consuming itself becomes the goal and not the use of knowledge or the information.

For example, I find myself following more people on Twitter or subscribing to more blogs not because I believe they are useful and enriching but because I need “more.”  The goal is not quality, but quantity.  More followers, more RSS feeds, more Facebook friends, etc.  I even catch myself doing it the bookstore, it’s not the book itself that I need or want but the act of buying and consuming more.  It is as if there is some sort of jouissance to be found in the act of consuming information and the abstraction of mere quantity.

So I think social media can be a useful and important tool in transmitting and sharing knowledge, but its potential won’t matter much if we allow the very nature of knowledge and information to be destroyed so we can consume more and actually “know” less.

Thoughts?

Jeremy Bouma liveblogged the Poets, Prophets, and Preachers conference that took place in Grand Rapids over the last several days.

I was reading over his coverage of Tuesday’s events was immediately struck by this line from the Pete Rollins session (I don’t know if he is paraphrasing or if it is a direct quote):

The question is not is Christianity true, but what does it mean when it claims to be true.

The traditional assumption, of course, is that Christianity claims to be true in the same way that biology might claim to be true (at least that is what seems to have been discussed at the conference).  This is part of my beef with calling theology a “science.” It reduces meaning to the realm of empiricism and rationalism.  Theology is reduced to a fleeting pursuit of objectivity, which often claims to posses The Univocal Understanding of how the world works.  But what if it’s not so much about the world itself and how it works but rather how one should be in the world and how the community should embody an alternative to the world’s dominant narrative (of violence, domination, etc)?

That’s one way of approaching it.  But of course it’s not the only one.

However we might choose to answer it, I think framing the question in this way gets us a little closer to where we need to be.

How might you answer that question?  What does Christianity, or any religion for that matter, mean when it claims to be true?

I was inspired to revist some of Zizek’s work last week.  I ran across this passage in The Puppet and the Dwarf on epistemology.

The site of truth is not the way “things really are in themselves,” beyond their perspectival distortions, but the very gap, passage, that separates one perspective from another, the gap (in this case social antagonism) that makes the two perspectives radically incommensurable. The “Real as impossible” is the cause of the impossibility of ever attaining the “neutral” nonperspectival view of the object. There is a truth; everything is not relative—but this truth is the truth of the perspectival distortion as such, not the truth distorted by the partial view from a one-sided perspective. So when Nietzsche affirms that truth is a perspective, this assertion is to be read together with Lenin’s notion of the partisan/partial character of knowledge (the (in)famous partij’nost): in a class society, “true” objective knowledge is possible only from the “interested” revolutionary standpoint. This means neither an epistemologically “naive” reliance on the “objective knowledge” available when we get rid of our partial prejudices and preconceptions, and adopt a “neutral” view, nor the (complementary) relativist view that there is no ultimate truth, only multiple subjective perspectives. Both terms have to be fully asserted: there is, among the multitude of opinions, a true knowledge, and this knowledge is accessible only from an “interested” partial position.”

I gotta say, that makes a lot of sense to me.  Then we can only talk about better and worse “interested, partial positions” and never The Complete Position.

What would really interest me now is juxtaposing this with Caputo’s notion of truth as a happening or a event, a facere veritatem in his words.  Both positions seem to avoid the sinkholes of both objectivity and complete nihilistic relativism to a place beyond truth as disembodied proposition and toward truth as particular way of being in the world — a way of transformation.

Yesterday was indeed a day of tremendous rejoicing.  Barack Hussein Obama — a man whose father was a poor immigrant from Kenya, a man who not long ago wouldn’t have been able to sit across the table from a white man in a restaurant, and a man who only 4 years ago many Americans, upon seeing his name in writing might label as a ‘terrorist’ — took the oath of office and was inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States of America.  Truly a historic moment and a historic day.

I look forward to someday in the future telling my children and grandchildren where I was on the day that we the people chose to officially ratify the words written on that document so long ago, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” For many these ’self-evident truths’ became a very visceral reality on January 20, 2009, the dawn of a new era in the American story.  That day will live on in the pages of history as a moment when America set aside its partisanship and differences and embraced the hope and inspiration that lies within us all.

But that was yesterday.  And today is, well, today is the beginning of tomorrow.  The beginning of the continued tomorrow that is the world after Obama’s inauguration.  A world where Guantanamo Bay still exists as an aberration of human rights; a world where the United States is still fighting two wars and occupying at least one country; a world where the violence and turmoil in the Middle East — whichever ’side’ you may choose — are almost unbearable; a world where the global economy and world markets are tanking and taking the poorest among us as their first victims; a world were the twin monsters of classism and yes, racism still very much exist; and a world where the choices of past and present are undeniably threatening the existence of the future.  This is the world in which Obama, and all of us, live, move, and have our being.

My relationship with President Obama has changed. Because of his position and responsibility as President, and because of my position and responsibility as a citizen, I must raise my voice in either dissent and criticism as the time arises; I must maintain prophetic distance, not because I dislike President Obama, but because he is now the representative and leader of the American empire, the largest, most powerful nation on earth — and he, like those before him, must be held to account.  It is my responsibility as one on the margins to aid in ensuring that that happens.  For what it’s worth, I think it may be happening a lot less these next four years than in recent memory, but it must happen.  And when the time arises to criticize, those of us with that vocation must not fail to speak out.

Watching him during the inaugural ceremonies yesterday, I get the very real sense that President Obama truly feels the gravity of his office — especially now — and the very real urgency of our situation.  I have a sense of hope — not messianic hope mind you! — in his presidency that I have never felt for a political leader.  I have faith that this feeling of hope will deliver.  And I am willing to place my trust in President Obama for a while.  We will see what happens.  If he holds true to his word and remains transparent and honest, then we may very well be in for a ride.  In a good way.

So yesterday I celebrated, I raised my glass to President Obama and the history that his inauguration symbolizes.  But today. . .today I begin the work of the continued tomorrow, not because I don’t like President Obama I really do, but because I have committed myself to always remain on the side of justice.  And that commitment will at times place me against President Obama simply by virtue of his office.

Related articles by Zemanta

• History of Inauguration
• It’s Official: My Hopes are Up
• Barack Obama, 44th President of the United States of America