I found this film very moving. Previous to taking this class, I was familiar with some of C.S. Lewis’ writings; however, I was very unfamiliar with his biography. I was aware that he endured the death of his wife, but I had no idea who she was or how she died. After viewing this film, I find that I admire C.S. Lewis even more than I did previously. The pain that he endured in his life is unimaginable, and the strength that it would take to endure it is even more unimaginable. I know that people experience pain like this every day, so it’s not necessarily an unusual situation. However, what strikes me about Lewis’ story is his attitude. Many people go through hardships in life, things that cause great pain to them. Often times it seems people allow these hardships to destroy their lives, and they become very bitter or depressed. If they were religious before the hardship, they may develop a feeling of resentment toward God afterward. They may even renounce their religion altogether. It seems that it takes a very different kind of person to endure painful situations in life and yet not allow these events to destroy them or tear them down. Although Lewis did go through a period of mourning, he did not allow the death of his wife to destroy him or take away his joy for life. It did not destroy his faith in God, although it may or may not have damaged it for a while. In his case, life was hard for a while, and quite painful, but it did not end. Lewis retained his joy for life and his faith in God despite very painful and difficult circumstances.
One thing I wanted to mention that I think kind of ties in with this blog is the idea of joy. I used to think that joy was just being happy despite my circumstances. Unfortunately, this left me wondering why I should be happy in a circumstance that is painful. If my life really sucks at the moment, why should I be happy? The definition of joy seemed to make sense, but it still left me without an explanation of why I should have joy. Although I still think that joy is being happy despite my circumstances, I also think that joy comes from an awareness of what I already have. Rather than dwelling on what I don’t have, or what my life is not, I find joy in thinking about what I do have. Also, realizing and accepting what I don’t have sometimes helps me to be thankful for what I do have. I recognize what I don’t have and what my life is not, but I don’t dwell on it. C.S. Lewis knew that he would not have his wife forever, and Joy knew that she would not grow old with Lewis. However, they were happy with the time they did have together. Their awareness of the fact that Joy was going to die soon seemed to make them even more thankful for the time they did have together.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Matthew Dunlap - Religion of Sound
[Listening to -|> Sigur Rós – Seaglopur]
I realize every day how important noise is to my being. To begin with, one of the aspects of noise, music, is something I find particular feeling in. The sound of bass line, the twang of a banjo, or the well placed sample from an educational record, they all give me pleasure. This is what initially drew me into music, and part of what now draws me to attempt to create my own noise. But pleasure alone does not encompass my experience with sound. When I strip away the euphoria, mesmerization and amusement, something remains. I find it impossible to place words on it, and every time I try to discuss it I feel doubt because of this.
But then I hear.
And what I hear fills me. The sound of an apple landing in the palm of ones hand. The sound of two cars colliding on the highway. The sound of the first drops of rain on a tent, heard from the inside. These are not just "pleasure", but things that resonate with the core of my being. Maybe I am wrong, and this is a misunderstanding of some primal reaction, but I feel it is something more.
For those who do not connect to this, I have no way of showing them. And for those that do, it is understood.
I realize every day how important noise is to my being. To begin with, one of the aspects of noise, music, is something I find particular feeling in. The sound of bass line, the twang of a banjo, or the well placed sample from an educational record, they all give me pleasure. This is what initially drew me into music, and part of what now draws me to attempt to create my own noise. But pleasure alone does not encompass my experience with sound. When I strip away the euphoria, mesmerization and amusement, something remains. I find it impossible to place words on it, and every time I try to discuss it I feel doubt because of this.
But then I hear.
And what I hear fills me. The sound of an apple landing in the palm of ones hand. The sound of two cars colliding on the highway. The sound of the first drops of rain on a tent, heard from the inside. These are not just "pleasure", but things that resonate with the core of my being. Maybe I am wrong, and this is a misunderstanding of some primal reaction, but I feel it is something more.
For those who do not connect to this, I have no way of showing them. And for those that do, it is understood.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Mike Zang - External vs. Internal Locus of Control
In psychology some dude Rotter devised a survey of about 20 questions that supposedly point towards how you view the forces of life at work. External locus of control implies outside forces acting upon the subject, whereas internal suggests that subjects provoke their own forces; essentially, we are in control of our fate. If we cut out the scientific objectivity that Rotter attempted to reach through this survey, I think his concept has a deeply mystical and spiritual component to it that pertains to myth. Allow me to elaborate by example:
Someone you haven't talked to in months pops into your head and later that day they call you. This incites a feeling of surprise. "What a coincidence!" But are these occurances mere coincidence. Just shear chance?
The rationalist side of my brain responds Yes. Most people would claim that it was just a random combination of two completely unrelated, uncorrelated, non-causal events. On the other hand however, perhaps the reason why they called you originated in the energy that your initial thought provided. Person A thinks of Person B, which trascendentally evokes a reponse in Person B resulting in the phone call.
This sounds reasonable, if you tolerate supernatural stuff like that, but the next question is: where (and how) does this chain of forces begin?
It is conceivable that Person A's so-called "initial" thought of B was actually incited by a previous thought produced by B about A. So Person B thinks of A, then A thinks of B, then B feels more confidant in the energy that accompanies the thoughts of A, which leads to the phone call. Perhaps? This chain of thought-events can theoretically run on forever until the beginning or non-beginning of the universe, much like Kant's discussion about the first Mover.
In contrast to the interal locus of control lays the possibility that the phone call wasn't chance nor internal evocation, but rather an external cosmological force. So, the origination of this phenomenon has arose not from A nor B, but rather a third and invisible party C, which has sort of "set the stage" or somehow managed to orchestrate this whole ordeal in the most unassuming and discrete of fashions.
If the external force does exist, maybe these haply coincidences function as its method of communication with concrete beings. These unlikely happenings are potential signs or omens, shimmering glimpses of something greater at work behind the scenes, or skulking in the unconscious.
I mention this concept to relate it to Narnia. In The Silver Chair, Eustace and Jill first believe they have summoned Narnia on their own, but as Chesteron says this is impossible because Faerie comes to us, we cannot go to Faerie. Soonafter, Aslan explains to the children that it was his initial thought/intention that stimulated them to attempt to summon Narnia. In this case, Aslan was Person A who cast the first thought that provoked Person B to call A.
I feel that Lewis would agree more with an external locus of control, claiming that because of Aslan's omnipresent status, he acts as Invisible Party C, outside of any internal locus - he is the cosmological force that coordinates such haphazard coincidences. Aslan provoked Eustace and Jill, who then evoked Narnia. It is plausible for us to go further and suggest that maybe the children's initial thought of Aslan made Aslan think to allow the children to summon Narnia, which then made Aslan provoke the children, who then evoked Narnia. Insanely convoluted, I know!
Obviously, the chain of forces can run on infinitely. I do not doubt a cosmological force, but I also do not doubt the efficacy of the internal forces. For the most, it's reasonable to conclude that that both work interdependently and simultaneously more or less, and at different moments during different situations. Where do you think these forces originate? Can there be an Invisible Third Party C or are these types of ordeals just coincidence? Or do we internally arouse them? It's something to keep in mind as you read Lewis's myth.
And just for the record:
My posts #1,3,and 4 should count as outside readings
#2 should count as a Lewis reflection
This one is as follows
Someone you haven't talked to in months pops into your head and later that day they call you. This incites a feeling of surprise. "What a coincidence!" But are these occurances mere coincidence. Just shear chance?
The rationalist side of my brain responds Yes. Most people would claim that it was just a random combination of two completely unrelated, uncorrelated, non-causal events. On the other hand however, perhaps the reason why they called you originated in the energy that your initial thought provided. Person A thinks of Person B, which trascendentally evokes a reponse in Person B resulting in the phone call.
This sounds reasonable, if you tolerate supernatural stuff like that, but the next question is: where (and how) does this chain of forces begin?
It is conceivable that Person A's so-called "initial" thought of B was actually incited by a previous thought produced by B about A. So Person B thinks of A, then A thinks of B, then B feels more confidant in the energy that accompanies the thoughts of A, which leads to the phone call. Perhaps? This chain of thought-events can theoretically run on forever until the beginning or non-beginning of the universe, much like Kant's discussion about the first Mover.
In contrast to the interal locus of control lays the possibility that the phone call wasn't chance nor internal evocation, but rather an external cosmological force. So, the origination of this phenomenon has arose not from A nor B, but rather a third and invisible party C, which has sort of "set the stage" or somehow managed to orchestrate this whole ordeal in the most unassuming and discrete of fashions.
If the external force does exist, maybe these haply coincidences function as its method of communication with concrete beings. These unlikely happenings are potential signs or omens, shimmering glimpses of something greater at work behind the scenes, or skulking in the unconscious.
I mention this concept to relate it to Narnia. In The Silver Chair, Eustace and Jill first believe they have summoned Narnia on their own, but as Chesteron says this is impossible because Faerie comes to us, we cannot go to Faerie. Soonafter, Aslan explains to the children that it was his initial thought/intention that stimulated them to attempt to summon Narnia. In this case, Aslan was Person A who cast the first thought that provoked Person B to call A.
I feel that Lewis would agree more with an external locus of control, claiming that because of Aslan's omnipresent status, he acts as Invisible Party C, outside of any internal locus - he is the cosmological force that coordinates such haphazard coincidences. Aslan provoked Eustace and Jill, who then evoked Narnia. It is plausible for us to go further and suggest that maybe the children's initial thought of Aslan made Aslan think to allow the children to summon Narnia, which then made Aslan provoke the children, who then evoked Narnia. Insanely convoluted, I know!
Obviously, the chain of forces can run on infinitely. I do not doubt a cosmological force, but I also do not doubt the efficacy of the internal forces. For the most, it's reasonable to conclude that that both work interdependently and simultaneously more or less, and at different moments during different situations. Where do you think these forces originate? Can there be an Invisible Third Party C or are these types of ordeals just coincidence? Or do we internally arouse them? It's something to keep in mind as you read Lewis's myth.
And just for the record:
My posts #1,3,and 4 should count as outside readings
#2 should count as a Lewis reflection
This one is as follows
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
