Allan Gardens Conservatory, Toronto, 2011
[Photo By: KPA]
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
The Swarovski Crystal Wish Tree
The Swarovski Crystal Wish Tree at the Eaton Centre, Toronto
Beautiful but empty
[Photo By: KPA, 2011]
Once again...political correctness and multicultural censoring is on display in Toronto. The Eaton Centre website calls the tree the "Swarovski Crystal Wish Tree." Eaton's, along with Swarovski, will donate $100,000 to the Children’s Wish Foundation of Canada.]-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Christmas tree becomes a "Wish Tree" and Santa's absence is bought with $100,000. I wonder when there finally will be no "Wish Tree" since it has too strong a resemblance to Christmas? Perhaps next year, we will just be left with the ungainly reindeer that are hanging over the banisters, with Santa still conspicuously absent. [Quote from Camera Lucida, 2011
Why “Secular Christmas” Cannot Save Us
By Jane Clark Scharl
As the rift in Western culture between secular traditions and sacred traditions grows wider, the scramble to explain ourselves, to sublimate our experiences and give them meaning, becomes increasingly frantic…My husband and I couldn’t do family Christmas gifts this year, so instead we decided to write thoughtful notes to each family member reflecting on the year. But when we went out to get cards at 3:30 p.m. on December 24, we were dismayed to find that the Christmas materials had been relegated to a dwindling stock in the corner, and the main “holiday” aisle was dedicated to (you guessed it) Valentine’s Day. We could get pink M&Ms or heart-shaped Russell Stover’s boxes, but it was lean pickings for Christmas cards and the holiday hadn’t even officially begun.
It’s a stark reminder that the traditions of secular Christmas are a dry well. Every child knows the sinking feeling of the day after Christmas, when the daily routine settles in again and everything goes back to normal. Our day-to-day existence often feels like standing on the edge of the unknown, and without a larger narrative—a myth—to tie ourselves to, that uncertainty can crush us. Traditions link our day-to-day lives to a myth. They are tangible activities that involve our bodies, not simply our minds, and remind us body and soul of what is important and true.
Ever since the secular and the sacred calendars fell into alignment at the dawn of Christendom, traditional holidays like Christmas have borne a double burden. They have to fulfill our sense of connection to the state and society as well as our spiritual longings. But today, as society drifts further and further from even acknowledging spiritual longings, secular Christmas can’t stave off the malaise of the mundane. In the whirlwind of the holidays and the letdown we feel afterwards, we have to make a conscious choice about which Christmas we’re going to celebrate: the secular one that seeks to sublimate reality, or the sacred one that promises to save it.
Rousseau Can’t Save Us
Sublimation was originally an alchemical term. It was the action of purifying a thing by vaporizing it, to eliminate all impurities, and then allowing it to cool. Despite alchemy’s promise that it could transform a compound into a different compound (most famously iron into gold), sublimation does not actually change the nature of the thing. It simply clarifies what already exists. Impurities can still adhere to the compound, and further working with the thing will simply reintroduce the flaws.
The eighteenth-century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau loved the idea of sublimation and applied it liberally to his theories of society and education. The original meaning of “refinement” narrowed to a more specific meaning of “exaltation,” by which Rousseau meant attributing universal meaning to a mundane experience to elevate and validate it. Rousseau believed that societies had to sublimate certain experiences in order to survive, because otherwise there was no meaningful explanation of day-to-day life.
Rousseau’s sublimation is the best we can hope for from secular traditions. Secular Christmas music, even the best, exemplifies this attempt to sublimate experienced feelings—of loneliness (“I’ll Be Home for Christmas,” “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas”), nostalgia (“White Christmas”), or love (“Let It Snow”)—beyond their context in ordinary life and elevate them to the level of the sublime. A sublime experience is a universal experience, one that has meaning outside of itself that both clarifies and validates it. This is the purest impulse of secular Christmas: to elevate our experiences to the level of the universal, and in so doing, to create a myth of Christmas to validate the feelings that punctuate our lives, even if just for one day.
We all hold an ideal of secular Christmas in our imaginations, even though for most of us it has never happened: cottages covered in snow, lanes fretted with sleigh tracks, children laughing, clear voices singing in a village square lit by lamps. Countless sugar cookies made by a smiling family while a perfect tree gleams in the corner and orphans smile at the feet of Santa Claus. It’s the Gospel according to Thomas Kinkade. But in this picture, the light illumines only itself, reflecting endlessly. It doesn’t illumine—or transform—the things of the world.
Cards, songs, gifts, family, masterful dinners, days off work—these are all beautiful parts of being human. But as a friend posted, poignantly, on Facebook, “[My son] is not interested in presents he has opened but in those he has yet to open”: The best these things can do is distract briefly from reality.
A tradition is only as good as the myth it connects us to. There is no single event in the American calendar as jammed with traditions as Christmas; it’s a complex blend of the religious and the secular, the community sphere and the commercial sphere, the ancient and the tinsel-shiny new. It’s one of the few times when Americans openly and unashamedly seek to infuse our cultural experience with shared transcendent meaning. The foment of “holiday spirit” that starts before Thanksgiving promises us that for one day we’ll be joyful, free from worry, with the peace that eludes us the rest of the year.
But before the day has even begun, the stores are full of the next thing, because deep down inside we know that at the end of Christmas Day, we’ll be right back where we started: tired and worried and afraid. The idyll offered by secular Christmas isn’t real, any more than Thomas Kinkade’s landscapes are real. And it cannot save us.
Another Tradition
But there is another tradition of Christmas, another anchor linking us to a myth. This is the one we see in Rembrandt’s unforgettable Nativity. Here the light doesn’t simply hover around the Christ or cling to the clustered figures; it bubbles up like water from a spring and illumines them, igniting in them a light that before had never burned. This painting is not a crystallization of a moment that is cleansed and contemplated, like the image of a lit cottage covered in snow; it is a record of a fundamental change in reality, one that transforms the way we think about all human experiences before and after.
When I was young there were no Valentine’s decorations in the stores before Christmas. But as the rift in Western culture between secular traditions and sacred traditions grows wider, the scramble to explain ourselves, to sublimate our experiences and give them meaning, becomes increasingly frantic. The sacred traditions stand out more starkly: a midnight Mass in candlelight, voices singing “Joy to the World!” around tears of that same joy, silent prayer under the stars. We need the wisdom of Mary more than ever as she, in the midst of a whirlwind of miracles, “treasured up all these things in her heart,” because, no matter what the stores may say, Christmas is not over. It is the restoration of all things, and it has just begun.
Sunday, December 25, 2016
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
[Photo By: KPA
The Allan Gardens Toronto, Christmas decorations]
The Twelve Days of Christmas
Below is a post from my Camera Lucida blog from December 2005!
 One of my favorite carols (too many to choose from). -------------------------------------------------------- The Twelve Days of Christmas On the first day of Christmas my true love sent to me A Partridge in a Pear Tree On the second day of Christmas my true love sent to me Two Turtle Doves and a Partridge in a Pear Tree On the third day of Christmas my true love sent to me Three French Hens Two Turtle Doves and a Partridge in a Pear Tree On the fourth day of Christmas my true love sent to me Four Calling Birds Three French Hens Two Turtle Doves and a Partridge in a Pear Tree On the fifth day of Christmas my true love sent to me Five Golden Rings Four Calling Birds Three French Hens Two Turtle Doves and a Partridge in a Pear Tree On the sixth day of Christmas my true love sent to me Six Geese a Laying Five Golden Rings Four Calling Birds Three French Hens Two Turtle Doves and a Partridge in a Pear Tree On the seventh day of Christmas my true love sent to me Seven Swans a Swimming Six Geese a Laying Five Golden Rings Four Calling Birds Three French Hens Two Turtle Doves and a Partridge in a Pear Tree On the eighth day of Christmas my true love sent to me Eight Maids a Milking Seven Swans a Swimming Six Geese a Laying Five Golden Rings Four Calling Birds Three French Hens Two Turtle Doves and a Partridge in a Pear Tree On the ninth day of Christmas my true love sent to me Nine Ladies Dancing Eight Maids a Milking Seven Swans a Swimming Six Geese a Laying Five Golden Rings Four Calling Birds Three French Hens Two Turtle Doves and a Partridge in a Pear Tree On the tenth day of Christmas my true love sent to me Ten Lords a Leaping Nine Ladies Dancing Eight Maids a Milking Seven Swans a Swimming Six Geese a Laying Five Golden Rings Four Calling Birds Three French Hens Two Turtle Doves and a Partridge in a Pear Tree On the eleventh day of Christmas my true love sent to me Eleven Pipers Piping Ten Lords a Leaping Nine Ladies Dancing Eight Maids a Milking Seven Swans a Swimming Six Geese a Laying Five Golden Rings Four Calling Birds Three French Hens Two Turtle Doves and a Partridge in a Pear Tree On the twelfth day of Christmas my true love sent to me 12 Drummers Drumming Eleven Pipers Piping Ten Lords a Leaping Nine Ladies Dancing Eight Maids a Milking Seven Swans a Swimming Six Geese a Laying Five Golden Rings Four Calling Birds Three French Hens Two Turtle Doves and a Partridge in a Pear Tree |
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
The Great no-longer-so-White North
Below (with an introduction) is an email letter I received from a blog correspondent which I left as a draft when I first thought of publishing it in June 2015.
Now it is more relevant than ever. Note the reader's contempt for the "Trudeau Liberals" by which he meant Trudeau Sr., not the Justin cavorting around as a politician now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Great no-longer-so-White North
This letter below is from a correspondent, who describes the Toronto of the 1970s (and into the early 80s).
The history of the Loyalists shows how different Canada and the United States are, which is how it should be despite all this Free Trade lingo, which puts us together with Third World Mexico! The anti-Americanism which the Canadian media (aka CBC), the stooge of the liberals and the Liberal Party, loves to spout is taken on in a healthy way by the ordinary Canadians, who love their flag, their foods (however few there are that are different from the Americans'), their holidays (next week is Canada Day, yes a reaction to Fourth of July, but still celebrated with gusto), and so on.
But, there is a unity with the US when it comes to the European heritage. And I strongly believe that this multicultural fetish is a "white guilt" thing.
He is very astutely observes that this "hate" or rather this identification of difference is projected into Quebec, and the endless wrangles we have with that Province. And I am actually a proponent of "freeing" Quebec. Let them deal with NAFTA, terrorism, the vacillating currency, maintaining a First World way of life, WITHOUT dipping into the Canadian coffers. Let them do it alone. Cut off ALL the strings. VIVE LE QUEBEC LIBRE!
One more thing.
Question: Who are the HABS?!! (Confession: Sin of all Canadian Sins. I don't watch hockey!!)
Answer: Habs is an abbreviation of "les habitants," the informal name given to the original settlers of New France, dating back to the 17th Century. So it's a natural fit for the The Montreal Canadiens, established in 1909 and marketed as a French-Canadian hockey team.
Yep, even in hockey, there is the Quebec Narrative. So, my correspondent is insightful to view these hockey games as war-like rivalry to release those ancestral tensions.
Here is the email/letter:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Kidist,
Good luck with the Hildebrand project. You're doing good work, even (especially) if the thought-police don't approve!
Mississauga really has changed. My father spent the last 10+ years of his career in Toronto (living in the City of Toronto itself from 1972 to 1983), and -- as a landed immigrant, not an illegal alien --- I worked a lot of temp jobs in Toronto during school and university days. I got to know greater Toronto pretty well.
At the time Mississauga was a blue-collar to white-collar Canadian suburb, which is [to] say the inhabitants were Canadians. Friends of ours who lived there had been in Ontario from its beginnings: United Empire Loyalists who went north from New York after the American Revolution made New York an uncomfortable place for loyalists to live. We haven't been in touch with them for many years, but I suspect they have long since white-flown Mississauga for somewhere much farther out.
Toronto proper at that time had immigrant pockets, some (European; I remember particularly a Portuguese enclave) of fairly long standing, but was still preeminently a Canadian city, united by belief in the Leafs and hatred of the Habs. There was, however, a growing West Indian area which, perhaps coincidentally, was considered the most sketchy part of town.
I hope the Canadians wake up in time to salvage some Canadian Canada. But when I look at what Americans are accepting, and remember it was a Canadian government (Trudeau's Liberals from 1968 through the early '80s; not that Mulroney's Tories did anything to undo Liberal sabotage when they got in) that introduced the world to official multiculturalism and mandated racial and sexual diversity, it's hard to be too hopeful. So far, from what I see, Canadians have swallowed almost all of it without a peep, and tell themselves it's all a Good Thing. The only outlet English Canadians allow themselves is to be annoyed at the Quebecois - to go any further would be racist...
Please keep up your good work in the Great no-longer-so-White North!
Best regards.
Now it is more relevant than ever. Note the reader's contempt for the "Trudeau Liberals" by which he meant Trudeau Sr., not the Justin cavorting around as a politician now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Great no-longer-so-White North
This letter below is from a correspondent, who describes the Toronto of the 1970s (and into the early 80s).
The history of the Loyalists shows how different Canada and the United States are, which is how it should be despite all this Free Trade lingo, which puts us together with Third World Mexico! The anti-Americanism which the Canadian media (aka CBC), the stooge of the liberals and the Liberal Party, loves to spout is taken on in a healthy way by the ordinary Canadians, who love their flag, their foods (however few there are that are different from the Americans'), their holidays (next week is Canada Day, yes a reaction to Fourth of July, but still celebrated with gusto), and so on.
But, there is a unity with the US when it comes to the European heritage. And I strongly believe that this multicultural fetish is a "white guilt" thing.
He is very astutely observes that this "hate" or rather this identification of difference is projected into Quebec, and the endless wrangles we have with that Province. And I am actually a proponent of "freeing" Quebec. Let them deal with NAFTA, terrorism, the vacillating currency, maintaining a First World way of life, WITHOUT dipping into the Canadian coffers. Let them do it alone. Cut off ALL the strings. VIVE LE QUEBEC LIBRE!
One more thing.
Question: Who are the HABS?!! (Confession: Sin of all Canadian Sins. I don't watch hockey!!)
Answer: Habs is an abbreviation of "les habitants," the informal name given to the original settlers of New France, dating back to the 17th Century. So it's a natural fit for the The Montreal Canadiens, established in 1909 and marketed as a French-Canadian hockey team.
Yep, even in hockey, there is the Quebec Narrative. So, my correspondent is insightful to view these hockey games as war-like rivalry to release those ancestral tensions.
Here is the email/letter:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Kidist,
Good luck with the Hildebrand project. You're doing good work, even (especially) if the thought-police don't approve!
Mississauga really has changed. My father spent the last 10+ years of his career in Toronto (living in the City of Toronto itself from 1972 to 1983), and -- as a landed immigrant, not an illegal alien --- I worked a lot of temp jobs in Toronto during school and university days. I got to know greater Toronto pretty well.
At the time Mississauga was a blue-collar to white-collar Canadian suburb, which is [to] say the inhabitants were Canadians. Friends of ours who lived there had been in Ontario from its beginnings: United Empire Loyalists who went north from New York after the American Revolution made New York an uncomfortable place for loyalists to live. We haven't been in touch with them for many years, but I suspect they have long since white-flown Mississauga for somewhere much farther out.
Toronto proper at that time had immigrant pockets, some (European; I remember particularly a Portuguese enclave) of fairly long standing, but was still preeminently a Canadian city, united by belief in the Leafs and hatred of the Habs. There was, however, a growing West Indian area which, perhaps coincidentally, was considered the most sketchy part of town.
I hope the Canadians wake up in time to salvage some Canadian Canada. But when I look at what Americans are accepting, and remember it was a Canadian government (Trudeau's Liberals from 1968 through the early '80s; not that Mulroney's Tories did anything to undo Liberal sabotage when they got in) that introduced the world to official multiculturalism and mandated racial and sexual diversity, it's hard to be too hopeful. So far, from what I see, Canadians have swallowed almost all of it without a peep, and tell themselves it's all a Good Thing. The only outlet English Canadians allow themselves is to be annoyed at the Quebecois - to go any further would be racist...
Please keep up your good work in the Great no-longer-so-White North!
Best regards.
Monday, December 19, 2016
Going Back to Books: Part II
Jane Austen's desk in her Cottage in Chawton, Hampshire
where she lived for eight years,
and worked on 'Emma', 'Persuasion' & 'Mansfield Park'
c. 1809
Chawton Cottage was a household of ladies - Mrs Austen, her daughters and their friend Martha Lloyd - all taking part in the work of the house and garden. But Jane was allowed private time. Having no room of her own, she established herself near the little-used front door, and here "she wrote upon small sheets of paper which could easily be put away, or covered with a piece of blotting paper". A creaking swing door gave her warning when anyone was coming, and she refused to have the creak remedied.[Source]I am happy to say that I have a few of Jane Austen's book:
Pride and Prejudice--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sense and Sensibility
and Emma
Below are my recent purchases (within the past three or four months).
I haven't read all of them (actually the majority). Perhaps I am waiting to win the lottery to go to some island repose where all I do is read (and contemplate - the important and often neglected part that goes with reading).
Reading is a tough call these days. The home television is on all the time (imagine trying to read with a CNN report with "HILLARY.....TRUMP.....SYRIA....!!!!" interjecting, or with The Price is Right's audience screaming its enthusiasm.
I often wonder how Jane Austen wrote her books in the midst of the bustle of family life. But in her time, the sounds of the home were the clutter of her mother and sisters taking care of the home - preparing meals, sweeping and dusting, writing notes to friends and neighbors. And "talking" didn't come from some gadget but through quiet conversations with family members and visitors. The radio or the gramophone were not invented yet (or available for public use) so music and discourse were presented during evening socials by family members and guests. Sound had its time and place, and its (reduced) volume. There was none of that 24-hour schedule we have for everything now.
The modern world is making us more stupid, more narcissistic and more callous. It is a capitulation to unGodly schedules and impulses. It is the grip of the Devil.
Still, I get a couple of hours in the late afternoon and now I have started to get up at 5am (4:45) where I have my morning coffee and a chapter to get through. Of course this competes with my writing time, so I guard these hours jealously.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my current list of books, in no particular order:
- Words Overflown By Stars: Creative Writing Instruction and Insight From the Vermont College of Fine Arts M.F.A. Program: Edited by David Jauss
- Religion and the Rise of Western Culture: The Classic Study of Medieval Civilization: Christopher Dawson
- The B Side: The Death of Tin Pan Alley and the Rebirth of the Great American Song: Ben Yagoda
- Who is that Man? In Search of the Real Bob Dylan: David Dalton
- Someday, Someday, Maybe: Lauren Graham
- Talking as Fast as I Can: From Gilmore Girls to Gilmore Girls (and Everything in Between): Lauren Graham
- Sunshne Sketches of a Little Town: Stephen Leacock
- Little House on the Prairie: Laura Ingalls Wilder
- A Good Day's Work: In Pursuit of a Disappearing Canada: John DeMont
- The Moment: Wild, Poignant, Life-Changing Stories form 125 Writers and Artists - Famous and Obscure: Edited by Larry Smith
- Designs for a Happy Home: Matthew Reynolds
- Scent of Triumph: A Novel of Perfume and Passion : Jan Moran
- Sydney and Violet: Their Life with T.S. Eliot, Proust, Joyce, and the Excruciatingly Irascible Wyndham Lewis: Stephen Kladman
And the book that started this flurry of purchases:
- How to Write a Memoir in 30 Days: Step-by-Step instructions for Creating and Publishing Your Personal Story: Roberta Temes, PhDThe "30 days" are long gone but I found these two bits of wisdom which have shaped my "drafts" ever since I got this book:
A memoir is not an autobiography. An autobiography is strictly factual and chronologically covers your life from birth until today. It is accurate and full of facts and explanations. An autobiography states facts, whereas a memoir describes your reactions to those facts. For example, an autobiography might discuss social and political ideas of the times, but your memoir would discuss your emotional responses to those ideas. Your autobiography s a photograph a picture, showing precise detail. Your memoir, on the other hand, is an impressionistic painting - a canvass conveying a general impressions using free brushstrokes to create a general feeling.My next question of course was: Should I write a work of fiction as had Lauren Graham before she delved into her memories? Or as this author says was the source of many novels:
The Self as Object in Modernist Fiction: James, Joyce, Hemingway (but am NOT a "Modernist"!)I like the idea of a memoir. Afterall, that is what my blogs have been in some way: a record of the things I saw, observed, and was attracted to, not necessarily on an intellectual level but often on a visceral one.
Perhaps I should simply publish my blogs!!! (There are many online advisors out there showing just how to do that!).
Another important advice I got from Dr. Temes was to find a category for the memoir:
Memoirs fall into different categories. Perhaps you already know in what category your memoir belongs. It might be:(and here is a list including - a relationship memoir, an animal memoir(?), an illness memoir - etc..)
I think mine fits well with: A Call to Action Memoir. After all, I have called my blog Reclaiming Beauty: Saving Our Western Civilization.
One final insight from Dr. Temes inadvertently showed me this:
A memoir is not a confessional! Everyone has some harrowing story to tell (some much worse than others) but I really don't think people like to read some psychologically difficult or traumatic premise of anyone's life. It is now the norm or the trend to find such kinds of memories publicly discussed. We are in the era of Oprah after all. Bookstores will happily cater to such clientele with these quick-read books to fill their shelves (as opposed to say a Hemingway) and publishers will be glad of their busy schedules with "writers" seeking their services (they charge steep prices too!). But how lasting, how important and how insightful are such "memoirs?" What do they really have to say?
So this Dr. Temes discouraged me from this personalized confessional and challenged me to write something "bigger" than myself!
It is all coming together!
Going Back to Books: Part I
I am reposting an article I wrote in 2013, three and half years ago. I titled it Book Project: Writing although Book Project: Reading wold have been more appropriate. I wrote about my attempts to find good contemporary books and how difficult that was. Nonetheless I managed to find a few which is what I was describing in the post below. I have a corresponding post here where I list the books I recently bought mostly at my local Chapters/Indigo (through various discounts "point bonuses," sales and occasionally fully-priced purchases). I am so glad to find that I can find books that may enjoy reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book Project: Writing
Bookshelf at Kennedy's in New York
[Photo by KPA]
I've been away from books. It used to be that I would have a couple of books on the works, usually one fiction and another cultural/art/biographical book. At school, I would find a quiet place to read a chapter, or half a chapter, before returning to school projects. My favorite place as a young girl was the seat of a tree-trunk. At work, I would use my lunch breaks, or coffee breaks, to read. At home, I would reduce the number of hours sitting in front of the television to resume a chapter I had to leave to return to other pressing matters.
In the past few years, it could be that I became disappointed with the selection of new books available these days, or that I had read enough of the classics that I wanted something modern and fresh. Yet almost all the modern books disappointed me, and I stopped buying books. I left off re-reading the classics. I started to spend more time on short on-line articles on the internet. And I started watching movies, and literary adaptations on television. I read fewer and fewer books.
Recently, I have gone back to books. I sit at a restaurant, or a coffee house, and bring my books, often two at a time, as I explained earlier my reading habits: Ernest Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, Brian Morton's Starting Out in the Evening (a contemporary book which nonetheless won me over with its writing), Edith Hamilton's Mythology, Candice Bushnell's One Fifth Avenue (a witty contemporary book whose writer is of Sex and City fame), Roger Scruton's Beauty, Ron Chernow's Washington, and Nancy Berner's and Susan Lowry's Garden Guide: New York City.
I bought all but one of these books within the last year, so there's hope yet, except for Hemingway's which is an old edition which I bought at my undergraduate university's used book store (the bookstore's stamp - Paper Back Junction - is still on it, as well as an inscription by a reader dated '71, who wasn't a fan of the book, but I do disagree!).
It looks like I went into a flurry of buying, and reading, to make up for lost time, these past couple of years.
People seem to have some respect for books, and book readers. At the coffee house or restaurant which I visit more frequently (just a drink at both, and occasionally a meal at the restaurant), the owners/waiters/managers don't seem to mind that I choose a seat in the back, and that I could be there for an hour or more with just a coffee refill, or a plate of french fries, reading a book or taking and making notes. They seem to think I bring prestige to their place, and are kind and serviceable towards me.
Well, I did tell them something else, partly to alert them toward my long sit-times. "I am in the process of writing a book." I told one manager. I told him I come there to refresh my ideas, sometimes by reading another book, and other times by going over the notes I've made.
Since then, if he's not busy, he takes me to the quiet back area himself. And waiters (who desire to be writers?), actually sit down to chat with me. One in particular is too polite to ask direct questions, so I fill him in on the latest, if I can, and if I want to.
I wondered about this attention.
I think people are interested in those who do things, or who say they do things. And since I am coming into their premises to do something creative, they seem to want to make that as easy as possible for me.
I am often touched and surprised by their attention.
But, there is something else. I think there is a great deal of prestige given to writers. A writer, whether a fiction writer, a biographer, a political/social/cultural writer, invents something new through the sheer determination of his mind. It is creativity at the cerebral level, using the imagination of the writer and the reader to bring the work to life.
It is perhaps like the Bible. We have our created world, yet, in order to make sense of it, to analyze it, to make it a reality, God then created the Word. But the Bible is not just simply a descriptive account of the world around us. Its words create a myriad of things, from a literary masterpiece, a daily guideline, a family saga, a message bearer, a sin-identifier. Without this ability of the written word to convey so much, our Bible would be just another artifact, a prolonged magazine article, convincing no-one it is worthy to spend years to decipher its alphabets and words in order to read it, understand it, and make sense of our world through it.
I think that is what books are trying to do. And in a modest way, that is what I am trying to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book Project: Writing
Bookshelf at Kennedy's in New York
[Photo by KPA]
I've been away from books. It used to be that I would have a couple of books on the works, usually one fiction and another cultural/art/biographical book. At school, I would find a quiet place to read a chapter, or half a chapter, before returning to school projects. My favorite place as a young girl was the seat of a tree-trunk. At work, I would use my lunch breaks, or coffee breaks, to read. At home, I would reduce the number of hours sitting in front of the television to resume a chapter I had to leave to return to other pressing matters.
In the past few years, it could be that I became disappointed with the selection of new books available these days, or that I had read enough of the classics that I wanted something modern and fresh. Yet almost all the modern books disappointed me, and I stopped buying books. I left off re-reading the classics. I started to spend more time on short on-line articles on the internet. And I started watching movies, and literary adaptations on television. I read fewer and fewer books.
Recently, I have gone back to books. I sit at a restaurant, or a coffee house, and bring my books, often two at a time, as I explained earlier my reading habits: Ernest Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, Brian Morton's Starting Out in the Evening (a contemporary book which nonetheless won me over with its writing), Edith Hamilton's Mythology, Candice Bushnell's One Fifth Avenue (a witty contemporary book whose writer is of Sex and City fame), Roger Scruton's Beauty, Ron Chernow's Washington, and Nancy Berner's and Susan Lowry's Garden Guide: New York City.
I bought all but one of these books within the last year, so there's hope yet, except for Hemingway's which is an old edition which I bought at my undergraduate university's used book store (the bookstore's stamp - Paper Back Junction - is still on it, as well as an inscription by a reader dated '71, who wasn't a fan of the book, but I do disagree!).
It looks like I went into a flurry of buying, and reading, to make up for lost time, these past couple of years.
People seem to have some respect for books, and book readers. At the coffee house or restaurant which I visit more frequently (just a drink at both, and occasionally a meal at the restaurant), the owners/waiters/managers don't seem to mind that I choose a seat in the back, and that I could be there for an hour or more with just a coffee refill, or a plate of french fries, reading a book or taking and making notes. They seem to think I bring prestige to their place, and are kind and serviceable towards me.
Well, I did tell them something else, partly to alert them toward my long sit-times. "I am in the process of writing a book." I told one manager. I told him I come there to refresh my ideas, sometimes by reading another book, and other times by going over the notes I've made.
Since then, if he's not busy, he takes me to the quiet back area himself. And waiters (who desire to be writers?), actually sit down to chat with me. One in particular is too polite to ask direct questions, so I fill him in on the latest, if I can, and if I want to.
I wondered about this attention.
I think people are interested in those who do things, or who say they do things. And since I am coming into their premises to do something creative, they seem to want to make that as easy as possible for me.
I am often touched and surprised by their attention.
But, there is something else. I think there is a great deal of prestige given to writers. A writer, whether a fiction writer, a biographer, a political/social/cultural writer, invents something new through the sheer determination of his mind. It is creativity at the cerebral level, using the imagination of the writer and the reader to bring the work to life.
It is perhaps like the Bible. We have our created world, yet, in order to make sense of it, to analyze it, to make it a reality, God then created the Word. But the Bible is not just simply a descriptive account of the world around us. Its words create a myriad of things, from a literary masterpiece, a daily guideline, a family saga, a message bearer, a sin-identifier. Without this ability of the written word to convey so much, our Bible would be just another artifact, a prolonged magazine article, convincing no-one it is worthy to spend years to decipher its alphabets and words in order to read it, understand it, and make sense of our world through it.
I think that is what books are trying to do. And in a modest way, that is what I am trying to do.
Sunday, December 18, 2016
Saturday, December 17, 2016
Free Jinger's Kidist Discussions
There is a gossipy forum titled Freejinger where I have been a subject of discussion for a couple of years (sporadically). I often laugh out loud reading it.
There is also a whole topic under my name with 40 entries. Even funnier.
Forum member C. Potter-Pirbright has provded a summary which I've posted below.
Now C. Potter-Pirbright is a pseudonym somewhat sophisticated for this site of a character from Jeeves the stoic butler in P. G. Wodehouse's series of books. That alone is enough to take a look through C. Potter-Pirbright's entries.
Freejnger summary by C. Potter-Pirbright:
Kidist Paulos Asrat or Kidist P. Asrat as she likes to be known in her professional ventures, is the blogger behind cameralucid.blogspot.com and kidistpaulosasratartcles.blogspot.com, beautyforbodymindandspirit.blogspot.ca and has contributed to the American Thinker.
Kidist was born in Ethiopia and identifies herself with the Amhara people and considers herself to be Caucasian. Kidist and her family fled Ethiopia around 1974 after the fall of Emperor Haile Salassie...[T]he family moved first Paris and then London, and the United States after which they finally settled in Canada. Today Kidist lives in the multi-cultural hub of Toronto, a fact in itself that is baffling with her views.
Kidist works at a clothing store; however there is speculation that she must have family money or support to fund her lifestyle and travels (mainly to NYC).
Kidist is a firm believer in belief that her blog is an intellectual treasure trove, dealing with high-class fashion, architecture, art and social issues affecting North America (Canada & The United States). Not only is her work of a very high quality but greatly appreciated.
However her blog reads far more as her own personal diatribe against, Gays, Muslims, Liberals, Women, Asians, interracial couples and immigrants. Kidist is all for equal opportunity hating.
Kidist's Greatest Hits[...]
As a child Kidit presented flowers to the Emperor, this memory is clearly very important to her and has possibly allowed her to build up her elite status in her mind now that she lives in a world far from that of her childhood.
cameralucid.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/flower-for-emperor.html
Kidist is not of the opinion that Asian's can understand or play classical music or dance in the ballet. Her expertise in the matter is the fact that she has studied, violin, piano and sung in classical choirs in her youth. The fact that the National Ballet had Chinese principal ballerina, performing in 'white roles' appears to cause her much rage.
cameralucid.blogspot.com/2012/01/music-is-about-bringing-us-all-together.html
Kidist is creepily obsessed with the child of her neighbors, a young white couple they have a child who is approximately three years old. This little boy has a Chinese caretaker/Nanny. Kidist is not pleased by this arrangement and is constantly spying on the child and caretaker, and approaching the parents to 'warn' them. She is also very worried that the caretaker is attempting to lure the child into accepting other races to the point where he will marry an Asian woman.
cameralucid.blogspot.com/2011/07/young-beautiful-white-boy-tall-handsome.html
Not understanding the presence of Native American's in the Thanksgiving Parade.
cameralucid.blogspot.com/2012/11/raining-on-parade.html
Immigrants of the Asian/ Muslim persuasion
Kidist has a lot of pent up rage for immigrants, these range from delightful complaints that they are spending more money that herself to the fact that they bring their own language and culture to Canada. Women who dress in their native attire and speak their own language trying to ruin the real Canada (not the native Canadian's mind you). Immigrants ruin the prices of homes and bring with them their own food and scents changing the landscape. Multi -cultural Canada will be the death of Kidist.
http://cameralucid.blogspot.ca/2013/01/daily-episodes-of-icompatability-of.html
Kidist enjoys attacking the Obamas (everyone including Bo is fair game), apparently The President is incapable etc and Michelle and the girls have appalling clothing choices.
cameralucid.blogspot.com/2013/01/hypocrite-in-chief-part-ii.html
Kidist occasionally ventures an opinion on movies and award shows. Popular Movies = bad, especially if they have a tinge of race to them. Oh and Tina Fey has a potty mouth.
Kidist is friends with Lawrence Auster and Laura Wood (The Thinking Housewife), and keeps in touch not only by email but has visited them. She treats their words and thoughts as high intellect and quotes them regularly.
cameralucid.blogspot.com/2012/12/we-are-normal-ones.html
Kidist also goes out of her way to not only stare and complain about interracial couples to people serving her in restaurants but does the same for Gay couples. The lack of response she receives from others is perceived by her to be agreement and she appears to be convinced that Canada is full of people who like her are appalled by interracial couples, gays and immigrants but are too cowardly to say so publically and need her to speak out.
Kidist doesn't allow comments on her blog. While you can email her, she is very quick to threaten to report you to the HRC ,the dissonance is strong with this one. You are however encouraged to contribute to her endeavors at publish a book.
Notable Kidist threads include.
http://freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic. ... st#p469746
http://freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic. ... st#p460765
http://freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic. ... st#p171601
http://freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic. ... st#p200416
There is also a whole topic under my name with 40 entries. Even funnier.
Forum member C. Potter-Pirbright has provded a summary which I've posted below.
Now C. Potter-Pirbright is a pseudonym somewhat sophisticated for this site of a character from Jeeves the stoic butler in P. G. Wodehouse's series of books. That alone is enough to take a look through C. Potter-Pirbright's entries.
Freejnger summary by C. Potter-Pirbright:
Kidist Paulos Asrat or Kidist P. Asrat as she likes to be known in her professional ventures, is the blogger behind cameralucid.blogspot.com and kidistpaulosasratartcles.blogspot.com, beautyforbodymindandspirit.blogspot.ca and has contributed to the American Thinker.
Kidist was born in Ethiopia and identifies herself with the Amhara people and considers herself to be Caucasian. Kidist and her family fled Ethiopia around 1974 after the fall of Emperor Haile Salassie...[T]he family moved first Paris and then London, and the United States after which they finally settled in Canada. Today Kidist lives in the multi-cultural hub of Toronto, a fact in itself that is baffling with her views.
Kidist works at a clothing store; however there is speculation that she must have family money or support to fund her lifestyle and travels (mainly to NYC).
Kidist is a firm believer in belief that her blog is an intellectual treasure trove, dealing with high-class fashion, architecture, art and social issues affecting North America (Canada & The United States). Not only is her work of a very high quality but greatly appreciated.
However her blog reads far more as her own personal diatribe against, Gays, Muslims, Liberals, Women, Asians, interracial couples and immigrants. Kidist is all for equal opportunity hating.
Kidist's Greatest Hits[...]
As a child Kidit presented flowers to the Emperor, this memory is clearly very important to her and has possibly allowed her to build up her elite status in her mind now that she lives in a world far from that of her childhood.
cameralucid.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/flower-for-emperor.html
Kidist is not of the opinion that Asian's can understand or play classical music or dance in the ballet. Her expertise in the matter is the fact that she has studied, violin, piano and sung in classical choirs in her youth. The fact that the National Ballet had Chinese principal ballerina, performing in 'white roles' appears to cause her much rage.
cameralucid.blogspot.com/2012/01/music-is-about-bringing-us-all-together.html
Kidist is creepily obsessed with the child of her neighbors, a young white couple they have a child who is approximately three years old. This little boy has a Chinese caretaker/Nanny. Kidist is not pleased by this arrangement and is constantly spying on the child and caretaker, and approaching the parents to 'warn' them. She is also very worried that the caretaker is attempting to lure the child into accepting other races to the point where he will marry an Asian woman.
cameralucid.blogspot.com/2011/07/young-beautiful-white-boy-tall-handsome.html
Not understanding the presence of Native American's in the Thanksgiving Parade.
cameralucid.blogspot.com/2012/11/raining-on-parade.html
Immigrants of the Asian/ Muslim persuasion
Kidist has a lot of pent up rage for immigrants, these range from delightful complaints that they are spending more money that herself to the fact that they bring their own language and culture to Canada. Women who dress in their native attire and speak their own language trying to ruin the real Canada (not the native Canadian's mind you). Immigrants ruin the prices of homes and bring with them their own food and scents changing the landscape. Multi -cultural Canada will be the death of Kidist.
http://cameralucid.blogspot.ca/2013/01/daily-episodes-of-icompatability-of.html
Kidist enjoys attacking the Obamas (everyone including Bo is fair game), apparently The President is incapable etc and Michelle and the girls have appalling clothing choices.
cameralucid.blogspot.com/2013/01/hypocrite-in-chief-part-ii.html
Kidist occasionally ventures an opinion on movies and award shows. Popular Movies = bad, especially if they have a tinge of race to them. Oh and Tina Fey has a potty mouth.
Kidist is friends with Lawrence Auster and Laura Wood (The Thinking Housewife), and keeps in touch not only by email but has visited them. She treats their words and thoughts as high intellect and quotes them regularly.
cameralucid.blogspot.com/2012/12/we-are-normal-ones.html
Kidist also goes out of her way to not only stare and complain about interracial couples to people serving her in restaurants but does the same for Gay couples. The lack of response she receives from others is perceived by her to be agreement and she appears to be convinced that Canada is full of people who like her are appalled by interracial couples, gays and immigrants but are too cowardly to say so publically and need her to speak out.
Kidist doesn't allow comments on her blog. While you can email her, she is very quick to threaten to report you to the HRC ,the dissonance is strong with this one. You are however encouraged to contribute to her endeavors at publish a book.
Notable Kidist threads include.
http://freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic. ... st#p469746
http://freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic. ... st#p460765
http://freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic. ... st#p171601
http://freejinger.org/forums/viewtopic. ... st#p200416
I wrote in my last post A Basic Guide to Liberalism and Conservatism, Part I: From the Orthosphere:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Life Is Like For Artists In The Time Of Trump
By: Maureen Mullarkey
“I am an artist, you know. It’s my right to tell you what to think. I’m chosen. You’re not.” That is the nutshell version of a long-standing effort to wrest art away from bourgeois aesthetic concerns and onto political ones. This tug is at work in every branch of the arts. But for economy’s sake, I will keep to the words art and artist as shorthand for the range of disciplines.
Today’s arts culture—the segment of it that appeals to museum curators, faculty hiring committees, and awards panels—mimics the intellectual fray of the 1960s, itself an imitation of contests begun in the 1910s and ‘20s. From the 1909 Futurist Manifesto, through assorted utopian declarations of the 1960s, on to the hectoring of Mike Pence by the cast of “Hamiliton,” artists have been on a steady, determined march toward ideological preachment.
“The truth of art,” wrote Herbert Marcuse, “lies in its power to break the monopoly of established reality to define what is real.” What is taken as real by graduates of university art departments are the biases that flatter the university’s view of itself as a progressive institution. Coloring that view is the old myth of the artist’s divine spark, a tradition fuelling the mystique of an avant garde.
It is a heady brew. It repudiates inherited models of aesthetic worth, dismissing hard-won mastery as technical hokum. At the same time, it seduces art majors—novel creatures, historically—to see themselves as an intellectual class commissioned to awaken audiences from acceptance of the status quo. The ultimate aim of the contemporary artist’s training is not facility, not ease with one’s métier, but the political or social message. Since there is no end to things to be anguished about, Hope ‘n’ Change can last forever.
I Thought Artists Were Against Censorship
Right now, the art-and-culture bubble is iridescent with gloom. Election Day was an alarm to mobilize combatants in the culture war to lift the yoke of our oppression. Here in my inbox is a “Dear Colleague” letter from the board of the U.S. chapter of the International Association of Art Critics (AICA), a nongovernmental organization founded in 1950 by the newly formed United Nations:
Someone forgot to tell the board of directors that their preferred candidate thought there ought to be a law, with federal penalties attached, against controversial entertainment—including movies that criticize a politician named Hillary Clinton. This same board stood proud when AICA held its annual international congress this past October at the Museo de Belle Artes in Havana, where freedom of thought and expression are non-issues.
The eminent College Art Association (CAA) encourages attendance at its 2017 Annual Conference with this: “Given the political climate in the United States right now, CAA knows it is of utmost importance to address issues at the intersections of race and contemporary art, colonialism in art history, and the Black Lives Matter movement at the 2017 Annual Conference.”
Conference highlights include a discussion on “Public Art in the Era of Black Lives Matter;” “Picturing Social Movements from Emancipation to Black Lives Matter,” a panel titled “Post-Black and Liquid Blackness” in contemporary African American art; and a talk by Evie Terrano, PhD, an art historian whose topics include challenging the authority of the Confederate flag.
Brushes Aside! We Have Politics to Do
Trump’s victory has affected even the artists’ listserv I belong to. The list began as a handy way to circulate useful information among visual artists in and around New York City. It affirms Picasso’s contention that only critics natter about form and content. When artists get together, they just want to talk about “where to buy cheap turpentine.”
Postings usually keep to methods and materials, the cookery of things. (“If your umbers are drying too quickly, try a little clove oil.”) Subscribers help each other out with the vital questions: Who has the name of a low-cost art mover? What are they paying studio models these days? Can anyone recommend a plumber?
But since Election Day, politics has been gaining ground. This is every cultural worker’s hour to repudiate formalist hocus pocus and encourage solidarity in the arts in service to the noble cause of building . . . no, not communism. Just left-leaning liberalism epitomized by the First Woman not-yet-President.
A December 3 broadcast touted an “action plan” to stop Trump. Remember, he still has not been elected. That happens in the Electoral College on December 19. There were only 16 days left.
Innocuous ornaments like the easel-picture could wait. Better to sign and distribute an Electoral College petition to make Hillary president. Initiate individual contact with specific electors. Keep this Change.org petition in the public’s consciousness by contacting TV stations, reporters, and bloggers. Organize and direct grassroots action; man phone banks; write letters. Promote protests in state capitals on December 19.
A fabric artist—whose hand-stitched work eyeballs the worldwide immigrant crisis, gun violence, health care, and marriage equality—stepped forward to offer her own efforts to the new cause:
In addition, participants are encouraged to donate to four recommended charities. The character of Westbeth’s policy preferences is clear in their selected endorsements: Planned Parenthood; the Ali Forney Center for gay and transgender teens; God’s Love We Deliver, a service for HIV/AIDS patients; Cabrini Immigrant Services, a boon companion to illegal aliens seeking social services.
You’re Fueling Trump Again, People
Dark times are upon us. Now more than ever, artists are needed to save us from the snare and the pit. An excerpt from one painter’s lengthy morning-after listserv reflection illustrates the current sense of mission:
It never occurs to the arts community that it has no more political insight or civic savvy than its neighbors. Like the “anti-fracking community,” the fraternity might have less. Its image of itself as occupying a privileged place in the moral universe is a distorting lens through which self-congratulation looks easily like discernment.
Your ‘Education’ Consists of Indoctrination
Stay for a moment with that term better educated. There is humor in that. Since the post-World War II era, when art training began to shift in earnest from the atelier to the campus, artists have breathed the same infantilizing culture that infects academia.
Consider the University of Delaware’s current pitch for its master of fine arts program. Second-year MFA students are invited to a 9-day frolic dubbed “Barefeet and Birthday Suits: MFA in Berlin.” Tuition is free for this “unique international experience partially funded by private charitable donations.” (Any wonder why millennials went for Bernie Sanders?)
Imagine a program for medical or law students hawked in terms more suggestive of a nudist colony than professional expertise. But then, expertise is an outmoded concept in an area of activity to which the word discipline is hard to apply. Painters, sculptors, and gifted craftsmen still exist. But they are outnumbered by contemporary artists adrift in a sea of undifferentiated “practices,” a portmanteau word for holding whatever posture an MFA drops into it.
By their Post-It notes you will know them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Mullarkey is an artist who writes on art and culture. She keeps the weblog Studio Matters. Follow her on Twitter, @mmletters.
Photo Photo by Maxwell Leung for CAA
Photo William Murphy / Flickr
I have made a major decision in the way I am to approach recent events. And as my last few posts show, I am getting a shower of support! Is this a sign from God :).Well here's another one from The Federalist:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Life Is Like For Artists In The Time Of Trump
By: Maureen Mullarkey
Donald Trump’s victory has affected even the artists’ listserv I belong to. A December 3 broadcast touted an ‘action plan’ to stop Trump.
“I am an artist, you know. It’s my right to tell you what to think. I’m chosen. You’re not.” That is the nutshell version of a long-standing effort to wrest art away from bourgeois aesthetic concerns and onto political ones. This tug is at work in every branch of the arts. But for economy’s sake, I will keep to the words art and artist as shorthand for the range of disciplines.
Today’s arts culture—the segment of it that appeals to museum curators, faculty hiring committees, and awards panels—mimics the intellectual fray of the 1960s, itself an imitation of contests begun in the 1910s and ‘20s. From the 1909 Futurist Manifesto, through assorted utopian declarations of the 1960s, on to the hectoring of Mike Pence by the cast of “Hamiliton,” artists have been on a steady, determined march toward ideological preachment.
“The truth of art,” wrote Herbert Marcuse, “lies in its power to break the monopoly of established reality to define what is real.” What is taken as real by graduates of university art departments are the biases that flatter the university’s view of itself as a progressive institution. Coloring that view is the old myth of the artist’s divine spark, a tradition fuelling the mystique of an avant garde.
It is a heady brew. It repudiates inherited models of aesthetic worth, dismissing hard-won mastery as technical hokum. At the same time, it seduces art majors—novel creatures, historically—to see themselves as an intellectual class commissioned to awaken audiences from acceptance of the status quo. The ultimate aim of the contemporary artist’s training is not facility, not ease with one’s métier, but the political or social message. Since there is no end to things to be anguished about, Hope ‘n’ Change can last forever.
I Thought Artists Were Against Censorship
Right now, the art-and-culture bubble is iridescent with gloom. Election Day was an alarm to mobilize combatants in the culture war to lift the yoke of our oppression. Here in my inbox is a “Dear Colleague” letter from the board of the U.S. chapter of the International Association of Art Critics (AICA), a nongovernmental organization founded in 1950 by the newly formed United Nations:
We’re getting in touch to let you know it is time to renew your membership. But first we’d like to say how deeply troubled and saddened we are by the responses of hatred that we’ve been seeing and hearing about following the results of our presidential election. One of AICA’s founding principles was a statement against censorship. As art critics and writers, we are committed to contribute to mutual understanding of visual aesthetics across cultural boundaries, and to defend impartially freedom of expression and thought and oppose arbitrary censorship. We can’t know what 2017 will be like, but with your renewed membership, AICA-USA will work to redouble our commitment to these values as we head into uncertain times.Who is doing the hating? Perhaps the board missed Matt Welch’s column in Reason last March: “During her October 2015 testimony in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, she [Hillary Clinton] issued the remarkable claim that the murdered cartoonists of the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo ‘sparked’ their own assassinations by drawing caricatures of Mohammed—the free expression equivalent of blaming rape victims for wearing short skirts.”
Someone forgot to tell the board of directors that their preferred candidate thought there ought to be a law, with federal penalties attached, against controversial entertainment—including movies that criticize a politician named Hillary Clinton. This same board stood proud when AICA held its annual international congress this past October at the Museo de Belle Artes in Havana, where freedom of thought and expression are non-issues.
The eminent College Art Association (CAA) encourages attendance at its 2017 Annual Conference with this: “Given the political climate in the United States right now, CAA knows it is of utmost importance to address issues at the intersections of race and contemporary art, colonialism in art history, and the Black Lives Matter movement at the 2017 Annual Conference.”
Conference highlights include a discussion on “Public Art in the Era of Black Lives Matter;” “Picturing Social Movements from Emancipation to Black Lives Matter,” a panel titled “Post-Black and Liquid Blackness” in contemporary African American art; and a talk by Evie Terrano, PhD, an art historian whose topics include challenging the authority of the Confederate flag.
Brushes Aside! We Have Politics to Do
Trump’s victory has affected even the artists’ listserv I belong to. The list began as a handy way to circulate useful information among visual artists in and around New York City. It affirms Picasso’s contention that only critics natter about form and content. When artists get together, they just want to talk about “where to buy cheap turpentine.”
Postings usually keep to methods and materials, the cookery of things. (“If your umbers are drying too quickly, try a little clove oil.”) Subscribers help each other out with the vital questions: Who has the name of a low-cost art mover? What are they paying studio models these days? Can anyone recommend a plumber?
But since Election Day, politics has been gaining ground. This is every cultural worker’s hour to repudiate formalist hocus pocus and encourage solidarity in the arts in service to the noble cause of building . . . no, not communism. Just left-leaning liberalism epitomized by the First Woman not-yet-President.
A December 3 broadcast touted an “action plan” to stop Trump. Remember, he still has not been elected. That happens in the Electoral College on December 19. There were only 16 days left.
Innocuous ornaments like the easel-picture could wait. Better to sign and distribute an Electoral College petition to make Hillary president. Initiate individual contact with specific electors. Keep this Change.org petition in the public’s consciousness by contacting TV stations, reporters, and bloggers. Organize and direct grassroots action; man phone banks; write letters. Promote protests in state capitals on December 19.
A fabric artist—whose hand-stitched work eyeballs the worldwide immigrant crisis, gun violence, health care, and marriage equality—stepped forward to offer her own efforts to the new cause:
Because of the election of Donald Trump I am planning on periodically posting information of events that are in reaction to Trump’s presidency. These events could be demonstrations, teach ins, lectures, study groups, art exhibits, calls for art, readings and performances. If you know of any events that you would like to share on this list and if you would like to receive this list please contact me at . . . .Westbeth, an affordable housing complex for artists on the former site of Bell Laboratories, jumped into the ring to promote “Write Now: A Participatory Installation” assembled to address a world suddenly “in upheaval” by giving artists and visitors to Westbeth Gallery an opportunity to address their feelings. Participants receive Post-It notes in four different colors. They can use as many notes as needed to express their pensées. They can draw, collage, paint, write, or sculpt on them before sticking them on gallery walls.
In addition, participants are encouraged to donate to four recommended charities. The character of Westbeth’s policy preferences is clear in their selected endorsements: Planned Parenthood; the Ali Forney Center for gay and transgender teens; God’s Love We Deliver, a service for HIV/AIDS patients; Cabrini Immigrant Services, a boon companion to illegal aliens seeking social services.
You’re Fueling Trump Again, People
Dark times are upon us. Now more than ever, artists are needed to save us from the snare and the pit. An excerpt from one painter’s lengthy morning-after listserv reflection illustrates the current sense of mission:
I have a responsibility to engage in our communities. In fact, I must admit I feel artists might even bear more responsibility than the general public, as we have special gifts to offer. . . . We offer personal strengths unique to us as artists. I’ve noticed that the anti-fracking community is composed of an inordinate number of artists, and often wondered why. My sense is that because artists are well-educated, more able than most to think ‘outside the box,’ accustomed to taking chances in their art and risks in their lives, artists are among the first to recognize a societal problem, and among the first to search for solutions. . . . Artists perform every type of role imaginable, and have been critical to any of the successes we’ve had. . . .Here is a pitch-perfect sample of the elitist self-regard that contributed to Trump’s victory. The writer, a painter, takes for granted his own rectitude. He also assumes his audience is equally offended by an election that went against the grain of worthier preferences. Worthiness, you see, is a natural result of intellectual superiority. It comes with those special gifts and unique strengths unavailable to lesser sorts.
Now it is time for each of us to act in whatever way feels right to us as individuals and as artists, but definitely to act.
It never occurs to the arts community that it has no more political insight or civic savvy than its neighbors. Like the “anti-fracking community,” the fraternity might have less. Its image of itself as occupying a privileged place in the moral universe is a distorting lens through which self-congratulation looks easily like discernment.
Your ‘Education’ Consists of Indoctrination
Stay for a moment with that term better educated. There is humor in that. Since the post-World War II era, when art training began to shift in earnest from the atelier to the campus, artists have breathed the same infantilizing culture that infects academia.
Consider the University of Delaware’s current pitch for its master of fine arts program. Second-year MFA students are invited to a 9-day frolic dubbed “Barefeet and Birthday Suits: MFA in Berlin.” Tuition is free for this “unique international experience partially funded by private charitable donations.” (Any wonder why millennials went for Bernie Sanders?)
Imagine a program for medical or law students hawked in terms more suggestive of a nudist colony than professional expertise. But then, expertise is an outmoded concept in an area of activity to which the word discipline is hard to apply. Painters, sculptors, and gifted craftsmen still exist. But they are outnumbered by contemporary artists adrift in a sea of undifferentiated “practices,” a portmanteau word for holding whatever posture an MFA drops into it.
By their Post-It notes you will know them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Mullarkey is an artist who writes on art and culture. She keeps the weblog Studio Matters. Follow her on Twitter, @mmletters.
Photo Photo by Maxwell Leung for CAA
Photo William Murphy / Flickr
A Basic Guide to Liberalism and Conservatism, Part I: From the Orthosphere
I have made a major decision in the way I am to approach recent events. And as my last few posts show, I am getting a shower of support! Is this a sign from God :).
Here is a formidable article from the Orthosphere by Alan Roebuck which he has re-edited to clarify some points.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Basic Guide to Liberalism and Conservatism, Part I
By Alan Roebuck
We could use a catechism of liberalism and conservatism (i.e., anti-liberalism.) Young people won’t know about reality unless someone teaches them. They may sense it, but they won’t know it unless someone teaches them.
Update 12/13/16: In response to useful criticism, I have added text to clarify my position...
Part I: Introduction
Liberalism begins with the deliberate violation of the laws of God, the laws of nature, and human tradition. If this blasphemy excites you, you’re prone to become a liberal. If you’re a normal person, it disgusts you, and you will not become a liberal unless it disguises itself as something good.
Everybody knows something’s wrong with the world. As Christians, we know that the ultimate malady is sin, but sin manifests itself in countless ways. We need a more tangible and organized explanation.
A big part of the current problem is liberalism. It’s everywhere, it’s dominant, and it’s perverted. So we all need to defend ourselves against it.
That word “liberalism” is the usual name for the way of thinking that now rules Western civilization, America included. It’s more than just fashionable opinion; liberalism is an organized system. Its ideas are mostly consistent with one another, so they work together like a well-trained sports team. And there are countless organizations which teach liberalism and enforce its morality. Liberalism rules the West, so the people mostly believe it. And even if they don’t believe it, they usually go along with it.
Some intellectuals want another name for what I’ve called liberalism. Or they say that it’s really many separate movements which should not be grouped together under one name. There is some truth to that. But there is one well-defined system of thought that now rules America. And its most common name is “liberalism.”
There is no need here to give a precise definition of liberalism. Like the famous quip about pornography, we know it when we see it. In a sense, everyone knows what it is. Liberalism is legitimizing deviant sex. It’s confiscating guns. It’s exalting nonwhites over whites. It’s rebelling against authority. It’s denying traditional religion. And so on. Everyone (in the Western world, at any rate) has an intuitive sense of the phenomena generally labelled “liberalism.” We also know liberalism because its message is everywhere. Liberalism is what our most honored authorities say you’re supposed to believe. And there is no agreement about the exact definition or essence of liberalism. It’s far easier to prove the falsity of specific liberal beliefs than to identify its essence and then debunk that essence.
A precise definition is also not necessary because this is just Part I. We will have more to say about the essence of liberalism later.
Understand also that liberalism is a collection of doctrines, but liberals are people who affirm these doctrines for the most part. Every liberal has some non-liberal beliefs, so we cannot understand liberalism by looking only at liberals: they, like all mankind, hold contradictory beliefs. Christian beliefs, for example, can coexist in the same person with liberal beliefs, beliefs that are ultimately based on the rejection of the God of the Bible. This does not mean that the acceptance or rejection of Christianity is irrelevant to liberalism, only that people are inconsistent.
*
Liberalism is the official message of the current age. Therefore you might think it’s is true. Not necessarily. When the Communists ruled Russia the Russians heard the Communist message everywhere. But it wasn’t true. When the Nazis ruled Germany the Germans heard the Nazi message everywhere. But it wasn’t true. Sometimes leaders don’t tell the truth.
Conservatism
Liberalism leads to conservatism, the political meaning of which is: any opposition to liberalism. Since it’s defined by what it isn’t, conservatism is much less unified than liberalism. Libertarians, Bible-believing Christians, Nazis, monarchists, and the atheistic followers of Ayn Rand, among others, are all likely to be called “conservatives.”
Notice that not all conservatism (anti-liberalism) is good. We must become the right kind of conservatives.
The word “conservative” was applied because the first conservatives wanted to conserve. They noticed that the traditional way of life of their people was under attack by liberals and their natural—and honorable—response was to defend what was under attack. They wanted to conserve what was good in the traditions of their people.
But that was the past. Liberalism is now victorious. According to our leaders, we’re all supposed to be liberals. Opposition to liberalism still exists but it has unofficial status. Officially we’re all supposed to celebrate diversity, tolerance, compassion, multiculturalism, and so on. Not only that, but these are taken to be the fundamental social goods, before which all other social goods must give way. Thus we are to honor sexual perversion, give away our places to nonwhites, welcome all the Moslems who want to immigrate, and so on.
No doubt diversity, tolerance, compassion and multiculturalism can all be goods in some circumstances, and if they are understood rightly. But the liberal makes the liberal versions of them absolute, and therefore the liberal imperative to honor them becomes a form of tyranny.
The conservatives have failed to conserve the good. Therefore many honorable anti-liberals have contempt for conservatism.
But despite this undeniable fact, “conservatism” is still the generally-accepted word for anti-liberalism. And since anti-liberalism is good, we stick to the traditional terminology. We speak of liberalism versus conservatism.
There’s a lot of finger-pointing on the Right. Some conservatives accuse some supposedly-conservative groups of actually supporting liberalism. Yes, we’re all tainted with liberalism to a certain extent, and guarding against it is an important and never-ending activity. But this author holds that anyone who has awakened to the menace of liberalism is at least a minimal ally. Conservatives should be encouraged to continue to repent more than they should be scolded for their remaining sins.
What’s wrong with liberalism?
It promises good things but it mostly delivers bad things. And the good it delivers is mostly pleasant distractions that occur before the evil that is liberalism’s real consequence develops fully.
For example, the diversity that liberals love results in, among other things, mass immigration by non-white peoples whose ways of life are radically incompatible with our traditional American way of life. The immediate results include lots of ethnic food and music, which are pleasant diversions for many people. But the long-term result is hostility and conflict, as incompatible people fight over resources and how society should be organized and governed.
Liberals imagine a beautiful future when war, poverty, racism and similar evils have been abolished. But to abolish these evils they try to remake mankind, at gunpoint if necessary. The ideal world they imagine never occurs, so liberals must continue to persecute people in a futile attempt to make the human race behave as liberalism says it should.
For example, liberalism says that nobody should be a racist. Racists are to be harassed out of existence, for then mankind will finally be happy. But the harassment of racists is only carried out against white racists. Nonwhite racists are excused because (so they say) they are only responding to centuries of oppression by white people and therefore it’s not really their fault. And whites are punished not just when they’re mean to nonwhite people, but even when they just act like normal people everywhere have always behaved until approximately the middle of the Twentieth Century: Preferring to associate mostly with their own kind and wishing that their nation would not be transformed into a radically multicultural pseudo-empire.
*
Since it’s poisonous and false, liberalism must be supported by endless propaganda. Therefore the man in the street generally goes along with liberalism. He doesn’t imagine that there could be another way and, like most people in the West, the average American is materially well-off. So why would he want to rock the boat? Our leaders must know what they’re doing, right?
Not necessarily. Under a democratic system our leaders must be popular even if it means maintaining popular lies. If there were something fundamentally wrong with the system of thought that rules our nation, democracy would be unable to correct the problem. Politicians who rely on the votes of the people to stay in power cannot afford to deliver that sort of bad news.
*
So why does liberalism fail to deliver the good it promises?
Because liberalism rejects the God of the Bible, a rejection which always leads to a false understanding of how reality operates. Since God is the Supreme Being and the ultimate Author of all that exists, rejecting God causes man fundamentally to misunderstand all of reality.
Although some liberals don’t acknowledge it, liberalism denies the God of the Bible, the traditional God of our people and the one true and living God. Although there is no Bible or Pope of liberalism to make official pronouncements of what is and is not liberal belief, the tenets of contemporary liberalism must deny that God exists as He is described in the Bible, traditionally interpreted. That’s because traditional Christianity denies most of the basic tenets of liberalism. Therefore liberalism must deny God’s existence or His knowability. Or perhaps it must portray God as the Great Liberal in the Sky, weeping over racist police and global warming, and pleading with us to be more tolerant and inclusive. Redefining God can be just as effective as outright denial.
With God denied or demoted, man becomes the de facto Supreme Being. That is, under liberalism in its current form, basic laws of ethics and social order originate from man rather than from a divine source. And the basic laws of nature, including metaphysical laws, must be discovered by man rather than received from God’s Word. Much of nature can be known without explicit reference to God, but the most basic truths, such as that the world has a regular order because it is the product of an orderly divine Mind, become unknowable.
This does not immediately lead to disaster, though. Atheistic man (anyone who sees man as the measure of all things is de facto atheistic) can still be skilled in science and technology. He can still have a basically accurate understanding of the physical world. But without acknowledging God, atheistic man cannot know the true purposes of things, nor can he know their ultimate causes. He cannot know, for example why the human race is divided into man and woman, or the correct way for men and women to relate to one another.
True purposes and ultimate causes cannot be known by scientific investigation because they are non-physical, and science can only study the physical. Under atheism, true purposes and ultimate causes cannot be known because science for the liberal is the only source of certain knowledge. Therefore liberalism regards proper purposes and ultimate causes as opinions rather than facts.
And if they are opinions then they constantly change. That’s why liberals are always fighting to change the way we live: No-fault divorce. Same-sex marriage. Transgender rights. Open borders. Reducing our carbon footprint. What was the right way to do things yesterday is not necessarily the right way today, and who knows what it will be tomorrow?
Under liberalism, there is no such thing as a social order that is relatively stable because the people are in agreement about the basic nature of things. Social orders do change over time, but in the present age the change is speeded up by orders of magnitude. Not just that, but according to liberalism social change becomes one of the basic goods of society. “Change agent” is a liberal title of respect. The natural result is perpetual chaos.
But a human society can only work if the people are in basic agreement about the true purposes and the ultimate causes of things, and about how society ought to be ordered. That way they can trust one another and believe that life makes sense. Stripped of this trust and belief, liberal society eventually and inevitably descends into conflict and chaos. And in contemporary America we have the added pressure of mass immigration which is Balkanizing us into mutually hostile tribes.
Let us therefore oppose liberalism and understand the world as it really is. That is the purpose of this series of posts.
Here is a formidable article from the Orthosphere by Alan Roebuck which he has re-edited to clarify some points.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Alan Roebuck
We could use a catechism of liberalism and conservatism (i.e., anti-liberalism.) Young people won’t know about reality unless someone teaches them. They may sense it, but they won’t know it unless someone teaches them.
Update 12/13/16: In response to useful criticism, I have added text to clarify my position...
Liberalism begins with the deliberate violation of the laws of God, the laws of nature, and human tradition. If this blasphemy excites you, you’re prone to become a liberal. If you’re a normal person, it disgusts you, and you will not become a liberal unless it disguises itself as something good.
Everybody knows something’s wrong with the world. As Christians, we know that the ultimate malady is sin, but sin manifests itself in countless ways. We need a more tangible and organized explanation.
A big part of the current problem is liberalism. It’s everywhere, it’s dominant, and it’s perverted. So we all need to defend ourselves against it.
That word “liberalism” is the usual name for the way of thinking that now rules Western civilization, America included. It’s more than just fashionable opinion; liberalism is an organized system. Its ideas are mostly consistent with one another, so they work together like a well-trained sports team. And there are countless organizations which teach liberalism and enforce its morality. Liberalism rules the West, so the people mostly believe it. And even if they don’t believe it, they usually go along with it.
Some intellectuals want another name for what I’ve called liberalism. Or they say that it’s really many separate movements which should not be grouped together under one name. There is some truth to that. But there is one well-defined system of thought that now rules America. And its most common name is “liberalism.”
There is no need here to give a precise definition of liberalism. Like the famous quip about pornography, we know it when we see it. In a sense, everyone knows what it is. Liberalism is legitimizing deviant sex. It’s confiscating guns. It’s exalting nonwhites over whites. It’s rebelling against authority. It’s denying traditional religion. And so on. Everyone (in the Western world, at any rate) has an intuitive sense of the phenomena generally labelled “liberalism.” We also know liberalism because its message is everywhere. Liberalism is what our most honored authorities say you’re supposed to believe. And there is no agreement about the exact definition or essence of liberalism. It’s far easier to prove the falsity of specific liberal beliefs than to identify its essence and then debunk that essence.
A precise definition is also not necessary because this is just Part I. We will have more to say about the essence of liberalism later.
Understand also that liberalism is a collection of doctrines, but liberals are people who affirm these doctrines for the most part. Every liberal has some non-liberal beliefs, so we cannot understand liberalism by looking only at liberals: they, like all mankind, hold contradictory beliefs. Christian beliefs, for example, can coexist in the same person with liberal beliefs, beliefs that are ultimately based on the rejection of the God of the Bible. This does not mean that the acceptance or rejection of Christianity is irrelevant to liberalism, only that people are inconsistent.
*
Liberalism is the official message of the current age. Therefore you might think it’s is true. Not necessarily. When the Communists ruled Russia the Russians heard the Communist message everywhere. But it wasn’t true. When the Nazis ruled Germany the Germans heard the Nazi message everywhere. But it wasn’t true. Sometimes leaders don’t tell the truth.
Liberalism leads to conservatism, the political meaning of which is: any opposition to liberalism. Since it’s defined by what it isn’t, conservatism is much less unified than liberalism. Libertarians, Bible-believing Christians, Nazis, monarchists, and the atheistic followers of Ayn Rand, among others, are all likely to be called “conservatives.”
Notice that not all conservatism (anti-liberalism) is good. We must become the right kind of conservatives.
The word “conservative” was applied because the first conservatives wanted to conserve. They noticed that the traditional way of life of their people was under attack by liberals and their natural—and honorable—response was to defend what was under attack. They wanted to conserve what was good in the traditions of their people.
But that was the past. Liberalism is now victorious. According to our leaders, we’re all supposed to be liberals. Opposition to liberalism still exists but it has unofficial status. Officially we’re all supposed to celebrate diversity, tolerance, compassion, multiculturalism, and so on. Not only that, but these are taken to be the fundamental social goods, before which all other social goods must give way. Thus we are to honor sexual perversion, give away our places to nonwhites, welcome all the Moslems who want to immigrate, and so on.
No doubt diversity, tolerance, compassion and multiculturalism can all be goods in some circumstances, and if they are understood rightly. But the liberal makes the liberal versions of them absolute, and therefore the liberal imperative to honor them becomes a form of tyranny.
The conservatives have failed to conserve the good. Therefore many honorable anti-liberals have contempt for conservatism.
But despite this undeniable fact, “conservatism” is still the generally-accepted word for anti-liberalism. And since anti-liberalism is good, we stick to the traditional terminology. We speak of liberalism versus conservatism.
There’s a lot of finger-pointing on the Right. Some conservatives accuse some supposedly-conservative groups of actually supporting liberalism. Yes, we’re all tainted with liberalism to a certain extent, and guarding against it is an important and never-ending activity. But this author holds that anyone who has awakened to the menace of liberalism is at least a minimal ally. Conservatives should be encouraged to continue to repent more than they should be scolded for their remaining sins.
It promises good things but it mostly delivers bad things. And the good it delivers is mostly pleasant distractions that occur before the evil that is liberalism’s real consequence develops fully.
For example, the diversity that liberals love results in, among other things, mass immigration by non-white peoples whose ways of life are radically incompatible with our traditional American way of life. The immediate results include lots of ethnic food and music, which are pleasant diversions for many people. But the long-term result is hostility and conflict, as incompatible people fight over resources and how society should be organized and governed.
Liberals imagine a beautiful future when war, poverty, racism and similar evils have been abolished. But to abolish these evils they try to remake mankind, at gunpoint if necessary. The ideal world they imagine never occurs, so liberals must continue to persecute people in a futile attempt to make the human race behave as liberalism says it should.
For example, liberalism says that nobody should be a racist. Racists are to be harassed out of existence, for then mankind will finally be happy. But the harassment of racists is only carried out against white racists. Nonwhite racists are excused because (so they say) they are only responding to centuries of oppression by white people and therefore it’s not really their fault. And whites are punished not just when they’re mean to nonwhite people, but even when they just act like normal people everywhere have always behaved until approximately the middle of the Twentieth Century: Preferring to associate mostly with their own kind and wishing that their nation would not be transformed into a radically multicultural pseudo-empire.
*
Since it’s poisonous and false, liberalism must be supported by endless propaganda. Therefore the man in the street generally goes along with liberalism. He doesn’t imagine that there could be another way and, like most people in the West, the average American is materially well-off. So why would he want to rock the boat? Our leaders must know what they’re doing, right?
Not necessarily. Under a democratic system our leaders must be popular even if it means maintaining popular lies. If there were something fundamentally wrong with the system of thought that rules our nation, democracy would be unable to correct the problem. Politicians who rely on the votes of the people to stay in power cannot afford to deliver that sort of bad news.
*
So why does liberalism fail to deliver the good it promises?
Because liberalism rejects the God of the Bible, a rejection which always leads to a false understanding of how reality operates. Since God is the Supreme Being and the ultimate Author of all that exists, rejecting God causes man fundamentally to misunderstand all of reality.
Although some liberals don’t acknowledge it, liberalism denies the God of the Bible, the traditional God of our people and the one true and living God. Although there is no Bible or Pope of liberalism to make official pronouncements of what is and is not liberal belief, the tenets of contemporary liberalism must deny that God exists as He is described in the Bible, traditionally interpreted. That’s because traditional Christianity denies most of the basic tenets of liberalism. Therefore liberalism must deny God’s existence or His knowability. Or perhaps it must portray God as the Great Liberal in the Sky, weeping over racist police and global warming, and pleading with us to be more tolerant and inclusive. Redefining God can be just as effective as outright denial.
With God denied or demoted, man becomes the de facto Supreme Being. That is, under liberalism in its current form, basic laws of ethics and social order originate from man rather than from a divine source. And the basic laws of nature, including metaphysical laws, must be discovered by man rather than received from God’s Word. Much of nature can be known without explicit reference to God, but the most basic truths, such as that the world has a regular order because it is the product of an orderly divine Mind, become unknowable.
This does not immediately lead to disaster, though. Atheistic man (anyone who sees man as the measure of all things is de facto atheistic) can still be skilled in science and technology. He can still have a basically accurate understanding of the physical world. But without acknowledging God, atheistic man cannot know the true purposes of things, nor can he know their ultimate causes. He cannot know, for example why the human race is divided into man and woman, or the correct way for men and women to relate to one another.
True purposes and ultimate causes cannot be known by scientific investigation because they are non-physical, and science can only study the physical. Under atheism, true purposes and ultimate causes cannot be known because science for the liberal is the only source of certain knowledge. Therefore liberalism regards proper purposes and ultimate causes as opinions rather than facts.
And if they are opinions then they constantly change. That’s why liberals are always fighting to change the way we live: No-fault divorce. Same-sex marriage. Transgender rights. Open borders. Reducing our carbon footprint. What was the right way to do things yesterday is not necessarily the right way today, and who knows what it will be tomorrow?
Under liberalism, there is no such thing as a social order that is relatively stable because the people are in agreement about the basic nature of things. Social orders do change over time, but in the present age the change is speeded up by orders of magnitude. Not just that, but according to liberalism social change becomes one of the basic goods of society. “Change agent” is a liberal title of respect. The natural result is perpetual chaos.
But a human society can only work if the people are in basic agreement about the true purposes and the ultimate causes of things, and about how society ought to be ordered. That way they can trust one another and believe that life makes sense. Stripped of this trust and belief, liberal society eventually and inevitably descends into conflict and chaos. And in contemporary America we have the added pressure of mass immigration which is Balkanizing us into mutually hostile tribes.
Let us therefore oppose liberalism and understand the world as it really is. That is the purpose of this series of posts.
Made in Canada: Fashion to Eternity
Images arranged and Photoshoped by KPA from Mode-Ste
Mode-ste may appear to be a niche-focused brand, but it’s a very big niche. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, according to the Pew Research Center. Data from advisory firm DinarStandard shows Muslims spent US$230 billion on clothing in 2014.
But Chtourou is looking beyond her Muslim customer base. She says Mode-ste is “for every women of all statures, all cultures. Our goal is to make our clothing mainstream.”
[Quote from CTV News video below]
I wrote on Muslim fashion a few years ago here and here. The Muslim fashion industry in Canada has come a long way since, with a Made in Canada factory working out of Montreal to provide clothing that Muslim girls and their infidel friends can enjoy. Of course, Mode-ste has a larger vision that would lead from Fashion to Eternity for All.
Friday, December 16, 2016
My Time with the Indians
Bad Eagle, ancestor of David Yeagley
Below is a forum discussion on the late David Yeagley's Bad Eagle website. Yeagley would write articles or commentaries and leave it up to a registered group of commentators (many of whom became friends) to "trash out" their arguments. I was part of that group. Yeagley was lenient, but he would occasionally ban hecklers. More often than not, we all came out a little wiser.
The comments section is especially entertaining - and serious - which is a good combination to keep discussions lively. Again this was thanks to Yeagley's vision. But he never convinced me of his vision of the "question of Indians," American or Canadian.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: The Best on Bad Eagle
By: David Yeagley
August 31 2009
BadEagle.com was recently noted by an Ethiopian artist on her website, Camera Lucinda [sic]. Her remarks about BadEagle.com are a milestone, and deserve serious consideration. Why?
Kidist Paulos Asrat, known as “She Designs,” is a highly educated and elegant woman, who expresses herself beautifully in words, as well as in textiles, graphic arts, film, and photography.
Kidist Paulos Asrat,
woman of the world.
[My reaction later in the discussion:
I am a Canadian citizen, not a “woman of the world.”]
Asrat is a native of Ethiopia, but was educated in Canada, and has lived most of her life there. She studied textile design at the Ontario College of Art and Design, and also studied drawing and painting under Toronto artist Michael Jenzen and botanical artist Leslie Staple. She studied film and photography at Ryerson University under two of Canada’s most renowned artists, Bruce Elder, an experimental filmmaker, and Don Snyder, a photographer.
Asrat’s films and photographs have been exhibited in Toronto, Montreal, Prague and Lille (France). She has served on the Board of Directors for Trinity Square Video, a non-profit video art organization.
As a young child, Asrat was trained in ballet and piano. More recently, she has been a performing member in several dance groups, including a modern dance ensemble. She has also given many public piano performances.
Kidist Asrat was attracted to BadEagle.com.
That in itself bespeaks her sense of adventure, experimentation, and creativity. Not that every conversation on BadEagle.com was something worthy of her interest, but Asrat’s view of the American Indian patriot website is most worthy of our interest.
She says, in “Indians Will Be Indians,” that BadEagle.com has failed to work the magic it professes. She admits that, in her fascination with the scope of the site, she often forgot that it was in fact an “Indian” site. When considering the purpose of BadEagle.com, American Patriotism, she reflects:
“Is there really an Indian who is at peace with America and willing to swallow the bitter pills of defeat? I thought so for a while at Bad Eagle, but I think I was asking for a superhuman feat.”
“Despite a professed love for America, I think David, naturally, loves Indians first—and best. So he has to find ways to incorporate the defeat of his people with their uncomfortable and humiliating lives in modern America. Hence, his strange and constant discussions of the subliminal effects of Indians on America, and even the world.”
Asrat, as indeed the world, sees Indians as a defeated people. However, she is not a liberal, so she doesn’t see Indians as victims. Rather, she sees in Indians the failure to respond to the modern world. She sees my attempts at reinterpreting these present circumstances as a failure to address the problem. BadEagle.com works no ‘medicine’ for Indian people, therefore.
Asrat, as indeed the world, sees Indians as a defeated people. However, she is not a liberal, so she doesn’t see Indians as victims. Rather, she sees in Indians the failure to respond to the modern world. She sees my attempts at reinterpreting these present circumstances as a failure to address the problem. BadEagle.com works no ‘medicine’ for Indian people, therefore.
“I’m afraid that David, cleverly and sincerely, is using psychological tactics to give Indians the importance they don’t have. We have some magical properties, we can heal your ills, he says.”
Yet, BadEagle.com doesn’t spend time addressing the obvious problems Indians have.
“Unfortunately, David seems more interested in giving Indians a false sense of their position in the world based on feelings and emotions rather than provide recourse for actual achievements. He is acting like any other (leftist) Indian in this case, who professes magical, spiritual qualities, which unfortunately have not been proven yet.”
Unfortunately, perhaps, Asrat does not understand the value of being Indian, to an Indian. Indians chose to be Indian, rather than adapt to a new culture they did not value. In a sense, Indians are the one people whom America has never and will never defeat, psychologically. To make this Indian mind set applicable to the modern world is the point of BadEagle.com. Ethnicity and nationhood are one, in the Indian. Indians cherish our nationhood. The problem in much of the world today is the fact that ethnicities do not value their nations.
The leftist craze for immigration, integration, and intermarriage is precisely what Indians eschewed, historically, and why Indians still exist as Indians today—beleaguered as we are by white leftists and leftist-trained Indians. I am ever the opposite of a leftist.
Now, the issue of the treaties is related, but only as the historical foundation of the blood-bought right to be separate, or, to be Indian, forever.
But I can’t really expect any non-Indian to understand this. The only thing that really singes me about Kidist is the fact that she trashes Ilana Mercer! Ilana was the first noted writer to take the Bad Eagle Interview. But Kidist sees things I don’t see. Therefore, I take note when she “sees” BadEagle.com.
--------------------------------------------------
The comments, lively and insightful, start here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hate and Hateful Hatreds: Wisdom From The Orthosphere
and this is my united states of whatever
Hate and Hateful Hatreds
By: JS Smith
I have been preoccupied with soi-disant enemies of Hate, those men and women who are on fire to abolish what cooler heads must recognize as a highly ambiguous sentiment. Hate is an ambiguous sentiment because it is always joined to love, like follow and lead in a partner dance. Thus a world without hate would be a loveless world, an apotheosis of apathy, a United States of Whatever.
Hate is the emotion one naturally feels towards that which threatens to harm, is harming, or has harmed something one loves. When the harm is prospective, hate steels the heart to prevent it. When the harm is in progress, hate strengthens the arm to stop it. When the harm is accomplished, hate feeds the resolve to revenge it.
This is why a man can say that he “hates hate” without contradiction. But what he means is that he hates what he believes to be a disordered hate. Disordered hate is hatred directed at an object that does not deserve to be hated, or at least hated to the degree it is hated. Disordered hatred is a species of injustice.
Disordered hate is the always partnered in a dance with disordered love, which is love directed at an object that does not deserve to be loved, or at least loved to the degree that it is loved. This too is a species of injustice.
Thus beneath all the sound and furry about Hate lie questions about the proper order, and principal disorders, of the human heart. It appears to me that there are four varieties of disordered hate: wrathful hate, hysterical hate, fanatical hate, and satanic hate.
Wrathful hate is hate that has broken its tether to love. It is no longer directed to the prevention, cessation, or vengeance of harm, but has swollen to mere madness. Wrathful hate is what used to be known as a passion, back when we understood that passion was not a good thing. Rage is another name for wrathful hate, and is almost always transitory.
Hysterical hate is hate aroused by misplaced fears. It is directed at chimerical threats and imaginary dangers. It is sometimes called a “moral panic” because it forecasts harms that will not come. “Homophobia” and “Islamophobia” are, for instance, charges of hysterical hate because (it is claimed) homosexuals and Muslims pose no danger to anything. Those who think that they do are in the grip of hysteria.
Fanatical hate is hate aroused by misplaced love. In this case the threats and dangers may be real enough, but the thing that is threatened or endangered does not deserve protection from harm, or at least protection of the ferocity the fanatic is ready to offer. As the name implies, the prototype for this is hatred of men who desecrate the temple (fanum) of a false god, although today such hatred is more often seen among ideologues of one stripe or another. Touch the idol of a fanatic with unclean hands, and watch the molten hate erupt.
There is, to be sure, a grey zone between hysterical hate and fanatical hate, but most cases are easy to classify as one or the other.
Satanic hate is simple hatred of the good, the prototype being, of course, Satan’s hatred of God. Satanic hatred is hatred for everything that is loved by a heart that is properly ordered, which is to say everything that is good, beautiful and true. I suspect that envy lies at the heart of satanic hatred, for a man in the grip of satanic hatred feels humiliated rather than exalted in the presence of anything greater than himself. The well-ordered heart honors and reveres things that are greater than itself; the heart disordered by satanic hatred burns to tear such things down.
A well-ordered heart is not a heart without hate, for to be well ordered it must burn with hatred for hateful hatreds. To do so is a simple matter of justice.
The question, of course, is which hatreds are truly hateful, and which are perfectly just. No thoughtful man is an enemy of Hate, but only of what he believes to be disordered or unjust hates directed against things that are not truly hateful.
But most of the soi-disant enemies of Hate are not, so far as I can see, remarkable for thought.
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Grammar and Civilization
| “The decline and fall of a civilization is barely noticed by most of its citizens." Captain James Cook |
After I posted my article early this morning: Moving Forward in Multi-Culti Mississauga where I write: "Fascinating, the language of the modern liberal era" I found the article How Can Studying Grammar Save Our Culture? at The Imaginative Conservative.
I've posted the full article How Can Studying Grammar Save Our Culture? below:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Can Studying Grammar Save Our Culture?
By Thaddeus Kozinski
| There is tremendous need for conscious and vigorous action to shape and reshape our behavior in accordance with virtue, the common good, and God’s Law. What could studying grammar have to do with saving our culture..? |
In his 1946 essay, “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell sounds an almost despairing note:
Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it…. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.In his 2016 essay, “Exercises in Unreality,” Anthony Esolen echoes Orwell:
The writing of most students is irreparable in the way that aphasia is…. The students make grammatical errors for which there are no names. Their experience of the written language has been formed by junk fiction in school, text messages, blog posts, blather on the airwaves, and the bureaucratic sludge that they are taught for ‘formal’ writing, and that George Orwell identified and skewered seventy years ago. The best of them are bad writers of English; the others write no language known to man.
Certainly between 1946 and 2016, the English language has suffered, and most college students do not know even basic grammar. But is it true that “we cannot by conscious action do anything about it?” Or is language truly “an instrument which we shape for our own purposes?”
Wyoming Catholic College has been consciously acting to shape our rapidly degenerating discourse for almost a decade now by a sequence of courses called the Trivium, Latin for the “three ways” of grammar, logic, and rhetoric. In the words of the great trivium Master, Sister Miriam Joseph: “Grammar prescribes how to combine words so as to form sentences correctly. Logic prescribes how to combine concepts into judgments and judgments into syllogisms and chains of reasoning so as to achieve truth. Rhetoric prescribes how to combine sentences into paragraphs and paragraphs into a whole composition having unity, coherence, and the desired emphasis, as well as clarity, force, and beauty.”
We have heard much about the moral, political, and spiritual corruption of American culture, and certainly there is tremendous need for conscious and vigorous action to shape and reshape our behavior in accordance with virtue, the common good, and God’s Law. What could studying grammar have to do with saving our culture? Well, we are told in John’s Gospel that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Does this passage indicate an intimate connection between language and God, and thus between our words and our spiritual health? As Orwell argued at the end of World War II, the ubiquitous corruption of language in the West was not simply an effect of moral and political corruption, but was, in a profound sense, a cause of it.
In the twelfth century, John of Salisbury wrote that “Those to whom the Trivium has disclosed the significance of all words…do not need the help of a teacher in order to understand the meaning of books and to find the solutions to questions.” What is this “significance”? Literally, words are signs of reality. But perhaps what Salisbury means to convey is that things themselves, though quite real, are also, and ultimately, multiple signs of Reality. For, is not the created universe an imitation of the uncreated Divine Simplicity of the Father in and through the Son, the eternal Word, the Logos?
Why does Salisbury claim that graduates of the trivium no longer need a human teacher? Of course, humility dictates always sitting at the feet of the wise, but perhaps the profound grasp of and adept use of words that a trivium education provides will enable one to complete anything essential to one’s learning on his own, remaining, of course, until death and after, at the feet of the Incarnate Word.
In our day, when Great Books lie unopened and clicking through ephemera on screens is all but compulsory, when heartfelt questions about existence, God, and the meaning of life are supplanted by the banal curiosities of celebrity romance, money-making schemes, and therapeutic elixirs, we desperately need leaders with a command of logos, who think clearly, rigorously, and creatively, and who write and speak forcefully and elegantly. A Wyoming Catholic College trivium education results in apprentices of the teacher, the Logos, who alone has the words of everlasting life, full of spirit and truth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Books on the topic of this essay may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore. Republished with gracious permission from Wyoming Catholic College’s Weekly Bulletin (September 2016).
Mozart: Genius in Three Notes
How Mozart Summed Up the Universe in Three Notes
The link above is to a discussion on Mozart's genius by classical musician, composer, conductor, and music commentator Robert Kapilow.
Here are my modest takes on Mozart:
I will start with a quote from my 2013 post on his birthday:
I can never have enough praise for Mozart. You could say that I am a Mozartphile. I am forever surprised, astounded, delighted and intrigued by his music. Recently, I have been listening to Dvorak and Sibelius, and they surprise and astound, but they never really delight like Mozart.Several short posts I've made over the years of blogging:
The incredible thing about Mozart is how accessible he is, without losing any of his musical complexity. I think he does this by keeping his essential melody (often enchantingly beautiful) always within the listener's reach (more at the post).
Preserving this West
Two Hundred and Fifty Years: January 27th, Mozart's Birthday (2006)
Mozart's Birthday (2013)
Vladimir Horowitz Plays Mozart; Who Does Bach Justice?
Kenneth Clark's Civilization: Mozart's Symmetry
An Idiot Playing at Genius
Moving Forward in Multi-Culti Mississauga
I received an email recently with the phrase "moving forward" in the concluding paragraph.
It is a variation on "going forward" which I have never really understood. Moving forward/going forward toward what? With what? An agreement? A dissolution (of a partnership or a relationship)? Is it good this going forward? Is it a bad thing? Who is doing the forward moving, the one who declares it or the one who receives the invitation? It sounds less of an invitation and more like a threat. What if the invitee doesn't want to move forward in the same direction, or at all?
Fascinating, the language of the modern liberal era.
In any case, it is some kind of jargon which now crops up in all kinds of places and with a faint aura of a threat behind it: "Moving forward, or else." (I typed "ora" in my online dictionary as in oratory, spoken word etc. but no results. I then simply googled "ora" and found this!)
Besides the initial humor (incredulity is a better word) at least that I found with the whole thing - the cops were involved as the email sent to me was cc'd to the Mississauga Square One Security Office, which is linked to the Peel Regional Police - I realized that this is all dead serious. There is a war that has been waged, and the sooner we on the "other side" acknowledge this, the better.)
Here is someone who feels the say way I do about this "inane" phrase:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Going forward, let's consign this inane phrase to history
By: Mark Seacombe
Superfluous, meaningless but ubiquitous, it arrived from corporate America and now permeates every area of our lives
Barack Obama does it, David Cameron does it; film stars and advertising people do it; even national newspaper editors do it. But let's not do it. Going forward, let's not utter or write the superfluous, meaningless, ubiquitous "going forward".
It is impossible to get through a meeting today without being verbally assaulted by this inanity. And it nearly always is verbal; you have to be truly unthinking to commit it to paper. When I hear those two words it is my signal to switch off and think about something more interesting, such as Preston North End's prospects going forward. See how easy it is to lapse into this vacuousness.
It is sometimes deployed as an add-on – a kind of burp – at the end of a sentence; sometimes, as with "like" or "you know", it seems to serve as punctuation. But it is especially infuriating when used with the word plan. I heard somebody say a few days ago: "Going forward, the plan is … " How can a plan be about anything but the future? Planning the past would be a remarkable facility.
Why do people speak like this? The online Urban Dictionary offers two possible explanations: the first defines "going forward" as "a phrase that business people use to mean someone completely [messed up] big time but we don't want to dwell on whose fault it was; instead can we all just adopt an optimistic outlook and please can we all start thinking about the future, not the shithole of a present that we're in?"
The other, less scatalogical definition is: "Going forward is purported to mean 'in the future' or 'somewhere down the road' when in fact it is an attempt to dodge the use of these words, which generally indicate 'I don't know'. A newer development in corporate doublespeak, in most companies it is grounds for dismissal to release a press release without mentioning something 'going forward'. Going forward, you will likely see this turning up everywhere: 'Our company expects to make a profit going forward'; 'We don't expect any layoffs going forward'."
I blame the businessmen and women of America – still the undisputed world leader in abusing the English language. It is difficult to pinpoint the birth of "going forward". But my former colleague at the Financial Times, Lucy Kellaway, has accused the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
Given the mess that American capitalism is in, we should not be surprised to learn that the body that regulates the nation's stock exchanges, among other things, specialises in obfuscation. Kellaway has fought a valiant but ultimately doomed campaign against "going forward".
Another attempt was made by a British website, the Institution of Silly and Meaningless Sayings (isms), which kept a "going-forward-ometer" until the people running it gave up, exasperated, nine months later, after recording hundreds of instances.
It cites nonsenses such as: "He's coming back to help going forward"; "We cannot back down, going forward"; "Problems for England's backs, going forward"; "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, going forward." The last one was a joke, of course: Abraham Lincoln would never have perpetrated such a solecism.
While it may have started in corporate America, "going forward" has now penetrated every area of British life. It even came from the mouth of the multilingual Emily Maitlis on Newsnight the other evening. Comically, her interviewee shot back with a "going forward".
You would think that Formula 1 was an organisation that, self-evidently, did not need to underline the direction in which it was moving. But when F1 in the US appointed Steve Sexton as president it announced: "He will be a tremendous asset to our operation going forward."
I want to know, guys, about your races going backwards.
Saturday, December 10, 2016
Pizza Party with the Devil
"Pizza Party" By An Dy exhibited at the Living Arts Centre Gallery, Mississauga
There's an instinctive awareness of evil these days. That means that people are reacting to evil as though it were some common occurrence. People used to shy away from evil, concocting all kinds of ways to deter it, or keep it away from them. Now, they court it.
I wrote to a friend in April 2015:
I think the devil is really rearing his head...
Look at this horrendous, ghoulish, un-artistic piece of "pizza" which this useless creature has produced as art. What lows we have reached.
I went to the Living Arts Centre Gallery a little while ago, not that I thought I would find anything exceptional, but to see what's "cooking."
And I found the Pizza Party. Unbelievable.
December 9th 2016 update:
Here is what I found at Dy's Facebook page which I missed at my last "visit":
Quinn in my mouth (2015)
Oil on paper
Sunday, December 4, 2016
Three (Godly) Reasons to Get Some Sleep
Three Reasons to Get Some Sleep
By Jonathan Parnell
Pastor, Minneapolis, Minnesota
[Full article below]
----------------------------------------------------------
Life is short. Stay awake for it.
So goes the tagline for the second largest coffee franchise in America. It’s catchy and practical. Drink our coffee, it suggests, not merely for its taste, but for its benefits, that is, to be awake to life. And the reason being — here comes the resonating connection — life is short. The clock is ticking. Our days are numbered. And we Christians agree (Psalm 90:10; 103:15–16; James 4:14).
Life is too short to sleep all the time.
But life is also too short not to sleep a large part of the time.
The fact is humans need sleep, between 7–8 hours a day. But most of us aren’t getting it. According to studies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, sleep deprivation is epidemic. In the last week articles and infographs have been circulating the web with convincing evidence that this is the real deal.
In addition to that content, here are three reasons why you should get some sleep.
1. God created you to require sleep for a healthy life
In a sense, this highlights the most intuitive reason why we need sleep: to survive. Most of us (not all of us) know from experience that going without ample sleep has drastic effects on us physically and emotionally. The latest study claims that going just one night with less than six hours of sleep may alter our genes and cause several side effects — from a higher chance of catching a cold to the loss of brain tissue.
But perhaps the most shared result is that without enough sleep we’re “more likely to get emotional.” Now we know how to fill in that generic term. Without enough sleep, we are more easily stressed and frustrated. Our capacity for patience dissipates. Lack of sleep is a sucker-punch to our ability to listen and think creatively, and therefore be productive.
Personally, one of the toughest things during my time in seminary was sleeplessness (and I think I got more than most guys). David Mathis and I don’t mention sleep in our little book How to Stay Christian in Seminary, but it could easily merit its own chapter. Days that followed only a few hours of shut-eye often meant the Hebrew was harder and our home was unhappy. But a good night of sleep was like its own mini-vacation, and it still is.
God created us this way. Just like oxygen and food, we need sleep to work right. It won’t look the same for everyone, and some are in situations where their care for others inhibits a solid snooze, but know for sure that we need sleep. It was God’s idea.
2. Sleep is the midwife of humility
Humility is a heart-virtue that gestates. It matures over time, born by truth and practice. We believe facts about reality (we’re needy creatures, not autonomous beings), and we act in step with those facts.
Next to prayer, sleep may be the most central practice that lines up with the truth of who we are. Sleep is that necessary moment that comes every single day when our bodies go slow and our minds start dragging. They witness to our fragility. And eventually, we will surrender. Our problem, as the studies suggest, is that we don’t surrender soon enough. Oftentimes we push back. The invitation gets handed to us with generous terms, but we resist until we’re wrestled down.
To be sure, some people have trouble falling asleep. One report says 40 million Americans suffer from 70 different sleep disorders. It’s serious, and deserves treatment, which could be simply adopting new habits. But the concern here is the heart of the matter. Whether we fall asleep quickly or not, we can welcome sleep for what it is. We can choose to bow out of the action, to know that the world will be fine without us for a while. We can welcome that segment of the day when we make ourselves most vulnerable, when we exit consciousness and are forced to, in the right sense, “let go, and let God.” Whether we actually say it or not, going to bed prays, at least in practice: “Now I lay me down to sleep. Lord, I pray my soul to keep. If I should die before I wake, Lord, I pray my soul to take.”
Sleep is intrinsically a humble thing to do.
3. Sleep is distinctively Christian
Really, there is something remarkably Christian about sleep. We see this first in the Psalms and then fulfilled in the life of Jesus.
We read in Psalm 3:5–6, “I lay down a slept and woke again, for the Lᴏʀᴅ sustained me. I will not be afraid of many thousands of people who have set themselves against me all around.” Then we read in Psalm 4:8, “In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lᴏʀᴅ, make me dwell in safety.”
It’s Saying Something
Two things are happening here. First, David is making sleep an act of faith in the Lord’s protection. Enemies surround him, and they want to destroy him. But he sleeps. He knows the Lord sustains him and guards him. But why? How does he know this? Here’s the second thing to see: David trusts in God’s protection because of what God says in Psalm 2.
In Psalm 2 we see that the Lord’s King — who is also a Son — will reign. He will have the nations as his heritage and the ends of the earth his possession (Psalm 2:7–8). The Lord exalts him and issues the warning of his supremacy: “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you perish in the way. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.” (Psalm 2:12). This is an endorsement that carries throughout the entire Psalter. The Lord is committed to his King, his Son, his Anointed — and David knows it.
David is God’s anointed king, but he mirrors the true and better Anointed King that will descend from his lineage (2 Samuel 7:16). David’s faith in God’s protection, displayed by his sleep, points us to the Son of David who also knew how to sleep — which we see in Mark 4.
Why Jesus Slept
This scene of Mark 4 shows us Jesus and his disciples out at sea when a windstorm arises. The waves are so intense that they’re breaking into the boat, filling it with water (Mark 4:37). The disciples are terrified. This is a shipwreck in the works. But where is Jesus? He is in the stern of the boat asleep on a cushion (verse 38). He wakes up to stop the storm by his word and the disciples are awed. But we as readers — disciples with a canonical conscience — see him sleeping and we’re awed.
Jesus slept for the same reason David did. He knew that his Father would protect him. Based upon what God had promised to his King, to David, to Moses, to Abraham, to Adam — Jesus knew God would keep his Anointed. Sleep was the symbol of faith in that promise. It was for Jesus and for David and for us.
The Same Spirit of Faith
When we sleep we are saying — in that same spirit of faith — that God will protect his Anointed and all those anointed in him (2 Corinthians 1:21). We are saying that no matter how many thousand enemies surround our soul, because of the Father’s commitment to his Son, we will not be destroyed. We will not be condemned. Nothing will ever be able to snatch us out of his hand (John 10:28). Nothing will ever separate us from his love (Romans 8:38–39). When we go to bed, we are saying that.
Christian, life is short. You should get some sleep.
By Jonathan Parnell
Pastor, Minneapolis, Minnesota
[Full article below]
----------------------------------------------------------
Life is short. Stay awake for it.
So goes the tagline for the second largest coffee franchise in America. It’s catchy and practical. Drink our coffee, it suggests, not merely for its taste, but for its benefits, that is, to be awake to life. And the reason being — here comes the resonating connection — life is short. The clock is ticking. Our days are numbered. And we Christians agree (Psalm 90:10; 103:15–16; James 4:14).
Life is too short to sleep all the time.
But life is also too short not to sleep a large part of the time.
The fact is humans need sleep, between 7–8 hours a day. But most of us aren’t getting it. According to studies from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, sleep deprivation is epidemic. In the last week articles and infographs have been circulating the web with convincing evidence that this is the real deal.
In addition to that content, here are three reasons why you should get some sleep.
1. God created you to require sleep for a healthy life
In a sense, this highlights the most intuitive reason why we need sleep: to survive. Most of us (not all of us) know from experience that going without ample sleep has drastic effects on us physically and emotionally. The latest study claims that going just one night with less than six hours of sleep may alter our genes and cause several side effects — from a higher chance of catching a cold to the loss of brain tissue.
But perhaps the most shared result is that without enough sleep we’re “more likely to get emotional.” Now we know how to fill in that generic term. Without enough sleep, we are more easily stressed and frustrated. Our capacity for patience dissipates. Lack of sleep is a sucker-punch to our ability to listen and think creatively, and therefore be productive.
Personally, one of the toughest things during my time in seminary was sleeplessness (and I think I got more than most guys). David Mathis and I don’t mention sleep in our little book How to Stay Christian in Seminary, but it could easily merit its own chapter. Days that followed only a few hours of shut-eye often meant the Hebrew was harder and our home was unhappy. But a good night of sleep was like its own mini-vacation, and it still is.
God created us this way. Just like oxygen and food, we need sleep to work right. It won’t look the same for everyone, and some are in situations where their care for others inhibits a solid snooze, but know for sure that we need sleep. It was God’s idea.
2. Sleep is the midwife of humility
Humility is a heart-virtue that gestates. It matures over time, born by truth and practice. We believe facts about reality (we’re needy creatures, not autonomous beings), and we act in step with those facts.
Next to prayer, sleep may be the most central practice that lines up with the truth of who we are. Sleep is that necessary moment that comes every single day when our bodies go slow and our minds start dragging. They witness to our fragility. And eventually, we will surrender. Our problem, as the studies suggest, is that we don’t surrender soon enough. Oftentimes we push back. The invitation gets handed to us with generous terms, but we resist until we’re wrestled down.
To be sure, some people have trouble falling asleep. One report says 40 million Americans suffer from 70 different sleep disorders. It’s serious, and deserves treatment, which could be simply adopting new habits. But the concern here is the heart of the matter. Whether we fall asleep quickly or not, we can welcome sleep for what it is. We can choose to bow out of the action, to know that the world will be fine without us for a while. We can welcome that segment of the day when we make ourselves most vulnerable, when we exit consciousness and are forced to, in the right sense, “let go, and let God.” Whether we actually say it or not, going to bed prays, at least in practice: “Now I lay me down to sleep. Lord, I pray my soul to keep. If I should die before I wake, Lord, I pray my soul to take.”
Sleep is intrinsically a humble thing to do.
3. Sleep is distinctively Christian
Really, there is something remarkably Christian about sleep. We see this first in the Psalms and then fulfilled in the life of Jesus.
We read in Psalm 3:5–6, “I lay down a slept and woke again, for the Lᴏʀᴅ sustained me. I will not be afraid of many thousands of people who have set themselves against me all around.” Then we read in Psalm 4:8, “In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lᴏʀᴅ, make me dwell in safety.”
It’s Saying Something
Two things are happening here. First, David is making sleep an act of faith in the Lord’s protection. Enemies surround him, and they want to destroy him. But he sleeps. He knows the Lord sustains him and guards him. But why? How does he know this? Here’s the second thing to see: David trusts in God’s protection because of what God says in Psalm 2.
In Psalm 2 we see that the Lord’s King — who is also a Son — will reign. He will have the nations as his heritage and the ends of the earth his possession (Psalm 2:7–8). The Lord exalts him and issues the warning of his supremacy: “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you perish in the way. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.” (Psalm 2:12). This is an endorsement that carries throughout the entire Psalter. The Lord is committed to his King, his Son, his Anointed — and David knows it.
David is God’s anointed king, but he mirrors the true and better Anointed King that will descend from his lineage (2 Samuel 7:16). David’s faith in God’s protection, displayed by his sleep, points us to the Son of David who also knew how to sleep — which we see in Mark 4.
Why Jesus Slept
This scene of Mark 4 shows us Jesus and his disciples out at sea when a windstorm arises. The waves are so intense that they’re breaking into the boat, filling it with water (Mark 4:37). The disciples are terrified. This is a shipwreck in the works. But where is Jesus? He is in the stern of the boat asleep on a cushion (verse 38). He wakes up to stop the storm by his word and the disciples are awed. But we as readers — disciples with a canonical conscience — see him sleeping and we’re awed.
Jesus slept for the same reason David did. He knew that his Father would protect him. Based upon what God had promised to his King, to David, to Moses, to Abraham, to Adam — Jesus knew God would keep his Anointed. Sleep was the symbol of faith in that promise. It was for Jesus and for David and for us.
The Same Spirit of Faith
When we sleep we are saying — in that same spirit of faith — that God will protect his Anointed and all those anointed in him (2 Corinthians 1:21). We are saying that no matter how many thousand enemies surround our soul, because of the Father’s commitment to his Son, we will not be destroyed. We will not be condemned. Nothing will ever be able to snatch us out of his hand (John 10:28). Nothing will ever separate us from his love (Romans 8:38–39). When we go to bed, we are saying that.
Christian, life is short. You should get some sleep.
Jonathan Parnell (@jonathanparnell) is the lead pastor of Cities Church in Minneapolis/St. Paul, where he lives with his wife, Melissa, and their five children. He is co-editor of Designed for Joy: How the Gospel Impacts Men and Women, Identity and Practice.