the spark - BLOGGITY-BLOG

In Defense of the Pope (if only tepidly)

Fri, 22 Sep 2006 18:31:13 CDT

God is the eternal. It is beyond time, space and matter.

Before everything there was only God.

Ergo all that now exists is a manifestation of God.

God is all.

All is God.

Logic exists.

Ergo, logic is God.

God is logic.

Ergo to hold a faith in God that defies logic is to defy God.

In defense of His Holy Nonesuch, he did not make the inflammatory address in St. Peter's, for world consumption, but rather to former students at a private seminar. I suppose it is a testament to his naivete that — in this age of digital communications and public figures having no privacy — he failed to consider that the remarks could become public and could wreak havoc. Rather than being charming, this naivete bespeaks how out of touch with the real world both this pope and the Roman hierarchy are.

Arguably, it would have been for the best had he kept his mouth shut. There has been at least one death attributed to this (an Italian nun working in a Somali hospital) and threats of more to come, not to mention civil unrest and the church desecrations. But then if it hadn't been this episode it would have been something else. Those who are reacting are looking for an excuse to react. They're angry, violent, vengeful people spoiling for a fight. Many are eager to kill and die. For good reasons some will say. Random mass murder is unjustifiable, says I.

"Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?" Benedict asked. "I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God."

It's hard to quibble with that. And they're not. Spengler, a columnist at atonline posits that the angry mobs and church burners and nun assassins are defending an assault against the Muslim "sacrament" of Jihad [Jihad, the Lord's Supper and Eternal life , 9/19/06]. And it's hard to quibble with THAT.

Some will say that Islam is about mercy, love, justice and peace. I guess so. All religions are really. And that Jihad is not only Holy War, but rather inner struggle, the struggle of the individual to be good. So ministering to the sick and poor is Jihad , for example.

OK.

All religions sound good on paper, and on their best days actually do some good. For instance, I assume that the nun who was just killed in Somalia was there as an act of charity rather than Western imperialism; and the Latin American Liberation Theologists were not propping up any rotting satus quo when they preached the love of Jesus in socialism. On the other hand, I doubt that Christ's Sermon on the Mount was on the minds of those who conducted the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. Whatever Islam's potential may be, the stark reality the civilized world is dealing with now is Jihad as (un)holy war.

I'm not an Islamic scholar (any more than I am a Christian one) but it seems to me that Islam is perhaps more naturally turned to violence than Christianity. Before Christ left earth he enjoined his disciples to travel the world and preach the good news. In other words, to reason with the Gentiles. Mohamed, on the other hand, told the faithful to arm themselves as they spread the faith. We saw this played out when the kidnapped Fox journalists "converted" to Islam at gunpoint. We also saw it when an Afghan man was recently on trial for his life for converting to Christianity.

Both "capriciousness" and "justice" have been attributed to Allah (ditto Yahweh). But which view prevails? Which is the face of Islam that most effects the world today? Was it a loving, just and merciful god that inspired 9/11?

I tire of hearing that hatred, injustice and murder are not characteristic of Islam, but rather a perversion of it. Maybe, maybe not. However, it's critically important to note that the point is moot because Jihadism is the dominant force in Islam today. And those Muslims who aren't violent by nature, who have assimilated to the modern world, in overwhelming numbers refuse to condemn the violence.

Or worse yet, they excuse it; Islamist terrorism is comeuppance (What a shame this had to happen… tsk,tsk). That's along the same lines as the Catholics — both hierarchy and rank-and-file — who dutifully condemn the Holocaust and in the very same breath add that, of course, the Jews brought it upon themselves (What a shame… tsk,tsk). I don't want to hear it.

So whereas the comments of the pope may have been impolitic in having fomented more strife; and he is certainly a dotty old fool for not considering that, as a public figure his speech may have become public; and the address was overbearing and chauvanistic; and for the the leader of Roman Catholicism to criticise spreading faith by the sword fairly drips with irony and hypocrisy; his thesis was valid.

FOR THE SAKE OF ART

Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:55:03 CDT

The following item showed up on Chicago Craigslist yesterday:
"exhibition space opening this fall near logan square. interested in showing artists ready for a solo exhibition. not interested in having an art party or canned beer hipster gatherings. focus will be on paintings but all media of all sizes are accepted. please send links to images and whatever other information you deem necessary to get us started. we are not concerned with making money or taking it from artist's sales. the only intention is to open critical dialogue in this city outside the currently perscribed circles. thanks."

I gave up trying to make a living selling art years ago. Sales were too few and prices always too low so it was impossible to to make a living at it. However, I didn't give up on art. I never stopped painting and I firmly believe that art demands an audience. So I seldom contact conventional galleries anymore, and occasionally show in cafes and pubs.

I have often hoped that somebody somewhere would create a serious venue for serious artists, one that is divorced from the commercial aspects of art and devoted to aesthetics; to showing art because it is interesting or innovative, not because it reflects the trend du jour or has the proper provenance; a venue devoted to creativity; to the exchange of ideas; devoted to fostering a community of artists bold enough or stubborn enough to continue to create outside of the mainstream…

For me I always thought this was just remain a dream. Until now it seems. If you are serious about what you are saying in your listing, then God bless you, whoever you are.

NEOCON POSTERBOYS DUKE IT OUT

Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:15:51 CDT

British Prime Minister Tony "The Hammer" Blair delivering his signature left hook (known to be capable of crushing a ripe grape) on the jaw of "Curious" George Bush. Bush incurred the PM's ire by using a potty word within the range of a hot microphone.

OUR GROWING LANGUAGE

Fri, 7 Jul 2006 17:37:18 CDT

It actually occured to me that "actually" has replaced "basically" as the filler word of the decade. A filler word, basically — that is to say, actually — is a word that fills the conversational pauses so that people won't feel dumb actually speaking haltingly as they search for words. "Um" and "y'know" used to serve that function, and actually they still are used. They remain essential to the lexicon of the sports locker room interview.
However, among non jocks the filler word of choice — the new "basically" — is "actually". I think the reason for that is that people have been told repeatedly by grade school teachers that they sound stupid saying "y'know" and "uh". That's unfortunate.
Unlike "actually", "y'know" actually works syntactically… Y'know? And "um" (or its variants, "uh" or "duh") fill conversational gaps with neutral — and thus innocuous sound — and thus do no real harm.
"Actually", actually, usually becomes nonsensical when used as a filler... as in: "Actually, I'm from Chicago" or "Actually I'd Like fries with my hotdog", or "Actually my sofa is blue". "Uh" would work much better in these cases, and so it remains my filler word of choice.
Actually, let's hear it for "uh"!

FIDDLING WHILE ROME BURNS

Tue, 27 Jun 2006 07:23:25 CDT

Is it any wonder that with both the Empire and the world going to hell in a handcart, the Imperial Senate is debating and preparing to vote on a flag burning ammendment?
Not to me it isn't. Like the move to constitutionally define marriage, flag burning is one of just many red herrings strewn upon the sociopolitical landscape. The preponderance of emotional hotbuttons — most of which seldom have any real, practical effect on any citizen's life — is a symptom of a very sick (terminal is my prognosis) body politic.
Coping with the real problems after all is too difficult and costly; the lobby and PAC money not only goes to those who skirt the issues, it is spent to silence those who don't. So political discourse becomes a combination emotional "issues" and seemingly soothing bromides, all of which are extremely vague and ultimately irrelevant.
And too, too many of the public happily buy into this way of doing things. It's more comforting not to think.
That's how a single party state works,

WHY I FEEL SO-O SUPERIOR

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 06:43:13 CDT
Ok, granted I'm not entirely impartial on the subject, but these are great.

STUFF FROM HARPERS

Thu, 22 Jun 2006 06:43:23 CDT

I learned during this morning's sitdown that Art Garfunkel has read 948 books since 1968.
Also that the ratio of energy expended to produce ethenol to that produced when it is burned is 1:1
The ratio for gasoline is 6:5
Love that Harper's Index.
When you begin to methodically think about the above cocktail party factoids (the second two, that is) you discover many tangled tendrils — the energy business, agribusiness, globalism, conservation, environmentalism, gentetic engeneering — and the picture becomes more complex the more you delve into it. (Sort of like the famous painting, Dogs Playing Poker.)
This complexity has been well illustrated in an earlier Harper's piece, an essay entitled The Oil We Eat by Richard Manning. If you haven't read it yet, I strongly suggest you do so.

The world in Perspective

Wed, 21 Jun 2006 10:55:08 CDT

If we could, at this time, shrink the Earth’s population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look like this:

• There would be 57 Asians, 21 Europeans, 14 from the Western Hemisphere (North and South) and 8 Africans.

• 70 would be non-white; 30 white.

• 70 would be non-Christian; 30 Christian.

• 50 percent of the entire world wealth would be in the hands of only 6 people.

• All 6 would be citizens of the United States.

• 70 would be unable to read.

• 50 would suffer from malnutrition.

• 80 would live in sub-standard housing.

• Only 1 would have a college education.

Something I picked up from "Walgreens Corporate Briefs".

Entrance: Stage Left

Wed, 21 Jun 2006 06:26:43 CDT

From an interview with Paul Berman, author of Terror and Liberalism. You may read the entire interview at
http://www.democratiya.com/interview.asp?issueid=5

"...there is a clique with a style and that style is marked by ruthlessness. [That is, the] 'romance of the ruthless' ... It was visible in Central America during the Reagan administration – the expectation that a small number of people could be very effective is they acted ruthlessly enough; an over-reliance on military force and proxy armies, a tendency to an apocalyptic hysteria about the danger that Communism in Central America presented to the United States, and so on.

This ruthless style has contributed to the gigantic errors that have been committed in Iraq. When you belief that if a small number of people act ruthlessly then a larger force is not necessary, it leads you to say 'let's not send a large number of troops but let's not tie the hands of those we do send'. That is, you send too few troops on the one hand and practice torture on the other. Neoconservatism is in this respect compatible with the errors of 'military transformation' theory. And yet ... some of the leading neocons have been loudly and insistently arguing against the application of military transformation theory. So there you are. Neoconservatives exist; but there isn't much of a consistent doctrine.

Another element of neoconservatism—or maybe just of right-wing republicanism—I have always found very unattractive is a PR approach to debate. Debate is manipulated. Reagan's administration engaged in all kinds of propaganda machinations. The same approach was exactly what we saw in the build up to the Iraq war – the emphasis on WMD on the one hand, and the supposed conspiracies between Saddam and Bin Laden on the other hand. Instead of laying out the whole complex issue of strategic and humanitarian and ideological issues that was really behind the war, the administration chose to present arguments based on manipulations that could make an easy 30-second sound-bite on the TV news. This conformed to ways the Reagan administration used to operate - sometimes with the same personnel.

Damn the Market and Full Speed Ahead!

Tue, 20 Jun 2006 07:15:27 CDT

The Art Market. It's like buying and selling anything really -- a razor with five blades that costs more, when a single blade works as well; Julian Schnabel's Ho-hum expressionist shmears which are nothing really new or exciting or even particularly well done techinically... but they're BIG; Scott Turrow selling writing by the pound.
I know people who are more talented than Turrow or Schnabel, but they don't have the "Brand". They're not marketable, and the powers-that-be would rather not take a chance at making them marketable.
Capitalism just isn't arts friendly.
I once worked with a guy who was a graduate of the Art Institute of Chicago. He told me some horror stories. His time there was all about pursuing fellowships and grants (understandable) but not just for the money, but to be able to get into a grad school (not understandable).
Huh?... Grad school for art?
If I'm not mistaken, Picasso and Monet and Rembrandt and lo-ong list of other rightly famous artists never even had BFAs, let alone MFAs.
Mind you, any old grad school won't do it. It must be one of only a half dozen or so schools, very pricey ones too, such as Yale. Yale?
So if you have an MFA, from one of the right schools (no small feat given the number of openings vs the number of applicants) then you will be a brand artist. You will automatically be represented by a major gallery and command prices that enable you to live comfortably on your income as an artist.
But getting the grants and fellowships which improves one's chances of getting into the right grad school requires one to chase ever changing trends. The student must win the approval of the faculty by producing a body of work aping what's hot in the Soho galleries. If one miscalculates, and does something that is like so last winter -- or, god forbid, new and original -- they've blown it.
What's right with this picture?
I gave up on mainstream venues for my art many years ago. I simply don't have the provenance to make a living as a painter. I'm willing to be a wage slave by day and paint seriously in my spare time. Showing my work in pubs, cafes and on line galleries will suit me. It will have to.