Provisionally eyed, practically alive, mistook sign for signified,
And so sins have often tried to run him off a cliff like Gadarene swine
Inside my wardrobe seem anchor bent,
Wondering whether we were someone better then…
Or maybe just better able to pretend,
And what better means to our inevitable end?
You know, I don’t know if I know, though some with certainty insist,
No certainty exists!
Well I’m certain enough of this; in the past fourteen years there’s only
One girl I’ve kissed!

Excerpt of the song Fox’s Dream of the Log Flume, by mewithoutYou. Go pick up their latest self-released recording here.

Galvan’s experiment was quite ingenuous. She had kids, teens, and adults play a pirate video game while inside an fMRI scanner, with their heads restrained. Their arms were free to push buttons. With each successful turn of the game, they won some gold–on the screen flashed either a single gold coin, a small stack of coins, or a jackpot pile of gold.

Young kids find any sort of reward thrilling, so their brains lit up the same amount, no matter how much gold they won. Adult brains lit up according to the size of the reward: single coin, small pleasure response, big pile, big pleasure response. The teen brains did not light up in response to winning the small or medium reward–in fact, the nucleus accumbens activity dipped below baseline, as if they were crestfallen. Only to the big pile of gold did their reward center light up–and then it really lit up, signaling more activity than kids or adults ever showed.

Galvan noted that the response pattern of teen brains is essentially the same response curve of a seasoned drug addict. Their reward center cannot be stimulated by low doses–they need the big jolt to get pleasure.

The above passage is from the book Nurture Shock by Po Bronson & Ashley Merryman. I find the study they cite very interesting, particularly because I was a teenage drug addict, which I accredit (at least partially) to the overwhelming feeling of absolute boredom which seems to be an inherent trait of adolescence. Compound that with the raging, depressing anxiety of not knowing where your next high will come from, and BAM! You’ve got one hell of a hybrid, monster emo-teen. (God bless my poor parents)

…

Work above by Smithe

The modern view of the self, the view that dominates within the psychotherapeutic community, is characterized by what Charles Taylor has called the “buffered self.” For a variety of reasons, which Taylor describes in his book A Secular Age, the modern notion of self-hood became introverted and individualistic, the self as isolated and distinct (“buffered”) from the world. The notion of a self-determined, isolated, autonomous ego is a ubiquitous feature within modernity. The buffered self is a critical feature in how we moderns view our social contract, politically and economically. Further, the self-focus inherent in the notion of the buffered self has been a driving force behind many of the trends we see in the rise of psychotherapy. Extreme introversion is seen in the rise of Freudian psychoanalysis, a prime example of the modern commitment to the buffered self. Consider also the psychotherapeutic concerns with self-esteem, self-improvement, self-help, and self-actualization. All these manifestations of the introverted individualism of the buffered self are enshrined in the language of mental health and psychotherapy. Consequently, I think it important to note that the worry over “boundaries” is taking place within this context and, as a consequence, may be doubling down on modern values that Christian psychotherapists might want to revisit or, at the very least, sharply criticize.

The above passage comes from Richard Beck’s book Unclean. I’ll try to explain how much I like this book, and Dr. Beck, by saying this: If I ever decided to become a full-time, career academic, there are only a few people I would want to have mentor me, Dr. Beck is one of them.

Consistent spelling was a great way to ensure clarity in the print era. But with new technologies, the way that we write and read (and search and data-mine) is changing, and so must spelling.

…

The notion that words can and should be spelled only one way is a fairly recent invention. “The phrase ‘bad speller’ rarely appears in English-language books before the 1770s,” Jack Lynch notes in his book The Lexicographer’s Dilemma. Until William Caxton used a printing press in 1475, English words were reproduced by scribes in scriptoria. There were no dictionaries (or Google) to check for “proper” spelling. Most words were spelled several different ways—there were at least 114 variants of through.

The above passages come from Anne Trubek’s recent article in Wired Magazine. Her main point is that the rigid, static rules of proper spelling are inhibiting and problem causing in a dynamically digital world, and that they (the rules) must become more relaxed to accommodate these new communication mediums.

I’m curious to see what kind of push back Anne gets from English Departments. The obvious irony is that I’m sure her article was edited and proofread a hundred times using AP style formatting

…

Illustration above by Justin Mezzell

Now EROS makes a man really want, not a woman, but one particular woman. In some mysterious but quite indisputable fashion the lover desires the Beloved herself, not the pleasure she can give.
…

Without Eros, sexual desire like every other desire is a fact about ourselves. Within Eros it is rather about the Beloved.

The above quotes come from C.S. Lewis’ famous book The Four Loves. Lewis is describing Eros love, one of the four Greek words which can be rendered into English as “love.” The other three are storge, philia and agape, all of which God is said to posses since God is love (1 John 4:8). Lewis’ reflections here on Eros are brilliant, and in my opinion, he makes an incredibly important distinction.

Eros love of course, is the type of love that is associated with “intimate love”, or romantic love, and it is the most commonly misunderstood type of love. It’s clear that in the Bible (Song of Songs for instance) Eros love is a type of love that is “other” oriented. Eros, in the Bible, is about losing yourself in–and giving yourself away–to another, to your “beloved.”

Sadly, all too often our culture confuses self dying Eros love with self centered lustful desires (e.g. our often times misguided view of sex in this country seems to be quite relevant). Lewis points out that focusing on ones pleasure actually destroys Eros because it re-focususes one on oneself.

“No lover in the world ever sought the embraces of the woman he loved as the result of a calculation, however unconscious, that they would be more pleasurable than those of any other woman. If he raised the question he would, no doubt, expect that this would be so. But to raise it would be to step outside the world of Eros altogether.” (p. 95)

If sex is only about my desires being satisfied (like eating or sleeping), then yes, any person would do. In fact, the more the better right? But Eros love says NO. It refocuses our attention away from us and it lures us back again and again to our beloved.

Eros love reminds us that love–no matter what type of love–is hardly ever self serving. So I’d say it would be safe to assume that if we find ourselves worrying too much about our needs, we’ve somehow missed the love boat.

…

Illustration above by Amanda Rae Long

Healing

I

The grace that is the health of creatures can only be held in common.

In healing the scattered members come together.

In health the flesh is graced, the holy enters the world.

II

The task of healing is to respect oneself as a creature, no more and no less.

A creature is not a creator, and cannot be. There is only one Creation, and we are its members.

To be creative is only to have health: to keep oneself fully alive in the Creation, to keep the Creation fully alive in oneself, to see the Creation anew, to welcome one’s part in it anew.

The most creative works are all strategies of this health.

Works of pride, by self-called creators, with their premium on originality, reduce the Creation to novelty, the faint surprises of minds incapable of wonder.

Pursuing originality, the would-be creator works alone. In loneliness one assumes a responsibility for oneself that one cannot fulfill.

Novelty is a kind of loneliness.

III

There is the bad work of pride. There is also the bad work of despair, done poorly out of the failure of hope or vision.

Despair is the too-little of responsibility, as pride is the too-much.

The shoddy work of despair, the pointless work of pride, equally betray Creation. They are wastes of life.

For despair there is no forgiveness, and for pride none. Who in loneliness can forgive?

Above are the first thee stanzas of Wendell Berry’s poem Healing from What are people for?. Read the rest here. HT to Michael Serra.

…

Painting above by Matt Small

Many people of faith feel a desire to speak about that which is most precious to them, about that which has transformed their lives, that which they feel has liberated them. Yet that needs to be contrasted with the concern that every time we speak of that source, that place of liberation, we somehow do it an injustice. Our words are always inappropriate. At their best, they point toward something, and at their worst they eclipse it and encrust it, and prevent people from actually experiencing that source for themselves. So the believer feels they must speak, but in another way also remain silent.

This means that theology is analogous in many ways to poetry. Poetry, at its best, tries to express something that always slips out of language. It speaks of subjects that go beyond words. Love, desire, birth, death & loss–these are things that mark us, but yet we find difficult to put into words. Poetry offers a language beyond language. When done right, poetry (and all art) serves as an invitation to another which allows them to, in some ways, experience something that has effected you in such a profound sense that you can’t quite express it through normal means.

The above two paragraphs are paraphrased and taken from a podcast by Peter Rollins.

…

Painting above by John McCormick

In a decaying society, art, if it is truthful, must also reflect decay. And unless it wants to break faith with its social function, art must show the world as changeable. And help to change it.

The above quote comes from German educator Ernst Fischer. His view of art’s purpose and place in society closely mirrors my own. I would like to briefly flesh out my aesthetic here.

Exceptional Art and Alluring Art
I’ll preface by saying that I am not one to label something as not being Art. I’m fully open to all ways, types, modes, flavors and functions of art. To me, Just about anything can be art (I guess I’m fairly Dadaist in that sense). However, when I think about Art, I do feel an impulse to discern and distinguish between certain characteristics. Perhaps against popular norms, I do want to leave room for what I call “Exceptional Art,” a term that I strongly contrast with “Alluring Art.”

Exceptional Art is art that I reserve the term “genius” for. Some characteristics of Exceptional Art would include (but are not limited to): The ability to have layer upon layer of deep meaning depicted in one piece, unmatched artistic technique or ability, and perhaps most important, the aptitude of a piece to speak to or provoke personal transformation and/or social change toward goodness, truth, unity or wholeness. Exceptional Art is art that is not only appreciated for its aesthetic beauty, but also for the thoughtfulness behind the work, the message (or what the piece communicates), and the prophetic ability of the piece to transform the viewer in a profound way. To quote Ernst Fischer once again:

“In a decaying society, art, if it is truthful, must also reflect decay. And unless it wants to break faith with its social function, art must show the world as changeable. And help to change it.”

Conversely, Alluring Art would be placed at the opposite end of the spectrum. To be brief, this is art that, if nothing else, can be appreciated for its attempt at personal expression, and perhaps its aesthetic qualities (e.g. color, line, composition). Alluring Art is art that would fall under scrutiny for actually being called “Art” (think of the Dogs Playing Poker painting in your Grandmother’s garage).

I do not make these distinctions to label one form of art as being bad and the other as being good. Quite the contrary, Alluring Art can be quite good and greatly appreciated (your Grandmother loved those cute gambling dogs!). What I am saying is that one form of art (Exceptional Art) is more important than the other. It serves a higher function and has a deeper dimension coupled with a more purposeful meaning and complexity which is contained within the work itself.

Again, this is my personal aesthetic and I actually do agree with the Bohemian creed “art for art’s sake,” which is why I make the distinction of Exceptional Art and Alluring Art. To me one is just simply more important than the other and serves a higher purpose in society.

…

Image above: Photograph of Marcel Duchamp’s sculpture Fountain