I used an old lens from a camera I got at a thrift store 99cents. An old bicycle tire inner-tube and a camera face plate cover.
I am generally pleased with the results and hope to put up a few more pictures soon.
REG
Friday, May 20, 2011
Tilt Photography
I used an old lens from a camera I got at a thrift store 99cents. An old bicycle tire inner-tube and a camera face plate cover.
I am generally pleased with the results and hope to put up a few more pictures soon.
REG
Sunday, May 15, 2011
An Imperfect Blog on Perfection (Thanks to Chesterton)
Here again I find myself posting a paper I wrote for school. I plan to write actual posts soon. You will pardon the references (If you read it) to various texts that I had to pretend to understand for class, which are offered with no context. I had been itching all semester long to write about Chesterton and I decided to sneak him in for my final paper.
Here we go...
It seems that in the end our discussion must simply come down to the topic of perfection. Our semester began with this discussion and now comes around to it again. Sadly, I cannot promise that this paper will be perfect, but I will give it a shot. Plato defines perfection in terms as the true ‘Form’ of things. Aristotle sees perfection more in terms of completeness and being whole (Hyde, 2007). While the definitions are not dissimilar, it is the later definition, which I intend to reference when I use the term perfection.
The humanity which seeks perfection is feeling that things are not complete, something is missing for there to be a whole. In class, we spoke about the perfection at the Garden of Eden. Many philosophers which Hyde quotes, speak hypothetically of the world at its inception as being perfect and lacking in nothing. Interestingly few authors seem to deal with the question of original sin. It is at the scene of the first temptation that our discussion of perfection can really begin.
The serpent’s lie to the woman was what I will call the seed of imperfection. The serpent caused the woman to doubt God’s word. The serpent was cunning when he laid the trap, telling the woman of how she would become like God knowing both good and evil. In essence the woman was tricked into doubting her perfection, that some how acquiring more knowledge would make her more perfect.
The original sin in a way was an attempt to make perfect what God had already made perfect. In doing so, a balance was tipped and humanity is now seeking to attain perfection on its own. Humanity retains a resemblance to God, in whose image it was created, but humanity is imperfect because they are not complete. They have become separate form their origin.
Bonhoeffer argues that what “God had given man to be, man now desired to be through himself.” (1995). Man in the image of God is perfect; man in the image of man is not. When Jesus says to “be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect.” (New International version, 1996) Jesus is laying down a standard of what it means to be perfect. It is impossible to seek perfection if one has no concept of what that it is.
The problem with the present day morality, argues G. K. Chesterton, is that it has not concept of virtue and can only point to imperfection. In Chesterton’s view, man is forever seeking perfection in terms of what is called ‘progress’. The problem Chesterton sees is that we never seek to learn what is “good” or what is perfection. We talk about liberty, progress, and education to avoid talking about what is good. Chesterton explains that this is like saying; “Let us not decide what is good, but let us settle on whether we are getting more of it.”(1905). In order to have progress or perfection it is necessary to have an ideal or a direction.
Burke argues that having too much perfection is disastrous Hyde argues that the opposite is true as well, man is prone to be rotten with imperfection to the extent that he has no attributes such as faith, intellect or ethics. Chesterton agrees with both in a way. He might side with Burke and argue that we have an unhealthy desire for a perfection that we cannot define. As far as Hyde’s point of view, Chesterton argues that because there is no true ideal for what is perfect we end up being rotten with imperfection because it is the only thing left to know.
Chesterton believes that we must know what good is in order to pursue perfection. What then is good? The first thing that must be mentioned is childhood. For there is a sense of completeness and purity, which Chesterton associates with childhood. What we see in a child is perhaps is a glimpse of perfection. Jesus spoke of becoming like children to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Chesterton talks about how this praise of childhood was hard to understand in Christ’s day. However, today we seem to embrace it completely. The ‘perfection’ that we praise in a child, according to Chesterton, is the ability to “play simple games and enjoy fairy tales.” (1993). Hyde talks about how we face the problem of boredom when it comes to perfection. In a sense, he argues that if we were to come face to face with perfection we would become weary of it. It is at this instance that Chesterton would point out that we have forgotten how to be children. A child may “exult in monotony” playing the same game or hearing the same story over and over without growing tired of it. Chesterton argues that God enjoys repetition, but humanity cannot “we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.” Hyde wonders if we would grow tired of perfection if we had it. Jesus understood that if we became like children we would always enjoy it.
In answering the question of what is good Chesterton would argue that it is the man Christ who is not only good but in fact perfect. Christ was “…more human than a human being was then likely to be.”(1993). For Chesterton Jesus is the ultimate example of perfection. However, we need not accept Chesterton’s conviction to appreciate his point. Chesterton’s critique of progress and ultimately of perfection is that it has no fixed aim. Essentially, there is a constant shift of standards rather than methods. What was perfect in one age is no longer perfect in the present one (1990). Perfection becomes an illusion when we change the standards for it. There might be a thousands methods to seek perfection if perfection was an ideal. Yet, we would rather change the standards than the methods. Chesterton states that “progress cannot progress” (1990), I take a similar stance and argue that perfection cannot be perfected, it was the serpent that caused the woman to doubt this very point.
William James argues that for an idea to have “cash value”, it must have consequences. I think that Chesterton makes a similar point about perfection. That in order to have progress there must be a vision. Hyde argues that we must keep an open mind. The danger is that we will never conclude anything. The problem, as Hyde argues, is that that we believe only in imperfection. In a similar move, Chesterton believes that we will be ever changing our vision and not our world.
Here we go...
It seems that in the end our discussion must simply come down to the topic of perfection. Our semester began with this discussion and now comes around to it again. Sadly, I cannot promise that this paper will be perfect, but I will give it a shot. Plato defines perfection in terms as the true ‘Form’ of things. Aristotle sees perfection more in terms of completeness and being whole (Hyde, 2007). While the definitions are not dissimilar, it is the later definition, which I intend to reference when I use the term perfection.
The humanity which seeks perfection is feeling that things are not complete, something is missing for there to be a whole. In class, we spoke about the perfection at the Garden of Eden. Many philosophers which Hyde quotes, speak hypothetically of the world at its inception as being perfect and lacking in nothing. Interestingly few authors seem to deal with the question of original sin. It is at the scene of the first temptation that our discussion of perfection can really begin.
The serpent’s lie to the woman was what I will call the seed of imperfection. The serpent caused the woman to doubt God’s word. The serpent was cunning when he laid the trap, telling the woman of how she would become like God knowing both good and evil. In essence the woman was tricked into doubting her perfection, that some how acquiring more knowledge would make her more perfect.
The original sin in a way was an attempt to make perfect what God had already made perfect. In doing so, a balance was tipped and humanity is now seeking to attain perfection on its own. Humanity retains a resemblance to God, in whose image it was created, but humanity is imperfect because they are not complete. They have become separate form their origin.
Bonhoeffer argues that what “God had given man to be, man now desired to be through himself.” (1995). Man in the image of God is perfect; man in the image of man is not. When Jesus says to “be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect.” (New International version, 1996) Jesus is laying down a standard of what it means to be perfect. It is impossible to seek perfection if one has no concept of what that it is.
The problem with the present day morality, argues G. K. Chesterton, is that it has not concept of virtue and can only point to imperfection. In Chesterton’s view, man is forever seeking perfection in terms of what is called ‘progress’. The problem Chesterton sees is that we never seek to learn what is “good” or what is perfection. We talk about liberty, progress, and education to avoid talking about what is good. Chesterton explains that this is like saying; “Let us not decide what is good, but let us settle on whether we are getting more of it.”(1905). In order to have progress or perfection it is necessary to have an ideal or a direction.
Burke argues that having too much perfection is disastrous Hyde argues that the opposite is true as well, man is prone to be rotten with imperfection to the extent that he has no attributes such as faith, intellect or ethics. Chesterton agrees with both in a way. He might side with Burke and argue that we have an unhealthy desire for a perfection that we cannot define. As far as Hyde’s point of view, Chesterton argues that because there is no true ideal for what is perfect we end up being rotten with imperfection because it is the only thing left to know.
Chesterton believes that we must know what good is in order to pursue perfection. What then is good? The first thing that must be mentioned is childhood. For there is a sense of completeness and purity, which Chesterton associates with childhood. What we see in a child is perhaps is a glimpse of perfection. Jesus spoke of becoming like children to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Chesterton talks about how this praise of childhood was hard to understand in Christ’s day. However, today we seem to embrace it completely. The ‘perfection’ that we praise in a child, according to Chesterton, is the ability to “play simple games and enjoy fairy tales.” (1993). Hyde talks about how we face the problem of boredom when it comes to perfection. In a sense, he argues that if we were to come face to face with perfection we would become weary of it. It is at this instance that Chesterton would point out that we have forgotten how to be children. A child may “exult in monotony” playing the same game or hearing the same story over and over without growing tired of it. Chesterton argues that God enjoys repetition, but humanity cannot “we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.” Hyde wonders if we would grow tired of perfection if we had it. Jesus understood that if we became like children we would always enjoy it.
In answering the question of what is good Chesterton would argue that it is the man Christ who is not only good but in fact perfect. Christ was “…more human than a human being was then likely to be.”(1993). For Chesterton Jesus is the ultimate example of perfection. However, we need not accept Chesterton’s conviction to appreciate his point. Chesterton’s critique of progress and ultimately of perfection is that it has no fixed aim. Essentially, there is a constant shift of standards rather than methods. What was perfect in one age is no longer perfect in the present one (1990). Perfection becomes an illusion when we change the standards for it. There might be a thousands methods to seek perfection if perfection was an ideal. Yet, we would rather change the standards than the methods. Chesterton states that “progress cannot progress” (1990), I take a similar stance and argue that perfection cannot be perfected, it was the serpent that caused the woman to doubt this very point.
William James argues that for an idea to have “cash value”, it must have consequences. I think that Chesterton makes a similar point about perfection. That in order to have progress there must be a vision. Hyde argues that we must keep an open mind. The danger is that we will never conclude anything. The problem, as Hyde argues, is that that we believe only in imperfection. In a similar move, Chesterton believes that we will be ever changing our vision and not our world.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Long Time Since...
I knew this would happen but I am glad I tried it anyway. I knew that I would break down and stop writing. But here I am again. I am posting a paper I wrote for a class. It is rather a sad excuse for a blog but I figured I would post something. Its rather a strange paper and I am not sure I agree with what I wrote 100% but it is interesting. Semiotics if you don't know is the study of signs.
Spiritual Semiotics
If there were one perspective of inquiry, which I find to be relevant, it would be the semiotic. Language its self has a way of influencing the way we think and what we think. There is no thought or consciousness without words. A human who posses no language may indeed feel and sense the world around him but to truly be a part of the world around him it is necessary to posses a language. Language is what makes us human rather than animals.
It is interesting to me to consider the semiotic perspective in the light of my belief in God. In a sense I have some to see God as a semiotitian. Not that God is a mere construction of language but that language has its origin in God. Gans and Clair both disagree heartily with my perspective and believe that the origin of language was through silence or violence. In my explanation, based on the Bible, I see the origin of language as the beginning of all things. God spoke and so there was not only language but also the world that came into being. Signs in this model brought about the things they were to represent. A word made the sun and moon. A word caused the sea to be separate from the earth.
It is evident that God understands the inherent power of signs. The first commandment to Moses was that they should have not other gods and they were not to make an image of anything on earth and worship it. To attempt to turn God into a sign would have reduced him. God is the one for whom there is no image to be made. The Jews would not even write out his entire name because of this (In a similar vein I feel that the word “God” is quite inadequate.) This is a clear demonstration of the principles of semiotics. God understands that to allow himself to be made into a symbol would diminish him. “To whom will you liken God, or what likeness compare with him?” (Isaiah 40:18, English Standard Version) Signs are not the things they represent. No sign can in anyway come close to being the thing, which, it is a symbol of.
Man is a symbol-using creature and by his nature gives things names. I attribute this to the divine origin of language. God named man, for he was the creator, man was given the animals to name for he was to rule over them. When it says that man was created in the image of God it may have a lot to do with the use of language. By the use of words and language, man creates new words, ideas and perspectives.
I believe that God reveals himself to humanity primarily through words. This puts God at odds with semiotics. Words and signs are capable to conveying the truth, this makes them more than distant representations but vessels that can convey true meanings. God, however, in this perspective is the originator of language. When God speaks, he has authority as the creator of language. From my perspective God has spoken through out time. “In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in the last days he has spoken to us through his son.” (Hebrews 1:1-2, New International Bible) This verse not only emphasizes God’s communication with man but also a shift in how he has communicated. God now speaks to man through Jesus Christ. In the book of John it talks about how Jesus is the “word” (1:1, New International Bible). Logos is the Greek word which is translated here. It is defined in many ways but the central idea here is what Christ is the manifestation of everything that is God. He is the divine reason. In a way, this describes the moment where a word becomes flesh. A sign has become the thing it represents. This presents impossibility from the semiotic perspective, but reveals what I would call the miracle of the incarnation.
My perspective is not a true semiotic perspective. Yet, of all the perspectives I have studied this semester it has had the most relevance to me. The idea that signs create our realities, whether you buy the religious stuff or not, explains a lot about the world. Language is the single most important factor in creating out everyday reality. Language mediates our every thought and deed. My perspective of inquiry is simply that one may come to know the creator of language
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)