Deep Thoughts

My sister has been making me feel embarassed and ashamed. Why? you ask. Simply this: I came up with the great idea of starting a blog (for that matter, a few different blogs on different things) and yet I have two entries in mine and she has at least double that!

So I decided to update mine a bit.

For a little sample of why I haven't updated mine and why I would start multiple blogs, I present for your perusal the following (I would say your reading pleasure but . . .):

In argument against the rational reduction of religion to a pure objectivity, Climacus claims that “the speculative thinker’s understanding is not the understanding that Christianity is the truth – no, it is the speculative thinker’s understanding of Christianity that is the truth of Christianity. The understanding is thus something other than the truth.”[1] The speculative thinker is exactly one who views Christianity through the lens of objective human intelligence, and Climacus is here explicating a crucial point: through the use of objective reason, the “truth” which is discovered is not that of the “absolute Truth” but rather it is the truth that objective reasoning understands and agrees with itself.
Religion based on human understanding, which then deduces the absolute attributes of God and absolutes of religious practices, does not have an understanding of God, but rather an understanding of its own concept of God. Consequently, God is placed in a box, and if his limbs don’t quite fit that box, they are lopped off. God is limited and reduced to the abilities of human intelligence. This is the key to the objections which Kierkegaard, Levinas and Derrida raise against objective faith. “The essential point: Once thematized, an other [autrui] is without uniqueness. He is returned to the social community to the community of dressed beings . . . .”[2] says Levinas. Or as Derrida states it: “Once the messianic is given determinate content, it is restricted within a determinable and determining horizon.”[3]God becomes merely another human – possibly a superhero human – but limited nonetheless to the confines of humanity’s clothing. Specifically, he becomes a human resident of which ever sect or denomination one comes from. As this boxed in God, this clothed superhero, is forced into residence within a community or culture, the fixed and determined dogmas, tenets and rituals of religious practice obviously conform to that culture and not another. Consequently, segregation and marginalization of the other is sanctioned.
Another consequence is that, since the “truth” of God agrees exactly with a culture’s conception, there is no need for change, and criticism is strictly out of the question, since religious practice is unchangeable. John J. Caputo makes explicit Derrida’s own agreement with Kierkegaard’s and Levinas’ opposition to this sort of system: “all that deconstruction tells against are the totalizing tendencies of theological discourse . . . which is the same complaint that deconstruction would have about secularism or naturalism, about any totalizing tendency.”[4] O,r as Climacus puts it “Truth as the identity of thought and being is therefore a chimera of abstraction.”[5] Religion based solely on human rationality is merely a construction which limits God, sanctions marginalization and confrontation, and separates itself from subjective significance.
[1] Kierekegaard in Westphal, Merold. Becoming a Self. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1996.pg 231
[2] Levinas, Emmanuel. Of God who Comes to Mind. trans. Bettina Bergo. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998. pg 11
[3] Caputo, John D. The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997. pg 118
[4] Caputo, John D. The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997. pg 19
[5] Kierekegaard in Westphal, Merold. Becoming a Self. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1996 pg 209


Are ya havin' fun yet????

I didn't think so.

Most people don't find this sort of thing fun. I however, do. And consequently it is this that I spend the times that I am not entertaining and corralling my son thinking and working on. Unfortunately, since I am beginning work on my Master's thesis I don't have a lot of time to blog.

This sort of thinking though, is not just navel gazing and mental . . . umm self-pleasuring. It really does have import for praxis (a high falutin' ivory tower word for practicing something in the "real" world.

For instance go look at this latest entry in the blog by my sis: http://stoppingspot.blogspot.com/

Now then, put on your thinking caps and lets look at what theo-philosophical insights we can find!!! (everyone shout yeahh!!! theo-philosophy!!!!)

In Exclusion and Embrace Miroslav Volf talks about the idea of being able to see from the perspective of the Other. I won't go into detail about the prereqs for this but suffice it to say that it is only through Christ. When one is able to do this she is able to then look back and see herself how the other sees her.

This is where the Spirit's question to Amy came from. "Where do YOU dump your junk?" The Spirit used Amy's compassion and love for her son to allow her a small and fleeting glimpse back at herself, and an even more fleeting glimpse of how God sees her.

It may seem that this has been a rambling post with many strange tangents but it does have a point.

What may seem like navel-gazing at times (though I am not discounting that as a fun and interesting activity -- for instance I found a found a chili pepper just the other day) is not unimportantant.

Though God was able to ask Amy if she was pooing her own shorts (yes, yes, I have always been the really crude one in the family) without her having to think these deep thoughts. Through an analysis of the situation we can come to an understanding of what occured and hopefully through this analysis recreate the occurance in situations which don't have the built in love of a mother for a son.

In other words, we as Christians can attempt to understand our encounters with God in more significant ways and attempt to treat the "Other" --whether that be our spouses, other christians, or other cultures -- as God treats us.

When was the last time you truly thought about the difference between your encounters with God (the ultimate Other) and your encounters with the human other?

ugghhgg

Can I just go back to bed??

Sometimes I wish I had my son's life. Actually most of the time I wish I had his life. Someone to organize my day, pick me up and carry me when I don't feel like making my own way, someone to feed me, pick my clothes (oh wait my wife does do that) and change my dirty nappies.

But especially, I wish that I could wake up from my nights sleep and then go back to bed an hour and half later.

That is definitely what I want to do today. I have forced myself to write for grad school this morning but really I just want to be asleep. It is cold and grey and I WANT MY BLANKIE!!!

However, the rugrat is crying and so I go . . .

In the Beginning

So this is the first of what I hope will be many many posts.

A little about me (and the name of the blog):
I am a stay at home dad. I do this by choice and by physical necessity.
Who am I dad to?

Well, I am glad you asked! The names of my children are as follows
Katie: aged 29
Rowan (often refered to as "Monkey"): aged 9 months
Bobby: aged 2
Basil: aged 5
Tigger: aged 5
Stone: aged ????

Now, can you guess how many of these are actually human and children?
If you do you win a prize!! (actually just the satisfaction of knowing you were right).

And thus the name: At home with the Menagerie

me·nag·er·ie (plural me·nag·er·ies) noun

Definitions:
1. wild animal exhibit: a collection of wild animals kept in captivity for the curiosity and entertainment of the public, sometimes as part of a traveling show
2. wild animal enclosure: an enclosure in which wild animals are kept for public exhibition
3. diverse or exotic group: a diverse, exotic, or unusual group of people or things [Late 17th century.

I think we qualify on all accounts!
More coming soon.