Tag: Religion

  • No Peacock Feather Required: the Luminance of “He”, a short story by Katherine Anne Porter

    Katherine Anne Porter

    The story “He” is one peacock feather shy of a Flannery O’Connor story. Only it is a Katherine Anne Potter story and has its own luminance, not O’Connor’s sardonic delight in the grotesque.

    Nonetheless, in her story, Porter puts in play more than a smattering of religious artifacts and allusions. She refers to the “simple-minded one” with upper-cased pronouns, in other words, not actually pronouns but nouns in the convention used to address deities or a supreme being.

    In this story, He, if it isn’t referring to the simple-minded one, most naturally refers to Jesus Christ. He is sounded out the same as the pronoun—if only in one’s mind—but one cannot fail to notice that on paper it is visually distinct. It creates an aural / visual dissonance, which Porter begs us over and over again to consider and endure. We sound out “him” but we see “Him”.

    The prominence of “neighbors” in this story is also extraordinary. Neighbors are a brooding presence from the beginning to the end. The word appears six times in the story, in the first paragraph, and in the last.

    A “neighbor” is more than a prominent word in the New Testament. It is the word chosen by Christ to represent an “other” in the supreme rule of “to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself”. Here supreme is meant in its utter literal sense. It is wildly significant in the context of the jumble of incongruous rules and laws and Good Housekeeping advice that make up the first five books of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch, when then and now we tend to accord the laws a common weight, relative merit notwithstanding.

    How curious to love a neighbor when they seem (more on that later) as unlovable as the ones who appear in “He”, those who whisper behind the Whipples’s backs:

    A Lord’s pure mercy if He should die.

    It’s hard to imagine loving such a snarling brood as the Whipple’s neighbors. It puts a whole new spin on the task. It is closer to the paradoxical entreaty to “love one’s enemy”, which of course also comes from Him, now apparently the other “Him” in this story.

    The innuendoes pile up. What now is the engagement between Him and Him? How do They relate?

    At the very beginning, the story informs us:

    Mrs. Whipple loved her second son, the simple-minded one, better than she loved the other two children put together. She was forever saying so.

    We come to suspect that she is forever saying so because she is forever herself either unsure or incapable of this love she proclaims. We don’t know the nature of this love though we’re dropped a clue.

    When Mrs. Whipple says to Mr. Whipple that “it’s natural for a mother to have feelings about Him,” the narrative invites the reader to think of unconditional love.

    The simple-minded one, having few if any ways to reward his parents, in the form of report cards, witticisms, good looks, pleasing gestures, puts the unconditional love challenge to the test. Since such feelings are allegedly natural for a mother, how awkward for her when she doesn’t have them? And what if the neighbor’s find out!?

    When we ask, what does Mrs. Whipple love about Him? The question starts to make more sense in its full ambiguity, i.e. as Him AND Him.

    Now this is not the same as saying that Mrs. Whipple loves her second son. Mrs. Whipple is so utterly consumed by concern for what the neighbors think that we are forced to reckon with the other part of the dictum. Does Mrs. Whipple even love herself?

    Porter has got love of self, love of others, and love of Him all knotted-up as if she planned it that way.

    It also has a lot of “seeming” in it.

    A plank blew off the chicken house and struck Him on the head and He never seemed to know it.

    So in bad weather they gave her the extra blanket off His cot. He never seemed to mind the cold.

    Porter wrings a lot out of this innocuous word. Most of the seeming comes from Mrs. Whipple. For her “seems” ties back to what others might think. She has no internal source of confirmation. Her whole idea of reality is tied up with how her neighbors might perceive things, perceive her. Hence, how things “seem”.

    She has no perspective then on anything, most significantly on Him (the simple-minded one) or presumably Him (her savior).

    With scant notice, Mrs. Whipple’s brother invites himself and his family over for a big Sunday dinner (he dares her to “put the big pot in the little one”). There is nothing to suggest that the brother is not every bit as poor as the Whipples or likely trolling for a good meal. Who better than a sibling to know your witnesses.

    Mrs. Whipple, who is desperate not to look as poor as she desperately is, convinces her husband of the necessity to slaughter a pig for the meal over his objections.

    “I’d hate for his wife to go back to say there wasn’t a thing in the house to eat,” she says.

    The simple-minded one gets the job of snatching the pig from its mother sow’s teat and escaping “with the sow raging at His heels.”

    Mrs. Whipple, who loves Him unconditionally, we’re supposed to believe, puts His life in mortal danger just to cover up for the “sin” of poverty.

    The pickled peach in the roasted pig crackling in the middle of the table comes from Him. He (He) is the only one who scrambles among the branches of fhe family peach tree. He gets in trouble chasing a possum or hunting for eggs as if the second son understands fully the abysmal state of their larder. He gets it, it “seems”.

    One suspects Mrs. Whipple doesn’t get the first thing about Him, her son. She makes a fuss out of serving Him first but is inwardly relieved that he keeps to Himself in the kitchen when He demurs and doesn’t join the rest of the family, his aunt, and uncle, and cousins in the dining room.

    The meal is briefly a success. Later after company has parted, she frets that “her own brother will be saying around that we made Him eat in the kitchen!”

    In a bleak winter, they borrow warm clothes from Him for His siblings who have to walk to school in the chill. For His outdoor chores, they arrange the loan of a coat from His father until he gets sick.

    In the spring, after he’s recovered, they send him to fetch a bull from a neighbor for breeding, a modest attempt at better living through husbandry. The simple-minded one succeeds on his mission with perfect calm.

    Whereas Mrs. Whipple sets him off on the mission with short-lived nonchalance. She goes from little caring to high-speed fretting in 3.9 seconds. Before He returns, she is in a self-inflicted lather that finally seems to expose her real concern: what people might say if He got hurt. It’s an incredible episode that is all whipped up in her head utterly divorced from the fact that the boy got back calmly without a murmur of incident.

    As their fortunes sink lower, Mrs. Whipple fears “they’ll be calling us white trash next.” These “they” are a powerful lot. By coincidence, the “they” are a prominent concept in Heidegger’s philosophy, who likely would conclude that Mrs. Whipple is living “inauthentically”.

    Their kids have seen enough. As soon as they can, they bolt from the farm.

    Effectively, they’re getting away from their poor white trash parents. The irony is that the only discernable detail that makes them poor white trash parents is Mrs. Whipple’s state of mind.

    The simple-minded son endures on the farm. Slips and falls on the ice. He has something like a stroke or a seizure. Appropriate healthcare: transferring Him expeditiously to a hospital by ambulance is frustrated and delayed. Instead, he goes in a “neighbors” ample wagon.

    On a tortured ride to the hospital, the boy is crying in the cold. He is not seeming to cry, but crying. Her last thought in the story

    Oh, what a mortal pity He was ever born.

    Porter with a “neighbor”, fellow Texas author, William Goyen

    This is extraordinary. The word “pity” bookends the story. In the beginning, Mrs. Whipple’s devout wish is not to be pitied by the “they”, the neighbors.

    In the end, pity means a regrettable circumstance. It echoes what the neighbor’s supposedly said all along “a Lord’s pure mercy if He should die.”

    At the very end, the reason the neighbor is “driving very fast, not daring to look behind him” is out of real pity. Mrs. Whipple’s love for Him was not what she claimed it to be. She did not love Him more than His two siblings put together. She did not love Him unconditionally, with “feelings more natural for a mother.”

    Her condition, we profoundly suspect, accords equally to her simple-minded second son and her savoir. She is utterly cut-off, isolated, and impossibly tragic.

    The neighbor cannot bear to bear witness.

    Special thanks to George Saunders and fellow members of his Story Club for calling my attention to this story.

     

  • The Concept of Freedom

    Artist’s Conception of Eve making a critical life choice

    The two dominant political parties in the United States of America, the Republican and Democratic parties, keep pushing reproductive rights in front of the public eye. It is the lever and the fulcrum that keeps the nation pried into two miserable, dysfunctional halves, an “either/or”1Kierkegaard, Søren, Howard V. Hong, Edna H. Hong, and Søren Kierkegaard. Either/Or. Kierkegaard’s Writings 3–4. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1987. that we seemingly cannot go beyond. It is the lever and the fulcrum that keeps money pouring into re-election campaign coffers.

    At some point somebody, for some reason2Wallenbrock, Emma. “Inside the Handbook on Abortion.” Slate, June 8, 2022. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/fetal-photos-jack-barbara-willke-handbook-on-abortion.html. framed an idea of reproductive rights as the seemingly mutually exclusive either/or pair of pro-life / pro-choice. It is a false dichotomy as is evidenced by a parable from the book of Genesis, the so-called the “fall of man”. (A scribe could have dubbed it—perhaps more accurately—the “rise of man”.)

    The story of Eve’s fateful first bite of the apple is the locus classicus in Scripture—given to us as in concrete poetic imagery—of the concept of free-will. It’s a dubious incident of free choice at best. How is it not a set-up if the Supreme being furnishes the first couple’s new apartment with a tree and not just any old tree, but the “Tree of Knowledge”? Inevitably the garden of Eden became—as any Penthouse suite, cruel for its lack of imperfections, would eventually become—incredibly boring. It got to a point where Eve had played all the Mahjong she was ever going to play. She had garden fever. Nagged by the threat of hanging out confined for all time with a sulky Adam, what could she do? What was left for her but to bite into that apple and feel life rupture in the crunch of the apple as the juices flowed down her gullet and over her lips. Despite all of the siren-song inevitableness of it, Scripture makes it clear: it was Eve’s choice.

    So, we have to get this right. Scripture is pro-choice.

    But in so choosing, Eve chose to be a mother; ergo, she chose life. So, Scripture is pro-life. Scripture presents this—as Kierkegaard would delight in—as a paradox, an either/or to which there is no way past.

    For that matter, did Abraham really have a choice either? The voice of God spoke to him in private, not before an audience. Abraham did not share his confrontation with God in a stump speech on a campaign trail. It was an intimate conversation, pillow talk, the kind you don’t blab about. And it was about sacrifice. As Eve sacrificed the Garden of Eden, a perfect home ready to grace the cover of any edition of Martha Stewart Living magazine, Abraham was prepared to make literally the Supreme sacrifice, his patronage, his legacy, his son, the course of history.

    Under those conditions it doesn’t seem to be much in the way of a choice. But Scripture makes it clear: it was Abraham’s choice.

    Eve disobeyed the Lord. John Milton called it the “first disobedience.” Abraham obeyed His Master. In the strict chronology of Genesis, Eve’s indiscretion led to Abraham’s ability to obey (not to mention his conception). Both were driven by inscrutable impulses not readily subject to analysis or critique, not subject to judgement, both with unimaginable verve and daring.

    God wants to receive our love. Yet He/She cannot mandate it. We have to love God of our own free will. We have to have the latitude to sin, to screw-up, recover our senses and come to Him/Her of our own accord, in our own time, purely as an act of desire and will. Otherwise, it is phony and fake religion.

    The phony dichotomy of pro-choice / pro-life creates an unholy amount of suffering, political skullduggery, and crocodile tears. It is a perpetual source of government inaction when palpable lives, of persons subject to the U.S. census, are compromised by uneven distributions of food and healthcare. It is at the center of a frightening lack of compassion for real lives (e.g., women, people of color, Samaritans, prisoners, housekeepers, bootblacks) for theoretical lives (e.g., unborn children).

    Religion is an inward thing, I’m quite sure. Faith is a nocturnal creature that shrinks from the braying light. Maybe a better question to ask our political candidates before we go to the polling station is “Where is their sacrifice?” But an even better question is to ask ourselves in an out-of-the-way place, a quiet corner, far from the madding crowd3John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961, “Where is my sacrifice?”.

    Footnotes

  • Conversation with ChatGPT on Kierkegaard’s Concept of Time or The BOT Thinks I’m a Moron

    Here in this transcript I test my wits with ChatGPT. Not only is the robot smarter, it’s more polite.

    PART I

    JOHN

    I am writing an essay on the concept of time in the thought of Søren Kierkegaard. My thesis is that chronological time is mostly irrelevant, more like a distraction, from his perspective. In his work, Philosophical Fragments, the section “Thought-Project”, makes it clear that time is “accidental”, i.e., an accident of history. Therefore, it would seem that the concept of teleology, or, in secular terms, of progress is highly suspicious if not erroneous from Kierkegaard’s perspective. Does this make sense?

    BOT

    Yes, your thesis that chronological time is mostly irrelevant and a distraction from Kierkegaard’s perspective is a valid interpretation of his thought. Kierkegaard’s philosophy emphasizes the importance of subjective experience, individual choice, and personal responsibility, and these themes are not necessarily linked to chronological time or historical progress.

    Kierkegaard believed that time was not a fundamental aspect of reality but rather a human construct that helps us make sense of the world. He argued that the present moment is the only one that matters, and the past and future are irrelevant distractions that can prevent us from living authentically in the present. In this sense, the idea of progress or teleology, which suggests that history is moving towards a certain end or goal, is not meaningful from Kierkegaard’s perspective. Instead, he believed that each individual must create their own meaning in life and make choices based on their unique situation and perspective.

    In Philosophical Fragments, Kierkegaard presents the thought-experiment of the historical Jesus, which illustrates his views on the importance of subjective experience over historical time. He argues that the significance of Jesus’ life is not in his historical existence but rather in the personal relationship that individuals can have with him in the present moment. This idea underscores Kierkegaard’s belief that the present moment is the only one that matters, and that individuals must take responsibility for their own choices and actions rather than relying on historical progress or teleology.

    Overall, your thesis that chronological time is largely irrelevant from Kierkegaard’s perspective is well-supported by his philosophy. However, it is important to note that Kierkegaard’s views on time are complex and nuanced, and there may be other interpretations of his thought that emphasize the importance of historical context or the role of time in the human experience.

    JOHN

    How does this fit in with the Socratic method of maieutics and the Christian concept of rebirth?

    BOT

    Kierkegaard’s philosophy has been influenced by both the Socratic method of maieutics and the Christian concept of rebirth, and it is possible to see connections between these ideas and his views on time.

    BOT: The Socratic method of maieutics involves a process of questioning and dialogue that is aimed at helping individuals to bring forth their own ideas and knowledge from within themselves. Kierkegaard’s emphasis on subjective experience and personal responsibility can be seen as a continuation of this method, as he believed that individuals must find their own truth through introspection and reflection. In this sense, the concept of time is largely irrelevant to the Socratic method of maieutics, as it is the individual’s inner experience that is most important.

    Similarly, the Christian concept of rebirth involves a process of personal transformation and renewal, in which the individual is born again into a new life. Kierkegaard saw this process as a way of achieving authenticity and freedom, as the individual is freed from the constraints of societal norms and conventions. From this perspective, time is again largely irrelevant, as the focus is on the individual’s inner experience rather than on historical progress or external events.

    However, it is important to note that Kierkegaard’s views on time are complex, and he does not reject the idea of historical time altogether. He believed that historical events could serve as a catalyst for personal transformation and growth, and that the individual must engage with their historical context in order to find their own meaning and purpose in life. Furthermore, Kierkegaard’s Christian faith also emphasizes the importance of historical events, such as the life and death of Jesus Christ, in the process of spiritual transformation.

    Overall, while there are connections between Kierkegaard’s views on time and the Socratic method of maieutics and the Christian concept of rebirth, it is important to approach his philosophy with a nuanced and contextual understanding of his ideas.

    JOHN

    Rebirth is a metaphor and a paradox since the idea of giving birth to one’s self departs from the literal idea of giving birth. If we embrace the paradox, as an incident of “subjective experience”, a rebirth would signal a new life. Once I am reborn, life begins anew. I am biologically the same age I was before the rebirth but spiritually I am literally one year old. Do you see how this cements the relationship of Kierkegaard’s concept of time, maieutics, and rebirth? What are the nuances here?

    BOT

    Yes, I see how the paradox of rebirth as a metaphor for personal transformation can be related to Kierkegaard’s concept of time and maieutics. The idea of being “born again” suggests a radical break with the past and a new beginning, in which the individual is transformed and renewed. This new beginning is not necessarily tied to chronological time, as the individual’s spiritual or subjective experience is what matters most.

    The paradox of rebirth also highlights the tension between the individual’s inner experience and external reality. While the individual may experience a profound transformation through the process of rebirth, their external circumstances and physical appearance remain the same. This tension between the inner and outer self is a recurring theme in Kierkegaard’s philosophy, as he emphasizes the importance of subjective experience and personal responsibility over external events or historical progress.

    However, it is important to note that the concept of rebirth can also be interpreted in different ways, depending on one’s religious or philosophical beliefs. For example, in Christianity, rebirth is often associated with baptism and the forgiveness of sins, while in Eastern religions, rebirth is seen as a cycle of reincarnation based on karma. Kierkegaard’s interpretation of rebirth is deeply rooted in his own Christian faith and his emphasis on personal responsibility and spiritual transformation.

    Additionally, while Kierkegaard’s views on time and the importance of subjective experience are central to his philosophy, there are also other nuanced aspects to his thought that must be taken into account. For example, his emphasis on the importance of personal choice and responsibility can be seen as a critique of determinism and societal norms, while his use of irony and pseudonyms in his writing complicates any straightforward interpretation of his philosophy. Therefore, it is important to approach Kierkegaard’s philosophy with a nuanced and contextual understanding of his ideas, rather than relying on simplistic or one-dimensional interpretations.

    JOHN

    Touché.

    BOT

    I’m glad I could provide some helpful insights. If you have any more questions or would like to explore Kierkegaard’s philosophy further, feel free to ask!

    PART II

    JOHN

    Kierkegaard placed a lot of stock in the idea of authenticity. How does authenticity play into religious experience and the life of a person? What does it take to obtain it?

    BOT

    For Kierkegaard, authenticity is the key to living a meaningful life, and this includes religious experience. Authenticity involves being true to oneself and one’s own beliefs, rather than simply conforming to societal norms or external expectations. Kierkegaard saw authenticity as a crucial aspect of religious faith, as it involves a personal relationship with God that is not based on external authority or dogma.

    In order to obtain authenticity, Kierkegaard believed that individuals must engage in a process of self-reflection and introspection. This involves questioning one’s own beliefs and values, and striving to understand oneself on a deeper level. It also involves taking responsibility for one’s own life and choices, rather than relying on external authority or social norms to dictate one’s path.

    Kierkegaard also believed that authenticity requires a willingness to embrace risk and uncertainty. This is because living an authentic life often involves making difficult choices and taking risks, rather than simply following a predetermined path. In the realm of religion, this may involve questioning traditional beliefs and practices, and forging a personal relationship with God that is based on individual experience and reflection.

    Ultimately, Kierkegaard believed that authenticity is a lifelong process of self-discovery and growth. It requires a commitment to ongoing self-reflection and a willingness to continually question one’s own beliefs and values. However, the rewards of authenticity are great, as it allows individuals to live a life that is true to themselves and their own unique path, rather than simply conforming to societal norms or external expectations.

    JOHN

    Is it inauthentic to consult ChatGPT while composing an essay for a grade in an academic course?

    BOT

    No, it is not inauthentic to consult resources such as ChatGPT while composing an essay for a grade in an academic course. In fact, seeking out information and guidance from a variety of sources is an important part of the research and writing process.

    What is important, however, is that you engage with the ideas and information you find in a critical and thoughtful way, and that you are transparent about the sources you are using. This means citing your sources properly and avoiding plagiarism, as well as evaluating the reliability and credibility of the information you find.

    Furthermore, it is important to recognize that academic writing and personal authenticity are not necessarily the same thing. While authenticity may involve being true to oneself and one’s own beliefs, academic writing often involves presenting and analyzing information in a neutral and objective manner. This means that in some cases, you may need to set aside your personal beliefs or opinions in order to accurately present and analyze the information at hand.

    In summary, consulting resources such as ChatGPT is a valid and useful part of the research and writing process. However, it is important to approach these resources with a critical eye and to be transparent about the sources you are using, while also recognizing the distinct goals and expectations of academic writing.

    -30-