September 28, 2010 4 Comments
September 27, 2010 16 Comments
Local Novus Ordo Priest has Communist Prayers and Genderless Creed
It is a bad thing to be a red-blooded male and attend a Novus Ordo liturgy locally. Before the mass began, it was asked of the crowd if anyone would like to do the readings that has been trained. I am familiar with how to conduct a traditional Latin Mass as well as how to operate in the Novus Ordo as a server and reader. I offered, but was turned down, because a college girl had offered her skills. I protested that the Catholic theological norm was that the altar role of serving and reading was ideally for men. This met with a fury of protest as I would later discover, but the priest assured me that the bishop here had set the norms that it was okay to allow women to run every aspect of the service. So not only was my overall point rejected (that it is more consistent and traditionally correct to choose male lectors, should they offer), I was told to go away and ask the bishop. So rather than make a sensible response to my point about tradition in general as regards male authority, Fr. Jason McClure (his email is firstname.lastname@example.org if you would like to send him some of your own thoughts) preferred I go elsewhere. He made it clear that this is of no immediate concern to him, since the local bishop has given permission to do many things in the liturgy. Well, let’s see what this ends up meaning.
Not only was the mass basically ugly, it included several offensive elements to any who have a love of the reverent and holy. After our beautiful evangelical serenade of praise and worship songs, the all-girl guitar band rested and I decided I was not going to let Fr. McClure scare me away from confronting him on an ugly liturgy as well the local Newman House director of religious education’s consideration of instituting a Catholics Going Green Bible Study. In fact, a month ago I met with the girl who runs the Newman House and showed her documentation through facebook that the Green Movement is a movement of fraud geared towards depopulation. This is completely in contrast to Catholic Dogma which teaches that human life is sacred. I went to snatch a few photos of this hideous mass to make sure I had evidence. Read more of this post
September 26, 2010 4 Comments
By: Peter Parker
Okay I couldn’t resist, here’s Golden Girls as a metaphor for the alchemical magnum opus. A further sign I have way too much time on my hands.
In alchemy the magnum opus or great work was the production of the philosopher’s stone, a special mineral that could convert matter from an incomplete state to a perfected state. Led to gold, etc. To produce the stone, it was believed that the alchemist himself must first be a spiritually pure philosopher. There were several levels of chromatic transformation the stone would go through, nigredo (black), albedo (white) & rubedo (red). At the end of this a philosopher’s stone would be produced. So let’s begin with this silly waste of time.
1.) The show’s title is the “Golden Girls” clearly a reference to the intended end product of the great work (gold).
2.) The eldest & wisest golden girl is called Sophia, (Greek for Wisdom). Clearly it is she who must be sought by the adept wishing to perform the great work. Philosopher is, of course, from the Greek “Philo Sophia” (lover of wisdom).
3.) Sophia’s daughter is Dorothy (Greek for Gift of the Gods), showing that the product of Wisdom is a divine gift (ie the stone.) Read more of this post
September 23, 2010 12 Comments
As with many 80s films I grew up with, they seemed quite innocuous on the surface level, but as you mature, you are able to reflect on the subtler messages and meanings in film and literature. My own and Peter Parker’s reviews here have garnered quite a few thousand hits over the past couple years, so I can take that as further confirmation that we are certainly on the right track. Several sites will review modern films and point out the deeper meanings, hidden symbols and predictive programming, but very few do what we do – go back in time looking for it. Other sites tend to focus on the purely esoteric or ‘Illuminati agenda’ messages which may or may not actually be there. What we try to do is a real decoding, as broad in scope as possible, with a more holistic semiotic, as opposed to reading films through a singular “conspiracy” lens. Not everything is conspiracy.
That said, there are some fascinating things going on in Mad Max 3 beyond the surface post-apocalyptic adventure tale. There are actually some very profound social critiques, symbols, philosophical theories and esoteric images used. So let’s begin. Part 3 starts with Max on his own again, the ever-scorned, never appreciated, jaded hero. Max is the loner reduced to a state of survival: a Clint Eastwood type, who has given up on civilization (and not without reason). In fact, one of the chief themes of Thunderdome will be about the nature of civilization itself – is it really that civilized?
Max is a Bedouin-esque wanderer now, with a caravan, having lost his trademark sports car in part 2. We begin with Max losing his caravan to the trickster airplane man (played by Bruce Spence). Max’s goods are taken by Spence’s character to Bartertown, the renewed version of “civilization.” However, Bartertown is a cesspool of disgusting thugs, miscreants and savages. Not only that, it is ruled over by a rival faction of Aunty Entity (played by Tina Turner), and the ruler of its underworld which provides methane fuel for electrical power, Master Blaster. Underworld is also replete with hell imagery as a pit full of slaves and pigs. So immediately, we have statements being made about social structure and hierarchy. Aunty is an elitist, who lives above everyone in Bartertown, in a tent atop a tower. Aunty keeps the animal-like populace in line by providing food, sex, economics and entertainment. Underworld, however, is run by a retarded giant (Blaster) who has a kind of humonculous midget who sits atop his back (Master). We have here the juxtaposition of baser bodily instincts embodied in Blaster, with reason, science and technology embodied in Master. Together they form a unit and represent technological power, which has survived the apocalypse. Aunty represents feminine machinations and scheming, wherein civilization is actually seen as a domesticating institution (contrary to many images of “civilization” wherein it is presented as a patriarchal, masculine logos structure). Read more of this post
September 20, 2010 2 Comments
For Husserl, the perception of objects is necessarily inadequate due to what he and Merleau-Ponty describe as the “horizon.” This refers to the hiddenness of any object of perception due to a singular human vantage point and finitude. Any perception of an object can only be of a determined aspect or dimension of an object. If I perceive a table, the representational content given by the sensations will always contain an unknown. I cannot, even totaling up all the possible facts of an object and possible angles, perceive every aspect or relation within the object, as I always perceive from some determinate, singular perspective or vantage point.
It would, in fact, require omniscience to perceive an object in its totality. This being the case, Husserl speaks of the objects horizon, which is in fact ever-present and insurmountable. This is the reason, then why perception of things is always necessarily inadequate. That requirement of omniscience is what Husserl means when he speaks of adequate perception as an ideal: It is something we cannot in actuality achieve.
September 20, 2010 Leave a comment
In Thing and Space, part 4 (page 12), when Husserl explains that intentionality is the existential determinant, he is describing a feature of out perceptual constitution. He writes that we have pure givenness or pure intuition which relates us to phenomenal objects. Objects as presented to us directly are an essential feature that belongs indissolubly to perception. Indeed, for Husserl, this constitutes the essence of perception, in contrast to indirect realism or some mediated notion of the representational content of objects.
In this case, we are not looking for the ontological questions surrounding objects in the real world, but rather investigating what constitutes the intentional object itself. And not just what the descriptors are of these presentations, but what are the necessary conditions of perception of objects. Perception has, as Husserl explains, this peculiar character. It is, then, always the case that consciousness is consciousness of some object. We have at this point, bracketed our questions of the ontology of the house itself, but are here concerned with the philosophy of mental states, and for Husserl, this directedness is constitutional of perception universally. This is not to say the object has no status as an actual external object, but rather that we are after the essential elements of conscious perception itself.
September 13, 2010 2 Comments
The first account Merleau-Ponty deals with in the selections from Phenomenology of Perception as found in Vision and Mind is the notion that sense-perception is identified with the object perceived. He believes that because of its presented immediacy, we mistakenly believe the two are the same, and they are not. One does not have the immediate sense impressions that do not have some context of prior meaning and experience which are bound up in the present experience. Such being the case, it is not “redness” that presents itself to me. There is no “pure sense impression.” We are seeking, then, meaning or essence.
Merleau-Ponty deals with psychologists and empiricists and notes many of the classical criticisms that have been given of these views. There are numerous things necessary for interpreting sense impressions not immediately given, such as identity of objects or self over time, and therefore a strict empirical answer to this cannot be adequate. Merleau-Ponty believes as well that psychology and the naïve psychologistic approach to perception cannot do without physiology (as well as philosophy), inasmuch as the body itself, as well as its spatio-temporal locale, is a key factor in the perception process. Experience is not a frozen dot of time that we can abstract from all prior experience and analyze as uninterpreted brute factuality presenting itself to us. Indeed, the human subject, his past experiences, the intentional object, hic locale and context, and the essence of the thing in question all contribute and are sufficient to refute bare empiricism, reductionism and psychologism.