A Reflection on Waiting for Godot

For me, Waiting for Godot is about the postmodern condition.

There is no transcendent meaning; we choose meaning from the threads of tradition that have been handed down to us. Trying to weave them into something new or just trying to pull them forward or both, we scrape by. But we choose them, or at least we can if we are aware enough of the situation to do so.
We can choose to keep our appointments and responsibilities, though we know that doing so may have little benefit. We can kill our selves. We can leave or leave one another. We can beat each other. We have so many choices, and it can easily cause paralysis. And many of us are paralyzed, at least when it comes to making grounding choices. But none of them really provide a ground anyway. They just provide an aid in shuffling along, or shuffling in place.

Yes, things have changed since the play was written. We are, most of us, physically vagabonds. We are no longer physically hungry and wearing rags. (The reality of post war France, where it was written, was very bleek and destitute.) We have homes, food and clothing, often too much to the point that we don't know what to do with it or are distracted by it. We have our entertainment and our devices. We are never in need of Lucky's speech to pass the time. But what we have, is it much better?

And as we wait (because we are always waiting for something, even if it isn't Godot that we have chosen, even if we haven't consciously chosen at all) with all we now have, as things repeat again and again as we wait, are we any better for it? Godot could come at anytime, and we would likely miss him. But would that matter? We are missing the experience of waiting because we are always too preoccupied with passing the time. But maybe that is the true human experience: waiting. And we are missing it.

And we delude ourselves into thinking that nothing is repeating because we are so connected and so much is new and always changing. But things still repeat, we are just distracted from those details. And maybe that too is part of the true human experience: repetition.

Waiting for Godot is too dull and boring and meaningless for most people to stand. And maybe that is why so many people don't really understand what it is to be human and what a human life really is. They are just too busy trying to avoid it.

NAS Daily, Religion, Stadiums, the Internet and Space Exploration

NAS Daily was here in Armenia recently, so people I know are sharing a lot of his past and present videos. I have watched a few. They are amusing and interesting, but what rubs me the wrong way about them is the idea that anything can be done in one minute that isn't inherently superficial.

Of course it is easy to show some video footage and say a few words in one minute and convince people of something that they might already be sympathetic towards or that they haven't really thought about before. That is interesting, but it is still superficial and can only ever touch the surface of any topic.

One of the videos I watched was questioning why so much money was, and sometime is still, spent on religious buildings.  "Why isn't the money just given to the poor? That is what God would really want," is the strawman argument that is posed.

I won't argue against God wanting us to help the poor, nor will I argue that many great religious buildings were build using methods or funds that are less than nobel. I will however question his easy dismissal of the usefulness of awesome religious buildings. And I would also like to ask these questions that I think are related: Why do we spend money on fine arts including museums, music and theater? Why do we spend so much money on sports stadiums? Why do we spend so much money on the internet? And why do we think nothing of so much money being spent on space exploration?

To examine wider issue, I would first ask what the point of fine art and art museums are. This includes asking what the point of productions of symphonies, operas, ballets or plays in general is. These things all try to inspire emotion and thought in people, ideally they bring them to epiphanies or an experience of awe. These are important things for humans to experience.

The experience of being challenged or inspired intellectually and emotionally is worth the expense of fine art. And having a common collection of works or types of works helps to create a shared experience which adds to having a common culture and worldview. This is, or at least used to be, the main idea behind literature and arts education.

Religious buildings were created to be awesome, to inspire awe. They bring art and beauty to people, even the common people, who back then would not have access to fine arts in other ways. (Remember, museums with public access are a relatively modern creation, and in many undeveloped countries are still not a reality.) A church was supposed to inspire awe which would strengthen belief and dedication to the religion, to the message of god. The art would also try to convey the ideas and stories of the religion. This was very important back when most people were not literate. People that are not inspired to believe, will not be likely to follow a requests or commands that a god makes of his followers to help the poor. It doesn't matter how charitable or giving a god or his commands are, if people don't understand or believe, they won't follow them. Religious buildings and even religious art were made to inspire and shape people, to create unity and dedication. If the god they inspired people to believe in was a caring and compassionate one, the people should be more caring and compassionate. But if the people are not inspired to believe in that god, then it doesn't matter how caring or compassionate that god is.

Stadiums now are seen mostly as revenue streams, but that is because we tend to see things in terms of money first and foremost these days. But they do have a deeper purpose, or they did and still can. Sports teams were seen as a way to strengthen community and commonality, and a stadium was the place people would gather to experience that first hand. I won't argue that mega-sized sports stadiums are worth the cost these days because I don't think they are. But in a less commercialized sporting environment, sports can be a strong unifying force for a community, nation or people. We can still see that with schools' sports teams and even in international competitions like the Olympics and World Cup... sometimes. 

The internet is something we spend a lot of money on these days.  The idea is that information is supposed to make us better and to unite us. However, that is not always the case. I don't want to get into it in detail here, but the idea that simple access to information can bring us together is based on a superficial (even outright faulty) conception of what information, knowledge and truth are. I think that without a better understanding of what information really is, spending so much money on the internet, especially in schools, is worse-- is more of a waste-- than all the money spent on religious buildings and sports stadiums, especially those that missed the point of unifying people.

In a way, prayer is like the internet: prayer in general is like the internet. It is how you pray and what you pray for that is most important, not that you pray. In the same way, it is how you use the internet and what you use it for that makes the internet important and makes the difference between it being useful or not.

Praying for wealth or power, or just to be right and to be certain about being right, is not really helpful to the person praying or the people around them. The most those sorts of prayers can do is give the people praying some hope that can reenforce their dedication or determination to a cause, ideas or goals. But if that goal is selfish and/or their work ethic is weak, the prayers can do more harm than good.

Praying for understanding, for wisdom, for Grace or things like that is helpful. They challenge the person praying to keep struggling, searching and growing. Those types of prayers help the person person praying to accept what they can't change. They help them become a better person and a person that can get along better with others in a meaningful way.

Praying for certainty, for wealth or other things like that is just like using the internet to find what you already believe is rigth, or to use it to promote what you think is right while ignoring everything else out there. We far too often use the internet in a superficial and selfish way, and it doesn't help us grow or learn, nor does it help those around us. (This too is connected to a superficial idea of information, knowledge and truth.)

And now people are talking about the multi-million dollar satellite being sent to the sun or the possible mission to explore the water under the Martian ice cap. Whatever is discovered will have little impact on the everyday lives of the average human, but we are excited about it and don't tend to count or scrutinize the cost. It will boost faith in science and technology, which are the religions of the day. But because science and technology are believed in, few will question the cost of these missions like they now question the cost of religious buildings.

NAS daily's videos are superficial and don't really help bring people to deep thought or to come together in ways they wouldn't already. That is not to say they are bad, but they are entertainment and nothing more. They are like saying a few prayers that you know by heart and asking for some thing you want for yourself on your terms without thinking about anything deeper. Like praying without thinking about the impact on others, the meaning and history of the words in the prayer. It is like spending millions on a stadium, a rocket or a church without thinking about or trying to emphasize the deeper impact that those things can and should have. He can start a conversation, but he can really inform people, and shouldn't really convince them.

Progress, Goals and Values

Progress can only be determined or measured using goals and values. If you don't have a goal to move towards, it is just random movement. If you don't have values to measure (or more often merely quantify) change, it is just random change.  

More often than not, values and goals are defined very narrowly and not put into a wider context. Values are numbers that have been narrowly defined by isolating specific things from as much as possible. The best example is dollar amounts, especially as profit. 

There is often little open debate or explanation of the values: how they are set, what they mean, how they connect to other things, etc. They are usually numbers these days and are passed off as being obvious and self-evident.

The narrowness and lack of transparency and details about them are big reasons why what is defined as progress by some is felt by others to be degeneration or even outright loss.

Mylar Balloon

We have made important ideas in our Western culture (like truth, justice, equality) foundationless by cutting them off from the traditions that forged them and should play an integral part in revising and reshaping them. By marginalizing and neglecting philosophy and history (and even theology), we are cutting of the origins of these ideas and the complex and important arguments, systems and frameworks that created them. This leaves them without foundations, susceptible to being compromised, hijacked or even washed away by fads, thoughtlessness or carelessness. We have gutted them of content by abstracting to an extreme. 

We have also smoothed out the surface and given it a minimalistic and shiny exterior with no detail. The words we use to talk about things are simple and without nuance. They are also positive and attractive, but they lack any substance and as a result the things they try to represent are unobtainable and unsustainable.

Instead of having a solid foundation, detailed inner workings and an expressive exterior, like a gothic church or even early era sky scraper like the Empire State Building, we have a hollow, shiny but plain balloon floating in the air. We have a mylar party balloon that blows in the wind and displays a comforting but generic message, if any messages at all beyond being bright and shiny. It is attractive and fun, but lacks any substance to the point of being a mere party favor and nothing of real consequence.

If There Is (To Be) A Light...

"That was the fatal flaw in Tim Leary's trip. He crashed around America, selling 'consciousness expansion' without ever giving a thought to the grim meat-hook realities that were lying in wait for all those people who took him seriously. All those pathetically eager acid freaks who thought they could buy peace and understanding for three bucks a hit. But their loss and failure is ours too. What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole lifestyle that he helped create. A generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old-mystic fallacy of the acid culture: the desperate assumption that somebody, or at least some force, is tending the light at the end of the tunnel."
From the film Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

That mystic fallacy is our weakness today as well. We need to realize and be honest with ourselves (before it is too late) that the light isn't there. The utopia is not there. It isn't just there to be arrived at as long as we just keep moving. If it is to be there, we have to make it: if that is possible, if it is tenable.

But more likely, it is just a goal that we have to strive for as long as we believe in it. Strive to get as close as possible. Like Sisyphus, striving but knowing that we will never achieve. Like Sisyphus, that is until we no longer believe. Then, unlike Sisyphus, we can and need to find another challenge. Then we need to find another light to chase or boulder to push.

Art can't be simply an attack on power. Power goes wrong because it either has nothing to believe in besides itself or because it is working towards a light that is only an illusion: not real and more importantly not tenable. Deconstruction and attacks have been overdone; they only lead to jadded skepticism and cynicism. Art needs to create a new light.

That is what art should be doing these days. Art needs to be a creative activity of myth creation and reality weaving. It should not be simply an activity in deconstructing the structures of meaning or power that keep us from reaching the light at the end of the tunnel. The light is not there. The light is not longer believed, is no longer  practical or believable. We need a new light, and to have it we need to make it and believe in it. 

The Dangerous Simplification of Love Without God, or A God That Is Only Love

“As God has renounced himself out of love, so we, out of love, should renounce God; for if we do not sacrifice God to love, we sacrifice love to God, and in spite of the predicate of love, we have the God – the evil being – of religious fanaticism.”

-- Ludwig Feuerbach from The Essence of Christianity

This is the beginning of the emptying of the concept of love. Feuerbach had a huge impact on Marx, but also on secular humanism and on certain strains of theology and religion.

I can understand why Feuerbach and others might think this in necessary and a good thing, but I feel that it is short sighted. Doing this can make ecumenical work easier and it would seem to work well at trying to unite humanity. However, it makes both God and love simple and superficial. Whether you sacrifice God and keep only love, or empty God of everything but love, you are making the thing that sits at the center of your existence, your world, simple and superficial. This is binary thinking that insists that when two things are not totally compatible, one must be given up, allowing for the other to take up the space previously occupied by the two. This is simplistic thinking and leads to simplistic ideas, and on this level to simplistic ideals.

'The evil being of religious fanaticism' is of course a problem. But it comes from the simplification of God as well. A fanaticism that hates is the exact opposite of a God that is only love or love without a God: it is a simplification and superficiality in the other direction. It is a God that does not like complexity and any sort of incompatibility and reacts by hating whatever introduces complexity and incompatibility. The reality of God and of love lie in the complexity of them, in the multiplicity, juxtapositions and even contradictions of the ways that those ideas are thought, expressed and felt together in tradition, art, theology, history, etc.

The self-renunciation referred to here is almost without a doubt the crucifixion. Reducing the Judeo-Christian God to that one event is a gross simplification. Reducing that event to one meaning makes it even worse. The story, the history, the theology and the tradition behind the crucifixion and the Judeo-Christian as a whole God is far more complex and deep than that, with layers of meaning and interpretation. These allow for new experience and interpretation of both the idea of God and of love.

Just as the existence of faith necessitates at least the possibility, and usually the occasional existence, of doubt, the existence of something as powerful as love or God, something that occupies the center of your world, requires complexity and depth to be real; it requires complexity to mean anything when it finds itself in the real world. The complex histories, traditions, theology and struggles of the major world religions are a testament to this. Religion (or anything really) needs to be dynamic to be relevant in the world, which itself is very complex and dynamic.

Stripping God of everything but love makes God a simpleton, a caricature of what God has to be to be real and relate to the real world. Placing love at the center of a world without a tradition of thought, stories or art to help define it is one step away from leaving that center empty. Neither are practical, but both are currently very popular. I can't help but think that has more than a little to do with the futility and animosity that fills our public discourse.  

A (more modern) philosophical aside:

It is interesting for me to compare what this simplification does to God and love to what Heidegger says technology does to truth.

"The threat to man does not come in the first instance from the potentially lethal machines and apparatus of technology. The actual threat has already afflicted man in his essence. The rule of enframing [a strict and seemingly permanent ordering of things] threatens man with the possibility that it could be denied him to enter into a more original revealing and hence to experience the call of a more primal truth."

-- Martin Heidegger from The Question Concerning Technology.

This can be applied to the idea of simplification of God and love like this:

The threat of religion does not come from a God that is not left behind in favor of pure love and the fanaticism that may come from that. The real threat has already taken hold because man looks to religion for a simple, universal and eternal answer to the question of the meaning of life. This insistence that the meaning of life, or just the rule that we must live life by, must be simple and at the same time applicable at all times and in all places, keeps us from encountering reality and our own experiences as they are and learning from them and acting from a closer relation to and more intimate understanding of them. That the rule is simple and universal keeps us from reality, which is ever changing, in a twofold sense: first, it keeps us from seeing the world directly without the simple and universal filter shaping it and the filter, being eternal and universal as well as simple, cannot accommodate or adapt to those changes; second, it keeps us from responding to the world as it is and limits what we can imagine as possible responses based on the simplicity of the rule that cannot accommodate the complexity and every changing nature of the world. In other words, we cannot experience what we encounter, nor can we react to it, in a close and original way because the simple and universal filter gets in the way.

When The True World Merges With The Apparent One

Nietzsche says that we have destroyed the true world (the truth of the world that lies beyond what we see everyday) through our obsession with trying to ground it objectively and empirically.
What we would seem to have left is the world the way it appears to us, the apparent world.

However, again according to Nietzsche, we have made that disappear as we destroyed the true world. Basically, without the ideals and categories of the true world, the world as it appears is simply chaos and incomprehensible.

But we have done something a bit different. (This is a bit like how capitalism has avoided its inevitable fate as prescribed by Marx.) We gave conflated the apparent with the true. 

The true is now the apparent, but we fail to see how what appears is shaped by the ideal and we don't inquire into it at all in any depth.

We have simplified our ideas and as a result the world, both true and apparent. But we are so confident and otherwise occupied we don't see the incongruences between the two.

In the end, When The true world merges with the apparent one, we have no world. We have nothing but chaos and confusion.

The inspiring quote:

"The true world — we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one."

--Nietzsche from How The "True World" Finally Became a Fable, a chapter in Twilight Of The Idols

Your Evil Enemy Makes You Ignoble

"What great reverence for his enemies a noble human being has! ... he can stand no other enemy than one in whom there is nothing to hold in contempt and a very great deal to honor! On the other hand imagine the 'enemy' as the human being of resentment conceives of him... 'the evil enemy,' 'the evil one.'"
Friedrich Nietzsche from On the Genealogy of Morality

This is something we should keep in mind while reading, commenting and thinking about things online.

The evil enemy comes out of resentment and simplification. It says as much, if not more, about the person labeling the evil enemy as it does about the enemy. It says the one who is labeling is resentful and full of simplifications and even simple thinking. In short, they are not noble. They make themselves ignoble, or at least questionable, by making an evil enemy.