A Better Way to Communicate

Pundits (or a better term would be “talking heads”) are always in competition with each other at who can come up with the best one liner or a phrase that will forever remain in cultural consciousness, and will be used as a frame of reference in many contexts. But these phrases are quickly forgotten because they either have no substance or because people really are oversaturated with information. Truth and real thought provoking reflections get lost and they have no impact. People are extremely impatient and examination of one's life is not on their priority list. Give me the next information. More, more, more!

Social media feeds are like this. Not only are they in constant change of information, literally second by second, they are feeding the mind of the people and it is junk food. Recent debates about Facebook selecting what they put on their news feed and how it is biased toward liberalism are a perfect example of what constitutes news.

It is true – they are certainly more liberal than conservative. You won't find a National Review link on its feed. However, if you look closely, most of what Facebook deems news is celebrity gossip. In this way, you could say, that they are selectively choosing to not report on real issues, and because of that the Facebook is participating in a mild form of censorship.

Somehow, we have to seek the articles and essays that give us information, but most of all, a glimpse of the universal human questions. Let's get to the heart of the matter, and not constantly engage in ad hominem attacks and insults that masquerade as intellectual analysis. It does not take any effort, self-reflection, or careful thought to throw insults around. This is just another instance of dehumanizing one's opponent. It's one thing to be witty, funny, and satirical. It's another to be utterly humorless and quite simply, cruel. Smugness of the so-called intellectual elite is tyrannical and does not permit any deviation from their linguistically and euphemistically formed metaphysics, where good is evil, and evil is good.

Artists, philosophers, intellectuals – they all have to find a way to be heard in the noise of meaningless opinions. But how do you do that? I must admit, it's a depressing world out there. But you have to remain strong. The intellectual thrust has to be even more aggressive and powerful than what artists and thinkers have experienced in the past. But, to paraphrase, Andrei Tarkovsky, without disorder and pressure, an artist would have no reason to create. All of art and thought is borne out of some kind of struggle.

How to rescue art from politics? Do we respond to and analyze the loud and obnoxious and gyrating culture of beyonces, taylor swifts, lena dunhams, etc.? If we speak about them, we give them attention. If we remain silent, they continue to deconstruct that which is beautiful. In the meantime, they are the true capitalists, who through cultural and historical appropriation masquerade as social justice warriors. I would say that someone like Beyonce is wearing a metaphysical mask, but maybe there is no face underneath the disguise.

Look, let's face, it's about the money. Whatever gets more attention from the people, whatever creates more “controversy” is more profitable. Be it beyonces or professional activists, they are making money. What they are saying hardly even matters. But the words and twisted meanings of them do spread. And suddenly, it all becomes a really bad telephone game. The unfortunate aspect of this game is that the message was a lie to begin with.

Artists and philosophers and true intellectuals need to keep forging ahead. They need to annihilate the mediocrity that calls itself “art” and “thought.” Quite simply, standards need to be raised. Commenting on the dryness and depression that comes from an artist’s struggles as an actor, John Cassavetes said: “If you don’t get any good parts, you have to keep preparing. You can’t go slumming. You can’t ever slum.”

Rules for Intellectuals: A Succinct Treatise for Real Intellectuals

Thinkers have been lamenting the disappearance of the Humanities from universities for decades now.  Books and articles have been written on the subject, and for the most part, all of them are quite clear in presenting the issues at universities.  And even as a lowly TA who is working on her PhD, I see the issues in “humanities/writing” classes that I teach.

I was tempted to write yet another essay on the state of Humanities but I decided against it.  I have written on it before on my blog, and I have said everything I wanted to say about the problems.  Instead, I have chosen to focus on the culture-at-large and the descent into the pits of anti-intellectualism which is present in the United States at the moment.

And so, I have decided to present here a few rules for people, who would like to see an improvement in culture, and who would like to raise the level of thought in the public sphere.  One of the reasons why I choose not to focus on universities only is because I think that we have to begin from a larger exteriority (society-at-large) and move toward a specific interiority (e.g., state of the Humanities in universities, etc.).  Despite the fact that I am calling this “Rules for Intellectuals,” my objective is not to create a rigid, immovable set of rules – the title is more of a jab at Saul Alinsky.  My objective is to move from an ideological and “group think” approach into an intellectual and individual thinking whereby two or more human beings can come together in an encounter in order to exchange ideas.

1.     Establishing that there is an order of things

2.     Bringing in a higher level of a conversation, in other words, challenging your intellectual opponent

3.     Before you even engage in an attack of ideology, attack the sloppy scholarship of an ideologue.  Ideologues, by their very nature, do not engage in stable scholarship precisely because they rely on the “shock” of their statements and the inversion of what is good and orderly

4.     Don’t be afraid of what might be a “mad” idea.  You should be secure in your own thoughts and conclusions.  Keep in mind that sometimes a “mad” idea is the best thing which could happen.  The difficult task of thinking is to discern whether the supposed madness is grounded in reality and the order of things, or whether it has the potential to contribute to the erosion of culture, and more importantly to the suppression of human spirit

5.     Use facts and do not be afraid to agree with your interlocutor if in fact you do agree.  It is quite helpful to establish a commonality as well

6.     Do not get flustered.  Emotions can be intelligent, but visible agitations are not

7.     Recognize your interlocutor as a human being first, and understand that you are attacking the ideas, not the personhood.  Only then can you be both intelligent and charitable

8.     Do not force a “conversion” on your interlocutor.  Remain steady.  You are arguing for your position – that is true – but your dialogue partner (as well as yourself) should arrive at the truth by him or herself in their own time, in their own journey, in their own arrival

9.     Never make comments or conclusions on a book or an article or a film until you’ve read it or seen it.  This kind of approach will make you weak. 

10.  Lastly, ideas do have consequences, be they good or bad.  Take the thinking and the dialogue seriously, but never lose a sense of humor or wonder.

Yey for Hermeneutics! (Some Reflections on my Intellectual History)

A page from Sarajevo Haggadah.

A few years ago, when I was still taking classes at the Seminary, I registered for a course in Synoptic Gospels.  It was part of the requirement for the MA in Theology.  At that point in my academic career, and specifically in relation to theology, I was more intrigued by Systematic theology, as well as Christian spirituality. 

In any case, I registered for the course, and I was talking to my husband about it.  I proclaimed in a voice, which may have been slightly nerdy: “I get to write an exegetical paper in Synoptics!”  I was very excited.  My husband lovingly poked fun at me, quoting me on it, slightly exaggerating my nerdy voice, and pushing the imaginary glasses up his nose.  It’s one of those things, which has remained a constant joke in our household every time I get excited about some intellectual work, particularly textual analysis.

Here I am, working on my PhD in Comparative Literature, and God willing, if it all goes well, this will be my fifth degree.  I’m not going to go through the list of my degrees – see the bio to the right. 

I had wondered over the years whether I have made the right moves by getting all these degrees.  Have I steered in the wrong direction?  Why in the world have I been working on so many degrees?  Shouldn’t I have just quite after the first MA?  And all these disciplines – are they even interlinked? 

It does not help either that one has moments of absolute self-loathing.  Given this, you end up dismissing work which you have done.  “Oh, it was easy!  There’s nothing to it.  And now, it’s all useless!  What can someone possibly do with this in real life with all this accumulated knowledge?”  And on and on and on…

Lately, however, I have been taking a more loving approach to myself and my studies.  My husband has repeatedly told me that self-loathing will get you nowhere, particularly when you have so many intellectual and personal gifts.  He has been my supporter all these years.  But you also have to get to that point where you, yourself, begin to see who you are, what is emerging, what kind of person is being formed, and more than anything – that the person you are is really not a bad person!

Yesterday, I found myself at the Seminary library, working on my thesis, getting closer to finishing it.  I was looking for primary sources of Biblical commentaries and letters by Anselm and Bernard of Clairvaux.  There they were – Opera omnia (doesn’t that just sound so good and exciting?!), and I began sifting through them to find paragraphs in Latin, which corresponded to the English translations.  It certainly helped to know enough Latin!

It was like being part of some dig – unearthing history, which will always be part of us, no matter how much time passes.  Now, I know that probably for most people, these linguistic comparisons don’t mean much.  But being part of history in such a way, as I touched volumes and volumes of commentaries, I felt happiness.  Real happiness that I am engaging myself with these sources and trying to make sense of it and trying to make a small contribution to the interpretation of these wondrous texts.

I have always loved languages and learning new languages always came easy to me.  For my doctorate, I will be working on the Song of Songs, and soon, I will be learning Hebrew.  In plans also is to learn Arabic and expand my knowledge of Qur’anic exegesis.  At some point, I looked at copy of a medieval Jewish commentary on the Song of Songs.  The book itself also had a list of commentaries that were written over the ages.  I always knew that the Song is sacred but something more happened when I looked at the list.  I thought, I am in the presence of something far bigger than me – this Song of Songs is as elusive and ineffable as God himself, and the text cannot be violated (not that I ever intended that, but you get my point). 

Just when I thought that things are falling apart and that I have made huge mistakes in obtaining all these degrees, something happened, something clicked in your mind and heart and you know, without having an ability to explain it properly, that what you are doing is right.  Look at all these strands connecting, you think to yourself.  All of my academic career, I have been concerned with dialogism in texts, and by association, dialogism among peoples. 

For me, this is not just about quiet scholarly work, however important that is.  This is about a creation of a far more important dialogue – one, which acknowledges our differences and yet brings us closer to one another.  It is a creation of dialogue through language and through the metaphysics of text. 

And so, I realize that is not just about academic “career.”  This is about life itself.  It’s not about “usefulness” or “uselessness” of intellectual efforts.  The efforts have to be grounded in the reality of human relations, always!  Books are ways for us to discuss, agree, or disagree but most of all, to be on the path of an encounter. The reason hours I spent at the library brought me happiness was not because I was just trying to solve some textual mystery but that I am connecting and synthesizing texts that come from many different traditions – and let us not forget, traditions are not simply concepts.  They are visible in the human face.