Re: [FairfieldLife] Sci-fi = theology for moderns
Nice rap. Back in the day, when I was still a TM teacher and State Coordinator for the TMO, I used to give a similar advanced lecture called SCI and SciFi. I tend to agree with your basic premise, in that SciFi deals with the edges of what we know of the universe, which is always the same function that theology provided during earlier ages. The only thing I quibble about is your choice of examples. 2001, Gravity, and Solaris all suffer from the same hideous and deforming flaw, interestingly the same flaw that renders theology so unintersting -- humorlessness. Many have commented over the decades on the overseriousness of SciFi, a failing it probably gained from science. But really, when you think about it, who could possibly take any theology or any SciFi seriously while it continues to take *itself* so seriously. If I were to try to pick a SciFi masterwork that came close to expressing my theology about the universe and how it works, it would be something with more heart, and FAR more humor. Something like...dare I say it...Joss Whedon's Firefly and Serenity. Now THAT is a theology I can live with. A ship full of outlaws and hookers and priests and babes, just scraping by on the outer edges of the galaxy, but always scraping by, and still flying. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch3X5WrhwGM From: s3raph...@yahoo.com s3raph...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 3:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Sci-fi = theology for moderns Theology is the science of God. It's an obsolete set of theories about an obsolescent belief system (Christianity) that has no relevance to moderns. I have no objection to that approach but can't help feeling it misses out on the important point. Which is? That theology was the way that pre-moderns learnt how to regard - that is, how to orient themselves towards - ultimate issues. For example: perhaps the key doctrine of Christianity is Original Sin (the only rival is the doctrine of the Incarnation). What does Original Sin amount to if we disregard the theology? Doesn't it come down to this: if you live your life as if what comes naturally is good and right then you've made a catastrophic error. Human nature is essentially perverse and you have to fight against that perversity if you're not to face disaster. Based on your *own* experience of life; based on your *own* observations of others does that sound plausible or does it sound insane? So how do we moderns learn how to adjust to ultimate issues? Philosophy? hardly! Religion? Forget it! I claim that sci-fi is the genre that has helped us best to make that adjustment. I recall seeing Kubrick's 2001 when it first appeared. When it started with Strauss's tone poem Also sprach Zarathustra over Kubrick's sunrise scene I was laughing almost hysterically in the cinema. So was it funny? No - the laughter was my reaction to the emotional kick of the moment as I realised immediately that here was a director who was prepared to tackle *essential* issues and I was in for a rare treat. I had a similar experience recently when I saw the film Gravity. I'd avoiding watching the movie as I'd expected it to be a special-effects bonanza but emotionally vacuous. Wow! What a surprise. (Spoiler alert!) When at the end Sandra Bullock emerges from the waves it's a true mythological moment. Mankind (woman in this case) emerging from the amniotic fluid; Man emerging from the primordial ocean as he takes the first steps from water to land (symbolized by the frog!). I have to admit that in this case I wasn't laughing - I was literally in tears. Powerful stuff. Whereas Kubrick's film has a gnostic tinge - a human being is reborn as the Starchild far beyond mundane man - Gravity is almost the opposite: this is woman being returned (with a desperate gratitude - who to?) from a total technological environment back to elemental, mother earth. I have similar responses to other sci-fi books and films - Solaris, for example. How curious that a genre - so despised, so niche, so juvenile - can have such an important role to play. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-QFj59PON4
Re: [FairfieldLife] Sci-fi = theology for moderns
Actually, now that I think about it, a more fitting theology for our age is probably Joss Whedon's followup SciFi series to Firefly/Serenity, Dollhouse. I consider it one of the best examples of science fiction ever created, and it certainly fits my criterion of containing humor, but it's more relevant to the issues that we as human beings and we as spiritual seekers face in these times. Namely questions like, Is there such a thing as self? and Is there such a thing as 'reality'? The whole premise of the series is that a technology exists that can imprint a person with an entirely new set of skills, memories, traits, and *identity*, which then replace their own. The question dealt with over the course of the two seasons was expressed by the lead character Echo in the first episode. When presented with an alternative to going to prison, the director of the Dollhouse tells Echo, Wouldn't you like to start over, with a clean slate? Echo replies, Have you ever tried to actually clean a slate? You can't...there's always something left over. What could be a more accurate metaphor for the issues of reincarnation and karma, not to mention the mini-deaths and mini-rebirths that occur on a regular basis along the pathway to enlightenment? The series also deals with the most pressing issue of our age -- is the impact of technology a good thing or a bad thing? No matter what tech you come up with, it will be spun and perverted by the Old Guard into something ugly, something used to control and manipulate people rather than liberate them. Besides, my Dollhouse theology has a high Babe Factor. This is important in a theology; just look at the number of gorgeous babes running around Brahmaloka in the Hindu theology. They're not there by accident -- a good theology *needs* good babes. :-) Not to mention that the whole series is about the thing that most human beings on this planet are most hung up about -- SEX. One of the reasons it got cancelled is because America just wasn't ready for dolls who in some cases had been imprinted to become expensive fuck puppets. But -- and this was the kicker that drove conservatives and the moral majority (which are neither) up the wall -- they weren't *only* fuck puppets. They could love, show compassion and integrity and courage, and wind up saving the world. This just did not compute for the uptight, repressed assholes who make up much of America -- in their view whores should just be whores, and EVIL...they shouldn't be portrayed as having (or even capable of having) higher qualities. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgTH4tdtNf8 BTW, s3raphita, if you're not familiar with either series, neither one has any notion of God in it. Which suits me just fine in a theology, because mine doesn't either. Spirituality without God. Go figure. But what could possibly be a more fitting theology for our scientific age? From: TurquoiseBee turquoi...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 7:22 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Sci-fi = theology for moderns Nice rap. Back in the day, when I was still a TM teacher and State Coordinator for the TMO, I used to give a similar advanced lecture called SCI and SciFi. I tend to agree with your basic premise, in that SciFi deals with the edges of what we know of the universe, which is always the same function that theology provided during earlier ages. The only thing I quibble about is your choice of examples. 2001, Gravity, and Solaris all suffer from the same hideous and deforming flaw, interestingly the same flaw that renders theology so unintersting -- humorlessness. Many have commented over the decades on the overseriousness of SciFi, a failing it probably gained from science. But really, when you think about it, who could possibly take any theology or any SciFi seriously while it continues to take *itself* so seriously. If I were to try to pick a SciFi masterwork that came close to expressing my theology about the universe and how it works, it would be something with more heart, and FAR more humor. Something like...dare I say it...Joss Whedon's Firefly and Serenity. Now THAT is a theology I can live with. A ship full of outlaws and hookers and priests and babes, just scraping by on the outer edges of the galaxy, but always scraping by, and still flying. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch3X5WrhwGM From: s3raph...@yahoo.com s3raph...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 3:20 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Sci-fi = theology for moderns Theology is the science of God. It's an obsolete set of theories about an obsolescent belief system (Christianity) that has no relevance to moderns. I have no objection to that approach but can't help feeling it misses out on the important point. Which is? That theology
[FairfieldLife] Sci-fi = theology for moderns
Theology is the science of God. It's an obsolete set of theories about an obsolescent belief system (Christianity) that has no relevance to moderns. I have no objection to that approach but can't help feeling it misses out on the important point. Which is? That theology was the way that pre-moderns learnt how to regard - that is, how to orient themselves towards - ultimate issues. For example: perhaps the key doctrine of Christianity is Original Sin (the only rival is the doctrine of the Incarnation). What does Original Sin amount to if we disregard the theology? Doesn't it come down to this: if you live your life as if what comes naturally is good and right then you've made a catastrophic error. Human nature is essentially perverse and you have to fight against that perversity if you're not to face disaster. Based on your *own* experience of life; based on your *own* observations of others does that sound plausible or does it sound insane? So how do we moderns learn how to adjust to ultimate issues? Philosophy? hardly! Religion? Forget it! I claim that sci-fi is the genre that has helped us best to make that adjustment. I recall seeing Kubrick's 2001 when it first appeared. When it started with Strauss's tone poem Also sprach Zarathustra over Kubrick's sunrise scene I was laughing almost hysterically in the cinema. So was it funny? No - the laughter was my reaction to the emotional kick of the moment as I realised immediately that here was a director who was prepared to tackle *essential* issues and I was in for a rare treat. I had a similar experience recently when I saw the film Gravity. I'd avoiding watching the movie as I'd expected it to be a special-effects bonanza but emotionally vacuous. Wow! What a surprise. (Spoiler alert!) When at the end Sandra Bullock emerges from the waves it's a true mythological moment. Mankind (woman in this case) emerging from the amniotic fluid; Man emerging from the primordial ocean as he takes the first steps from water to land (symbolized by the frog!). I have to admit that in this case I wasn't laughing - I was literally in tears. Powerful stuff. Whereas Kubrick's film has a gnostic tinge - a human being is reborn as the Starchild far beyond mundane man - Gravity is almost the opposite: this is woman being returned (with a desperate gratitude - who to?) from a total technological environment back to elemental, mother earth. I have similar responses to other sci-fi books and films - Solaris, for example. How curious that a genre - so despised, so niche, so juvenile - can have such an important role to play. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-QFj59PON4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-QFj59PON4
