(no subject)
Dec. 27th, 2012 09:19 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
seekingferretSo this is a piece of meta that I think is worth sharing, even though it can potentially be read as criticism of my Yuletide author(s)*. To my author(s): Do not take it as criticism. Take it as dialogue. There are few things in the world that I love more than arguing religion, and the fact that you produced stories that let me argue against them is a strike in your favor, not a strike against you.
But I've been turning in my head why my response to "Interactive Complexity as Indigenous to Human Systems" has been continual confusion, rather than sheer unmitigated joy. The story is extremely well crafted and full of things that I love. And I think one answer may be because of Moshe's relationship with 'the CEO', i.e. God.
Moshe respects the CEO because She appreciates algorithms herself, lets him fulfill his potential as a researcher where other CEOs would hold him back. But we never see Moshe in actual dialogue with the CEO, and the only time such conversation is alluded to is after the Golden Calf and Meribah disasters, when he must go to Her to apologize. We don't see Moshe and the CEO as really having a continuous, personal relationship.
So much of my writing on Moses und Aron focuses on Buber. Schoenberg's Moses, I claim, has an I-Thou relationship with God and Aaron has an I-It relationship. Buber claims the goal of a religious experience is to develop an I-Thou relationship with God. Moses has succeeded; Aaron has failed.
Schoenberg's central problem in his story is that Moses is right. His Moses should not be understood as an out of touch intellectual, but as a man with a highly developed spiritual life. What Schoenberg is saying is, Moses is right, but the world sets us up for failure. It is bleak and despairing, and ultimately that is what I find hopeful about it. Doubt is always where I find faith.
In this story, though, we don't see Moshe talk to the CEO in conversation. She is a shadowy New Testament God whose only interventions are second-hand (Ha, take that Christians and your sneering Old Testament God stereotypes! How does it feel when the glove is on the other shoe?) So the author hasn't established Moshe's I-Thou relationship with the CEO.
Essentially, the author has re-written a new Act I of the opera that puts Moshe and Aaron on a more equal footing. It's more balanced, dualistic, and it is certainly dramatically effective. But there is a sense of theological misalignment for me that I think comes from not putting Moshe on the higher spiritual plane that Schoenberg does.
Because I agree with Schoenberg! I think Aaron sets the Jews on a dangerous path that they needed to be corrected off of. I think the Israelite nation has always struggled with the impossibility of understanding a God who we not only can't see visually, but cannot see any direct evidence of in the world. It is hard to take revelation on faith, that our ancestors were blessed with God's presence in a way that we aren't. And so we must struggle to be Moses in the face of Aaron, even though it's impossible, even though inevitably we are going to have to settle for a kind of religion that involves Aaron's contribution. Even though Moses is a failure as a leader because he can't.
Putting that in words makes me feel better. Again, to my author(s), do not take this as ingratitude, just take it as me being thoughtful and in dialogue with the text and with my own faith.
*And for what it's worth, I think I have a pretty good idea of who my author is.
But I've been turning in my head why my response to "Interactive Complexity as Indigenous to Human Systems" has been continual confusion, rather than sheer unmitigated joy. The story is extremely well crafted and full of things that I love. And I think one answer may be because of Moshe's relationship with 'the CEO', i.e. God.
Moshe respects the CEO because She appreciates algorithms herself, lets him fulfill his potential as a researcher where other CEOs would hold him back. But we never see Moshe in actual dialogue with the CEO, and the only time such conversation is alluded to is after the Golden Calf and Meribah disasters, when he must go to Her to apologize. We don't see Moshe and the CEO as really having a continuous, personal relationship.
So much of my writing on Moses und Aron focuses on Buber. Schoenberg's Moses, I claim, has an I-Thou relationship with God and Aaron has an I-It relationship. Buber claims the goal of a religious experience is to develop an I-Thou relationship with God. Moses has succeeded; Aaron has failed.
Schoenberg's central problem in his story is that Moses is right. His Moses should not be understood as an out of touch intellectual, but as a man with a highly developed spiritual life. What Schoenberg is saying is, Moses is right, but the world sets us up for failure. It is bleak and despairing, and ultimately that is what I find hopeful about it. Doubt is always where I find faith.
In this story, though, we don't see Moshe talk to the CEO in conversation. She is a shadowy New Testament God whose only interventions are second-hand (Ha, take that Christians and your sneering Old Testament God stereotypes! How does it feel when the glove is on the other shoe?) So the author hasn't established Moshe's I-Thou relationship with the CEO.
Essentially, the author has re-written a new Act I of the opera that puts Moshe and Aaron on a more equal footing. It's more balanced, dualistic, and it is certainly dramatically effective. But there is a sense of theological misalignment for me that I think comes from not putting Moshe on the higher spiritual plane that Schoenberg does.
Because I agree with Schoenberg! I think Aaron sets the Jews on a dangerous path that they needed to be corrected off of. I think the Israelite nation has always struggled with the impossibility of understanding a God who we not only can't see visually, but cannot see any direct evidence of in the world. It is hard to take revelation on faith, that our ancestors were blessed with God's presence in a way that we aren't. And so we must struggle to be Moses in the face of Aaron, even though it's impossible, even though inevitably we are going to have to settle for a kind of religion that involves Aaron's contribution. Even though Moses is a failure as a leader because he can't.
Putting that in words makes me feel better. Again, to my author(s), do not take this as ingratitude, just take it as me being thoughtful and in dialogue with the text and with my own faith.
*And for what it's worth, I think I have a pretty good idea of who my author is.
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-27 08:10 pm (UTC)(For what it's worth, I agree with some of this and disagree with some of it, and am looking forward to being to discuss in more detail.)
-your probably-not-succeeding-very-well-in-being-anonymous author
(no subject)
Date: 2012-12-28 03:09 pm (UTC)While I'm in the critiquing mood, I should point out that in the other story, which I don't in fact know that you also wrote, but assume you did, the end tag mis-cites "Kol Yisrael arevim zeh lazeh". Shavuos 39a says, at least in the Vilna edition, "Kol Yisrael arevim zeh bazeh". This is grammatically more or less nonce, which is why the 'lazeh' version has come into common usage despite its younger provenance.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-01-01 05:45 pm (UTC)