Tag Archives: crestinism

Moral(i)a

Plutarh a fost contemporan cu J. Nu stiu daca si reciproca e valabila. Nu cred.

Citeam ieri in The Obsolescence of Oracles a grecului:

“The father of Aemilianus the orator, to whom some of you have listened, was Epitherses, who lived in our town and was my teacher in grammar. He said that once upon a time in making a voyage to Italy he embarked on a ship carrying freight and many passengers. It was already evening when, near the Echinades Islands, the wind dropped, and the ship drifted near Paxi. Almost everybody was awake, and a good many had not finished their after-dinner wine. Suddenly from the island of Paxi was heard the voice of someone loudly calling Thamus, so that all were amazed. Thamus was an Egyptian pilot, not known by name even to many on board. Twice he was called and made no reply, but the third time he answered; and the caller, raising his voice, said, “When you come opposite to Palodes, announce that Great Pan is dead.” On hearing this, all, said Epitherses, were astounded and reasoned among themselves whether it were better to carry out the order or to refuse to meddle and let the matter go. Under the circumstances Thamus made up his mind that if there should be a breeze, he would sail past and keep quiet, but with no wind and a smooth sea about the place he would announce what he had heard. So, when he came opposite Palodes, and there was neither wind nor wave, Thamus from the stern, looking toward the land, said the words as he had heard them: “Great Pan is dead.” Even before he had finished there was a great cry of lamentation, not of one person, but of many, mingled with exclamations of amazement.”

Acum, nu’s eu nici primul, nici ultimul destept care sa ofere interpretari la textul de mai sus: s-a inceput cam cu Eusebiu al Cezareei (sec. 4) si s-a ajuns pana pe la Thomas Browne (sec. 17) si chiar mult mai tarziu (Elizabeth Barrett Browning).

Eu iau textul de mai sus ca pe o sugestie, o aluzie. Pan a fost Zeul padurilor, a naturii, a salbaticiei, a pastorilor. Pan era Totul, suflarea de viata. Pan era transformarea, era muzica, era suieratul, fluieratul. Era stapanul pastorilor si a turmelor. Tot ceea ce vroia sa i se sustraga – sa fie singur, individual – pierea. Murea, sau se preschimba: Syrinx, Echo, Pitys…

Iata insa ca de la Rasarit pandea primejdia: YHWH. Pe unde trecea, totul se usca sub rasuflarea torida a desertului. “Sa nu-ti faci chip ciolit” devenea urletul si ranjetul de lupta a oilor trimise impotriva lupilor. “Sa nu ai alti dumnezei afara de Mine!” Lumea se intorcea pe dos, masacrul incepea. In plin sec. 19, unul din cei mai iubiti sfinti ai ortodoxiei (si nu numai…), Ioan din Kronstadt, scria in “Viata mea in Hristos” (1894) despre o Creatie fara suflet, fara Viata, fara Pan:

“the soulless earth, the soulless grass, the soulless matter and the unintelligent animals. The soulless, inanimate elements. Heaven and earth […] are soulless, inert, inactive, and powerless matter.” [aici]

Odata cu nasterea Fiului, Pan ho megas tethneke…

Fire Walk with Me

Ascultam ieri Burzum in timp ce citeam Protrepticus-ul lui Clement Alexandrinul. O combinatie destul de stranie, dar nu foarte. Parerea mea e ca Varg ar fi trebuit si el sa o citeasca:

I know fire to be capable of exposing and curing superstition. If thou art willing to abandon this folly, the element of fire shall light thy way. This same fire burned the temple in Argos, with Chrysis the priestess; and that of Artemis in Ephesus the second time after the Amazons. And the Capitol in Rome was often wrapped in flames; nor did the fire spare the temple of Serapis, in the city of the Alexandrians. At Athens it demolished the temple of the Eleutherian Dionysus; and as to the temple of Apollo at Delphi, first a storm assailed it, and then the discerning fire utterly destroyed it. This is told as the preface of what the fire promises.” [here]

Eu unul nu sustin incendierea de biserici. Ar fi chiar culmea. Dar nici stingerea lor, in caz ca…

Epicur

Epic-ur: unul din cei mai interesanti filosofi ai antichitatii. Crestinii au avut destul de mult de furca cu Scoala sa, avand in vedere apropierile filosofice dintre cele doua ideologii. Nu degeaba Dante il aseaza, in Infern, impreuna cu ereticii.

Trebuie de stiut ca Lactantius (sec. III – IV) a fost unul dintre primii autori care sa-l faca pe Epicur ateu. Nu in fata, ca nu avea cum. Dar asa a ramas pana astazi, saracul. Spre mandria multora. Ca asa-i frumos. Si bine. Sa dam ascultare Sfintilor Parinti. Nu?

Anyway… Daca grecoteiul (care nu avea nimic de-a face cu astia de azi) este amintit pana in ziua de astazi, acest lucru se datoreaza mai ales presupusului sau ateism* si presupusei sale inclinatii spre placere – din care cauza majoritatea autorilor crestini il considerau a fi un porc.

Haideti sa vedem, foooarte pe scurt, cum e cu placerea asta. Istoria, draga de ea, ne spune ca la intrarea in gradina ateniana a lui Epicur**, unde se tineau intalnirile, atarna o placuta cu urmatorul motto:

“Here our supreme good is pleasure.”

Cum sa nu-i consideri pe cei care urmau o asa filosofie niste porci?! Besides, fraza de mai sus se lafaie pana si pe site-uri transhumaniste. Ceea ce nu se lafaie insa cam pe nicaieri e partea a doua a propozitiei:

“But the meagre fare provided for guests consisted only of bread and water.” [here]

Scoala epicureica era una, normal, ierarhica. Daca invitatii se bucurau – totusi – de paine si apa, initiatii (din care faceau parte si femei) se pare ca duceau o viata care l-ar face sa se rusineze pana si pe un ascet din Pateric. Nasol.

Unul dintre foarte putinii autori crestini care a vorbit la modul pozitiv despre acesti porci de atei a fost Abelardus. In ale sale Dialoguri, Parintele Abel-ard ne pune, printre altele, in fata unui dialog dintre un filosof pagan si un crestin:

The christian asked the philosopher: How the epicureans understood pleasure?

The philosopher replies: Not, as many think, as the unworthy, shameful delights of bodily enticements but as certain kind of inner tranquility of the soul whereby it remains calm and content with its own goods in disasters and good fortune alike, while no sense of sin consumes it.

Very stoic indeed, nu-i asa? Nu degeaba un mega-dude ca Seneca l-a apreciat pe porc atat de mult, considerandu-l a fi unul dintre cei mai virtuosi si sobri filosofi ever. Nu spune nimic de ateu.

Inchei aceasta scurta, din fericire, barbologie, cu cateva note de subsol.

_____

* Epicur nu a negat niciodata existenta Zeilor: “For truly there are Gods, and knowledge of them is evident.” (din Scrisoarea catre Menoeceus).

** The walled garden of Epicurus.

Chiril din Baskerville

“Great care must then be taken, and it is especially your holiness’s business to undertake this duty, to tell the guild of undertakers to lay a very big and heavy stone upon his grave, for fear he should come back again, and show his changeable mind once more. Let him take his new doctrines to the shades below, and preach to them all day and all night. We are not at all afraid of his dividing them by making public addresses against true religion and by investing an immortal nature with death. He will be stoned not only by ghosts learned in divine law, but also by Nimrod, Pharaoh and Sennacherib, or any other of God’s enemies.”

(Letter of Theodoretus written on the Death of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria.) [here]

[Courtesy of Al]

Nihil sine Tolkien

Ultima parte a unui dialog dintre Pata’ si Lazu pe tema catolicului Tolkien.

Incepand cu min. 05.42, lucrurile devin foarte interesante. Este lumea lui Tolkien una cu adevarat pagana? Aparent, da. Practic, nu. Dimpotriva, prin nihilismul sau este una (cat se poate de) crestina:

“E o lume fara Zei… Lord of the Rings este o lume in care exista un supranatural moderat. Tolkien ca practicant si credincios catolic a creat un univers pagan nordic fara insa vreo referinta la Zeii sai sau macar la Dumnezeu”.

In plus, Pata’ face o referinta superba la Apocalipsa: din Ierusalimul ceresc, Templul este absent.

“Tolkien a avut un interes special pentru o lume despre care noi nu mai stim aproapte nimic…” O lume devenita inofensiva.

> J. R. R. Tolkien’s Sanctifying Myth: Understanding Middle Earth.

Damaschin si secularizarea

Booooooring!

Din nou din incercarile’mi de a descoperi bazele ideologice ale secularizarii. Zilele trecute am dat peste o chestie fascinanta: un tratat, incomplet, al lui Ioan Damaschin, despre dragoni (publicat in PG 94, 1599-1602). Iata doua extrase:

> Some people believe that dragons can take the human form. Having turned into people, they start to associate with them, appear to steal women and consort with them. So we would ask [those who tell such stories]: how many intelligent natures did God create? And if they do not know the answer, we will respond: two – angels and humans. But if a dragon changes its form, becoming at one moment a serpent, at another a man, so it follows with all possible clarity that dragons are intelligent beings exceeding men greatly, which has not [ever] been true, and never will be.

> There’s also this legend that dragons can be driven away by thunder. When I’ve heard this I laughed!

(lololololololol)

> How is it possible to see a dragon now as human-like and intelligent creature, now as serpent and rebel against God? Ignorance is truly an unreliable thing!

(ignoranta e privita foarte prost de Parinti din cauza relatiei sale cu superstitia)

Well… daca partea cu “which has not [ever] been true” e falsa, partea cu “and never will be” e horror. Si inca o chestie. Faza cu “Ignorance is truly an unreliable thing” trebuie inteleasa in contextul in care exista o echivalenta foarte clar definita intre superstitie si ignoranta. Cei care credeau asa niste “basme” in timpul lui Johny (sec. VIII) erau ori prosti, ori pagani. Your pick. Ceea ce incearca tipul sa ne spuna e ca, according to the christian dogma there are NO fantastic animals, that can do unbelievable tricks, whatsoever. Ce insemna lucrul asta? Basically insemna sa extragi un whatever animal din lantul simbolic si meaningful din care facea parte si sa-l reduci la o bucata de carne. Exact asta ne spune Sfantul John: dragonii are just a piece of meat. Nothing special about them. Slay them all!

______

Despre Damaschin si “cerul desacralizat”, aici.

Bucati din respectiva opera a Damaschinului au fost traduse si in engleza.