Tag Archives: Teologie

Leo’ si Kristeva


Leonardo da Vinci – Virgin and Child with St. Anne (c. 1503)

Leonardo […] envisioned a female Trinity […] The angle of Mary’s knee points to the oval shape created by her arms. In the group of three feet, the one on the far left creates a mirror image of Mary’s right foot. Finally, in the heart of the construction, the curves of Mary’s body draw the angles toward an ellipse that points to Jesus, who completes the curve by turning his head. He is aided by the lamb, who reinforces this backward gaze […] [T]he Louvre canvas depicts the source of the history of Christianity as mutual mirror-effects.

– Julia Kristeva, New Maladies of the Soul (1995).


Uneori ni se pare mai putin decat credem.



Ben, pentru ca numele complet a respectivei cyber-orto-(dar nu inca post)-feministe a fost Shulamith Bath Shmuel Ben Ari Feuerstein. Cunoscuta pentru carticica ei The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution (1970) – un fel de Hot in Cleveland in care nimeni nu rade. Mai jos, un citat:

‘What are some of the prime components of this resistance that is keeping people from experimenting with alternatives to the family, and where does it come from? We are all familiar with the details of Brave New World: cold collectives, with individualism abolished, sex reduced to a mechanical act, children become robots, Big Brother intruding into every aspect of private life, rows of babies fed by impersonal machines, eugenics manipulated by the state, genocide of cripples and retards for the sake of a super-race created by white-coated technicians, all emotion considered weakness, love destroyed, and so on. The family (which, despite its oppressiveness, is now the last refuge from the encroaching power of the state, a shelter that provides the little emotional warmth, privacy, and individual comfort now available) would be destroyed, letting this horror penetrate indoors.’ [p. 210]

Evident, institutia casatoriei e, pentru o radfem ca Shulamith, imaginea infernului ejaculat, patriarhal, pe pamant. In acelasi timp, ea isi da totusi seama ca, respectiva institutie odata abolita, vidul lasat astfel in urma va fi umplut cu ceva mult mai oribil. Mda, isi da seama, dar nu are ce face: casatoria trebuie ucisa, oricare ar fi riscurile.

Cateva randuri mai departe, scrie:

‘Rather than concentrating the female principle into a “private” retreat, into which men periodically duck for relief, we want to rediffuse it – for the first time creating society from the bottom up. Man’s difficult triumph over Nature has made it possible to restore the truly natural: he could undo Adam’s and Eve’s curse both, to reestablish the earthly Garden of Eden. But in his long toil his imagination has been stilled: he fears an enlargement of his drudgery, through the incorporation of Eve’s curse into his own.’ [p. 211]

Adam? Eve? The undo of the Fall? Ce treaba au toate mizeriile astea popesti cu feminismul radical?! – ar spune unii / unele… Nu si eu. Si cam atat.

> Btw, carticica poate fi coborata de aici.

Alan Turing, the theologian

Accurate or not, am tendinta de a imparti istoria recenta (aka, crestina) a culturii occidentale (ce-o mai fi insemnand si asta) in doua mari perioade distincte: perioada Arhitectilor si perioada Constructorilor. Daca la Arhitecti intra figuri ca Grigorie de Nyssa sau Aquinatul, la Constructori intra John von Neumann sau Alan Turing. Nu poti fi un Constructor daca nu iti cunosti Arhitectul. Cei care cred altfel sunt ori niste epigoni, ori… ma rog… restul.

intre coapse

The Theological Objection, by Alan Turing

(extras din Computing Machinery and Intelligence, 1950)

Thinking is a function of man’s immortal soul. God has given an immortal soul to every man and woman, but not to any other animal or to machines. Hence no animal or machine can think. I am unable to accept any part of this, but will attempt to reply in theological terms. I should find the argument more convincing if animals were classed with men, for there is a greater difference, to my mind, between the typical animate and the inanimate than there is between man and the other animals. The arbitrary character of the orthodox view becomes clearer if we consider how it might appear to a member of some other religious community. How do Christians regard the Moslem view that women have no souls*. But let us leave this point aside and return to the main argument. It appears to me that the argument quoted above implies a serious restriction of the omnipotence of the Almighty. It is admitted that there are certain things that He cannot do such as making one equal to two, but should we not believe that He has freedom to confer a soul on an elephant if He sees fit? We might expect that He would only exercise this power in conjunction with a mutation which provided the elephant with an appropriately improved brain to minister to the needs of this soul. An argument of exactly similar form may be made for the case of machines. It may seem different because it is more difficult to “swallow”. But this really only means that we think it would be less likely that He would consider the circumstances suitable for conferring a soul. The circumstances in question are discussed in the rest of this paper. In attempting to construct such machines we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children : rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates.

* Possibly this view is heretical. St, Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, quoted by Bertrand Russell, p. 480) states that God cannot make a man to have no soul. But this may not be a real restriction on His powers, but only a result of the fact that men’s souls are immortal, and therefore indestructible.

2 atei, monologand

Prima parte a unui interviu cu adevarat interesant (restul partilor, de sunteti interesati, le gasiti pe tub). Mi-am scos cateva note, insa in cadrul acestui post am sa ma opresc, foarte pe scurt, doar la doua chestiuni:

1. afirmatiile pe care le face Coyne, contrar a ceea ce probabil multi cred, sunt foarte crestine. Ca si cele pe care le face Dawkins. Iezuitul nostru nu este nici primul si nici cel mai radical crestin darwinist (here and here [part. I, cap. 4]). Stiind aceste lucruri, nu ne mai mira ca cineva ca Jacques Loeb was bitterly hostile to Darwinian evolutionary theory because it could be used to support Christian theology (here). Mda, cu o diferenta: evolutionismul este un output al doctrinei crestine si nu o gaselnita “which can be used to”.

2. God has no place in science, honestly. To explain things, I don’t need God. I don’t need God to explain, say, the rainbow, ne spune S.J.-ul. De acord. Ironic insa, toti parintii of the so called modern science au avut nevoie de God pentru a-si fonda teoriile – impotriva paganilor si ignorantilor de grecotei. Teorii care sunt folosite astazi atat de americani, cat si de japonezi. Caci nu?, ne spune Dawkins in acelasi interviu, one of the great virtues of science is its universality: a Japanese scientist is not different from an American scientist.


In caz ca intereseaza pe cineva

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.

A doua oara

Mda… Si cand le spun astora de la Uni’ ca daca vor sa inteleaga pe ce lume traiesc sa puna mana si sa citeasca Parintii, imi zic ca-s nebun si fundamentalist. Da’s fani Foucault? Is! Big time! Foucault in sus, in jos, fap fap fap.

Sa recunosc: prin el am reajuns la Parinti. Prin el si prin Peter Brown. Ambii niste tipi super, dar “incompleti” – Parintii “bizantini” sunt aproape absenti din analizele lor. Peter Harrison implineste treimea, continuand sa incurajeze lipsa. Incerc, dupa puterile-mi, sa umplu cateva din aceste fisuri.

> Michel Foucault and theology: the politics of religious experience.

Maxim si numarul

Din nou, cateva ganduri razlete despre originile “secularizarii” cu care se confrunta lumea occidentala (si nu numai) de astazi si bla bla bla. Continui sa citesc imposibilele scrisori ale lui Maximus in traducerea lui Stani’ (again, execrabila).

In Epistola 15 – Catre Cosma. Despre ceea ce e comun si propriu, adica despre fiinta si ipostas – Maximus ia in discutie problema numarului. Ca marea majoritate a lucrurilor care populau Cosmosul grec, numarul avea o incarcatura ontologica: el exista in sine si avea un rol extrem de important in mentinerea armoniei cosmice. Aceasta viziune nu i-a caracterizat doar pe Pitagoreici, ci majoritatea scolilor filosofice. Nu intru in amanunte.

Acum, e clar ca the christian buddies nu aveau cum sa stea relaxed referitor la acest approach demonico-satanico-superstitios. Aveau la indemana o singura optiune: golirea numarului de natura sa (de suflet, cum s-ar mai putea spune) sau, mai pe romaneste, transformarea sa in cifra. Acest proces, lent, s-a desfasurat in doua etape:

a. prin “demonstrarea rationala” a faptului ca numarul nu reprezinta nimic in sine. Este doar un simplu si prapadit indicator.

b. however, el poate simboliza, pana la un punct [punct ff greu de stabilit], anumite realitati divine (si avem aici stufoasele alegorii numerice din Ambigua aceluiasi Max). Aceasta traditie s-a labartat pana prin Renastere cand, again, incepuse sa arate a naibii de weird. Numarul tindea sa fie reinvestit cu ce nu trebuia.

Dar sa revenim la Maximus si scrisorica sa. Iata ce scrie Dady – in raspar cu o intreaga traditie:

“Numarul nu are nici puterea de a lucra, nici de a patimi. El este doar un indicator. Numarul nu are puterea de a face ceva, el fiind mai degraba o expresie.” [PSB 81, p. 135-136]

Asa cum am mai aratat aici pe Lante, exact acelasi tratament purificator (aka secularizator) s-a aplicat la intreaga strucrura vizibila sau nu a realitatii. Un mileniu dupa Maximus, Berkeley (episcop si teolog) va declara in perfecta aliniere patristica:

“Numbers are nothing but Names!”

We should also know that Berkeley harshly rejected the contention that arithmetic should be based on Platonic or other pagan ideas. Instead he argued that numbers were just “creatures of the mind”. Iar rolul pe care un dude ca Berkeley l-a jucat in istoria matematicii nu il poate nega nimeni.


Pentru curiosi, un articol fainut (evident, fara nici o mentiune patristica): Mathematics and Philosophy: Wallis, Hobbes, Barrow, and Berkeley.

P.S. Mi-a scapat una din cele mai importante fraze din Ep. 15 (d’aia e bine de revenit):

[si enim esset substantia, etiam per se vere existeret > numerus neque subtantia neque qualitatis est]

(PG 91, 563-564)

Cum spunea un amic: asa a fost scos, incet, “cu pompa tot aerul vital din Numar”… “Golirea” lumii de pneuma si instaurarea Vidului (un articol superb).