13 Comments
Sep 10Liked by Santiago Ramos

A small point, but, regarding the somewhat pessimistic comments about today's pop culture, towards the end, I find myself wanting to suggest some more recent work than Charles Taylor can supply, as pushback to the idea that modern pop culture doesn't contain deep art any more. I submit, as two examples out of many possibilities, Hozier's "To Someone From A Warm Climate (Uiscefhuaraithe)" https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=QWty9HKipt4&si=c8daZBve501RCp_S and Brandi Carlile's "You and Me on the Rock" https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=-Oq_QV95w_0&si=QQDg2LxuTkCEHKLg .

Expand full comment
Sep 9Liked by Santiago Ramos

Another terrific podcast - let me add one note to Santi’s insightful provocation about whether romanticism is necessarily reactionary. To pile on the professor/Sam’s good points, we can’t forget the material dimension of leisure time created in the post-industrial world, driving the capacity for connection and contestation. I believe that’s part of the depth of our crisis - because, as Sam notes, people are searching and the weight of the human condition is sublimating into a mixed bag of yearnings/theories. Again, wonderful discussion - thank you.

Expand full comment
author

Industrialization: making romanticism both necessary and possible since 1800.

Expand full comment

Just listened to this and it is one of the best presents I could have had for my birthday haha. I think the notion of romanticism inherently being reactionary is really interesting. I'm always torn on this... as I think it's not necessarily reactionary as it can maintain a form and content of politics itself even if it oftentimes arrives via reactionary vessels. Essentially, I think calling romanticism reactionary is the same error Corey Robin makes when he says conservatism is inherently reactionary.

On the issue of pop culture I have read some statistics which highlight that songs and literature are becoming increasingly simplistic in relation to their popularity. It reminds me a little bit about the popularity of YA fiction with many adults. Not to judge anyone's reading habits but there is something a little concerning about our collective unwillingness to move beyond teenagehood with all its angst, superficial anger about authority, and unwillingness to engage with each other at a deeper level.

Expand full comment

Santiago was joking about technology solving relationships, right? You were playing the devil's advocate?

It reminds me of the letter to the editor of a local newspaper bemoaning the fact that sportsmen hunt deer. The argument was that they should just buy meet at the supermarket like civilized city folks...

That sums up my feelings on 'technology' fairly accurately...

Once again disappointed that both a catholic and a protestant philosopher can never make simple truth claims. But what really got me was a catholic suggesting that MLK and Ghandi were examples of progress! Dude, you have so many Christian martyrs in the first three centuries who 'peacefully protested' and were crucified. It's not overstating it to say that Christians in the 60s behaving like Christians is NOT progress, it's just Christianity.

Expand full comment
author

This is a good point about Christianity. I guess the Christian progressive view is something like: Christianity itself is the only agent of progress in history, which happens through the gradual unfolding and development of Christian revelation in the world.

Expand full comment

I mean if the Christian progressive view is dispensationalism. That's not orthodox. The only revelation Christianity can provide is Christ, Christ Crucified, Christ Resurrected.

Also, if I had to, I might say Jesus is the agent of history through his body the church, Paul does a better job in Romans, particularly on how God's Spirit is a main actor of history and it affirms the sonship of the gentiles... and all of this is really missing the point: God being outside of time isn't going to fit into our construct of history. So even the book of Revelation is understandably confusing to temporal created beings (and we're outside of its context on top of that!)

Expand full comment

Although re-reading your phrasing I may be misunderstanding you. If Christianity is revealed and received and that equates to development, sure. But if it's some truth Christianity holds is being gradually unveiled over time... that not really how orthodox Christianity understands itself.

Expand full comment

Western man long ago severed his connection with the Cosmos. This began during the European Renaissance and the rise of the so called Enlightenment or the spirit-killing left brained paradigm which now patterns and controls the entire world.

The severing of this connection is the essential theme of the book by Iain McGilchrist titled The Master & His (left brined spirit-killing) Emissary.

It was/is also the theme of a book by Jerry Mander titled In the Absence of the Sacred. In which, among other things he points out and describes that TV is the principal medium which has caused this phenomenon.

These two links introduce the book.

http://scott.london/reviews/mander.html

http://scott.london.com/interviews/mander.html

Jerry also wrote a long forgotten book titled Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television

Expand full comment
author

Can we really sever our connection to the cosmos? Is that within our power? I think you might be overstating things.

Expand full comment

Of course we cant but we act as though we do.

The fundamental drive/motive of Western culture in both its secular and so called religious forms is to gain control over everyone and everything.

In his book The Pentagon of Power Lewis Mumford describes the mind/psychic origins and the historical time-line development of this drive to total power and control.

Referring to the powerful psychic force-field driving this phenomena he used the term the Invisible Megamachine to describe this drive.

There are three basic assumptions at the root of Western culture in both its secular and so called religious forms.

We are inherently separate from God or the Living Divine Reality.

We are inherently separate from the cosmos or the World Process.

We are inherently separate from all other human beings.

Together these three presumptions objectify everything including the Living Divine Reality.

Any and everything thus objectified instantaneously becomes one's opponent. Mostly unconsciously of course. We therefore seek to control and eventually destroy the conceived opponent. That oppositional "culture" has now reached its global zenith.

Expand full comment

/Users/wardgulley/Documents/Death Certificate_Betty Gulley.photoslibrary/resources/derivatives/2/2DC7DE0D-43C2-4141-A071-FE60B0EA2265_1_105_c.jpeg

Expand full comment

No. Not what I was trying to convey. Sorry about that.

Expand full comment