Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 17:14:02 +0000
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Postmodern Religion - beginning to answer shawn's quesyion.




Eric/Shawn

'religion is about ecstasy...'  ah....  Don't agree of course... 
(religion is about 'the administration of the sacred' or it is about 
nothing.)

I had assumed when you referenced the Zizek text that in some way he was 
attempting to 'reframe christianity in radical ways' whereas as I am 
reading the text it seems clear that what is being attempted is to 
accept the lineage 'from christianity to marxism' - the point of 
 christianity being placed in the lineage rather than for example -  
'indo-european mythology' which is where I would have started from, 
seems to be as a proactive aggressive stance against the 'enemy' who are 
identifed as being both the 'fundamentalist freaks' but also ' the 
multitude of new age spiritualisms, upto the emerging religious 
sensitivity within deconstruction itself (so-called post-secular 
thought)...'

regards
steve

Eric wrote:

> Steve wrote:
>
>  
>
> The struggle against capital is ultimately always material, of course 
> I do not expect Eric or You to agree, rather I am sure that you will 
> not, presumably suggesting that the symbolic (or religion) is an 
> appropriate response, ultimately perhaps even a social-political response.
>
>  
>
> Steve,
>
>  
>
> Let me repeat again that I consider myself an atheist. I am not 
> arguing for theism.
>
>  
>
> In some way, I feel we are replaying a clichéd melodrama between the 
> so-called Enlightenment and Pomo positions, the former arguing that 
> science and knowledge give rise to secularism, overcoming the mythical 
> origins of religion in a new autonomous self-originating position 
> which is the Birth of Man; the latter (as your Zizek quote shrewdly 
> shows) pointing out that this very act of the Enlightenment merely 
> repeats religiosity at another level. (See Nietzsche's analyses of how 
> socialism, anarchy, and 'free-thought' merely recapitulate 
> Christianity.) Pomo opens the floodgates and we return again to the 
> scene of the crime to witness the return of the repressed.  UFOs, 
> Elvis as god, MU, Atlantis, five percenters in hip-hop, reincarnation, 
> gurus and avatars, the internet as Gnostic simulacrum, New Age groups 
> that claim to have cloned humans ad infinitum.
>
>  
>
> Add this to the mix of fundamentalists and orthodox and it becomes a 
> heady brew. It is hard to predict what new beast will emerge again 
> from all this Chaos, but a dark feeling remains that things back home 
> in Kansas will never be the same.
>
>  
>
> Capitalism as spectacle engenders the merry old land of Oz or sweet 
> Satanic metal domesticity of Ozzie, take your pick.
>
>  
>
> Anyway, to address your point after this long-winded tirade, yes I 
> agree with you that "The struggle against capital is ultimately always 
> material" if you mean that politicians such as Bush and Blair are 
> merely meat puppets pulled by the strings of the Capitalist machine. 
>  My sense of materialism is profoundly economic and I see capitalism 
> as a system of complexification with its own innate drives (the 
> ultimate form of virtual AL) that merely uses humans as necessary (for 
> now) inputs into the system, coercing them to accepting passively a 
> zero-sum game of wage slavery in which the fetishism of commodities 
> becomes profanely sacramental, mediating all other relationships. 
>
>  
>
> I am a materialist to the extent I believe it's all about the 
> Benjamins.  In anything that happens, follow the money in order to 
> understand.  The reason why so many Fundamentalist Christians are also 
> Neo-Liberalists (which seems on the surface to be an obvious 
> contradiction) is because they equate the equilibrium of 'natural' 
> 'free' markets with the very will of God.  Moloch and Yahweh are one, 
> fused in the mystical union. And money is merely the outward sign of 
> the inner workings of the Holy Spirit.
>
>  
>
> Personally, like you, I want to spit on such things.  In that we are 
> together.  Unlike you, I simply have more doubts about the 
> Enlightenment and, unlike you, I don't believe religion is ultimately 
> about god, that is just one historical phase of the process.  I 
> believe religion is ultimately about ecstasy, and I, for one, dream of 
> a day when our XTC is no longer mediated by the cash nexus.
>
>  
>
> eric
>
>  
>
>  
>

HTML VERSION:

Steve wrote:

 

The struggle against capital is ultimately always material, of course I do not expect Eric or You to agree, rather I am sure that you will not, presumably suggesting that the symbolic (or religion) is an appropriate response, ultimately perhaps even a social-political response.

 

Steve,

 

Let me repeat again that I consider myself an atheist. I am not arguing for theism.

 

In some way, I feel we are replaying a clichéd melodrama between the so-called Enlightenment and Pomo positions, the former arguing that science and knowledge give rise to secularism, overcoming the mythical origins of religion in a new autonomous self-originating position which is the Birth of Man; the latter (as your Zizek quote shrewdly shows) pointing out that this very act of the Enlightenment merely repeats religiosity at another level. (See Nietzsche’s analyses of how socialism, anarchy, and ‘free-thought’ merely recapitulate Christianity.) Pomo opens the floodgates and we return again to the scene of the crime to witness the return of the repressed.  UFOs, Elvis as god, MU, Atlantis, five percenters in hip-hop, reincarnation, gurus and avatars, the internet as Gnostic simulacrum, New Age groups that claim to have cloned humans ad infinitum.

 

Add this to the mix of fundamentalists and orthodox and it becomes a heady brew. It is hard to predict what new beast will emerge again from all this Chaos, but a dark feeling remains that things back home in Kansas will never be the same.

 

Capitalism as spectacle engenders the merry old land of Oz or sweet Satanic metal domesticity of Ozzie, take your pick.

 

Anyway, to address your point after this long-winded tirade, yes I agree with you that “The struggle against capital is ultimately always material” if you mean that politicians such as Bush and Blair are merely meat puppets pulled by the strings of the Capitalist machine.  My sense of materialism is profoundly economic and I see capitalism as a system of complexification with its own innate drives (the ultimate form of virtual AL) that merely uses humans as necessary (for now) inputs into the system, coercing them to accepting passively a zero-sum game of wage slavery in which the fetishism of commodities becomes profanely sacramental, mediating all other relationships. 

 

I am a materialist to the extent I believe it’s all about the Benjamins.  In anything that happens, follow the money in order to understand.  The reason why so many Fundamentalist Christians are also Neo-Liberalists (which seems on the surface to be an obvious contradiction) is because they equate the equilibrium of ‘natural’ ‘free’ markets with the very will of God.  Moloch and Yahweh are one, fused in the mystical union. And money is merely the outward sign of the inner workings of the Holy Spirit.

 

Personally, like you, I want to spit on such things.  In that we are together.  Unlike you, I simply have more doubts about the Enlightenment and, unlike you, I don’t believe religion is ultimately about god, that is just one historical phase of the process.  I believe religion is ultimately about ecstasy, and I, for one, dream of a day when our XTC is no longer mediated by the cash nexus.

 

eric