I voluntarily live in a perpetual culture lag; I have no idea what movies, songs, artists, clothes, etc. are going to be talked about 3 months from now. (I once had a girlfriend that made me watch E! with her — arg, bad memories.) So, don’t be surprised that I just found out about “The Golden Compass”, a movie that is now hitting the screens. Or that I’ve just become aware of the theological controversies behind Philip Pullman’s child fantasy novels, on which Golden Compass is based.
Oh good, another child-fantasy movie series. Just what we need. As if Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings weren’t enough (then throw in Naria, although I do very much respect C.S. Lewis). I’m glad that I grew up long before this stuff became required-seeing for every kid. Back when I was young, we walked around by rivers and railroad tracks and factories, and we made up our own fantasy adventures using whatever junk we found lying around. Kids today have their lives completely scheduled and controlled by their parents (admittedly, for their own safety – this is a more perverted world now). Thus, they have to stay indoors and read or watch a movie or DVD about fantasy adventure. Again, I’m glad that I grew up when a kid could still go out by himself after school or on a Saturday and do his own thing. But I digress.
Back to Philip Pullman and the Golden Compass. There’s a bit of controversy going on over Pullman’s “atheistic” message. The big enemy in Pullman’s stories is “The Magesterium”. I believe that God is eventually killed in some meta-cosmic battle. And we’re all the better for it, according to Pullman. With God gone, we can then be natural – and that includes allowing teenagers to satiate their burgeoning lusts without delay. You can see why Pullman would be popular with teens, especially with the guys. But without God and the hovering superego, just what in Pullman’s world keeps our beautiful desires from being sullied by cruelty, power-lust, neurosis and all the other bad tendencies that people actually have? Where would the virtues necessary to sustain our social order come from?
From “Dust”. In Pullman’s imagined world, there are invisible particles of goodness all around us. And they tend to cling to us when we’re in our most honest and natural states. By contrast, dust goes away when the Church and the Authorities start preaching to us in the name of God and Country. If only we’d all just let go, Dust would make it OK. But God and The Magesterium won’t let go, so they have to be done away with by Pullman’s protagonists (which appear to include a polar bear and a 12 year old girl).
I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t like to be told what to do by established religion and government. Both institutions go overboard too often, limiting freedom when it’s unnecessary and even counter-productive. I still respect the ideas and ideals of liberalism. But as to just throwing the establishment out . . . well, I guess there’s still a bit of Edmund Burke in me.
But one more queer thing about the Pullman idea. I’ve been listening to some Teaching Company lectures by Daniel N. Robinson lately, so I’ve learned a bit about ontology. I.e., “just what is there” in our universe, just what is the nature of everything. It’s a big question, but that’s the fun of ontology (and philosophy in general). The early Greeks got interested in ontology, and came up with various theories. One Greek idea is called “atomism”. Atomism is the idea that at bottom, there is some tiny elementary particle from which everything is made of. That particle is the end of reality; you can’t get any smaller, can’t break it down, can’t change it. You can only combine it in different ways to get different things, e.g. kites and kittens, Caesar salads and Corvettes, neutron stars and nitrogen gas, etc. The trick was to learn about the basic particle; then you’d know the common characteristics of all things.
Once upon a time, this seemed like a good idea. But over the past 2,500 years or so, science has come up with better views. It came up with field theories (e.g. magnetic fields and gravity, seemingly continuous phenomenon), and then had to modify those field concepts with quantum realities (little units almost like the Greek “atom”, but which jump around and change randomly). So now reality is composed of a whole lot of interacting quantum perturbations in a series of fields (or maybe one ultimate field, if and when physics achieves the unification of all basic forces).
Theologians have simultaneously come up with much more sophisticated theories of what God could be like. God, and our own sentience and awareness, are now seen by some theologians in terms of an emergence based upon large volumes of quantum perturbations of some common underlying field. God is not on one end, with us on another. We’re all part of something common, according to the process theologians. We’re all moving towards something. It seems like a good way to think about ontology and metaphysics given what we now know from the physical sciences.
So, Pullman’s “dust” ontology and theology appears to be a throwback to me. It seems immature. Sure, the Vatican and the many other religious authorities on our planet have a long way to go to catch up with the emerging and sophisticated views that their theologians are proposing. But that’s the way it’s always been; the authorities always need a century or two to adopt a good idea. Pullman doesn’t want to wait; he would imagine doing away with the authorities and going back to a very elementary and immature view of where truth and virtue come from.
“Dust” is something to cough and choke on. Pun intended, even if it’s quite lame. The philosophers and scientists long ago figured out that we ultimately are not dust, and ultimately it is not dust to which we return. And even the more progressive churchmen now emphasize that they are only talking about the body, and not about the soul, when they speak of our dusty mortality. I hope that Golden Compass’ audience of young minds will likewise be able to move away from Pullman’s countervailing but still immature way of thinking about the world and where its truths ultimately lie.
Jim, This sounds as if it is not related to your blog, but in its own way it is: This week I find myself absolutely dismayed at the fact that people seem unable to think. Two examples: First, GWB’s press conference this week (Monday, was it?) in which he said that they (his executive branch, I presume) had originally thought that Iran had nuclear weapons but now they found that they were wrong in so thinking–only to return at the end of the press conference to say: But I still BELIEVE the weapons are there. (True, he couched it all in other words, but that was his basic meaning.)
Second, a smaller example, but nevertheless an example of “not thinking” and perhaps in some ways more ominous as it shows what the “regular” person may be doing with her/her brain: On “The View” one day, one of the cohosts said she had heard a program on Epicurus and went on to say what Epicurus thought happiness consisted in. She wanted to discuss Epicurus and his idea of happiness. Another cohost, however, responded: “But he (Epicurus) didn’t say anything about Jesus!” When the response was that Epicurus lived before Jesus, the “Jesus cohost” said: Oh, no, he didn’t!
I have come to the conclusion that very often the words people say do not first pass through the thinking part of their brains before those words come out of their mouths.
Now to “The Golden Compass”: I have already heard arguments and read articles about how this movie is promoting “demons.” (Incredibly, one person objecting vociferously to the “demons” in the movie was silenced when told that the word was spelled “daemons.” It may be that this “new” spelling does not represent what the word “demons” represents–as this spelling more often refers to Gnostic concepts. Now there would be a can of worms to open. But I digress.) It seems the basis for the argument against the movie is that the author of “The Golden Compass” is a flaming atheist. (Well, evidently, he has not lived long enough to come to the “foxhole” aspect of life.)
I am wondering: I dealt with young people for many years of my life. I was always impressed with their ability to, in the end, think for themselves–except in rare cases. But I am beginning to wonder about the Millenium generation–and/or their parents who are the generation after the baby boomers. Did the baby boomers do such a poor job with their anarchical approach to raising their children that (are they generation X?) the parents of the Millenials are afraid their children will stray from their “beliefs.” Was Generation X raised with so little structure that they now hunger for structure and absolutely impose such rigid structure on their children and react almost irrationally when their “beliefs” are questioned?
Further, it seems that the word “believe” has replaced “think.” (Another example of the hunger for structure?) Have today’s children completely lost the ability to think? Are they not clever enough to realize that perhaps not everything they see and hear on TV or in a movie or even (on the wild chance that they actually do so) READ is not ipso facto true. Are these children not able to think for themselves and come up with some of their own thoughts?
In the end I will opt for the fact that children (finally, at some point in their lives) will begin to think for themselves. At least it’s a hope I have.
In addition, I think it’s not unusual for individuals to go through “stages” of thought in their lives. At times an individual may be an atheist; at other times, he/she may hold various other opinions, depending on the time of the individual’s life; in the end I hope that the individual, thinking for him/herself, will out.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — December 6, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
Jim, This sounds as if it is not related to your blog, but in its own way it is: This week I find myself absolutely dismayed at the fact that people seem unable to think. Two examples: First, GWB’s press conference this week (Monday, was it?) in which he said that they (his executive branch, I presume) had originally thought that Iran had nuclear weapons but now they found that they were wrong in so thinking–only to return at the end of the press conference to say: But I still BELIEVE the weapons are there. (True, he couched it all in other words, but that was his basic meaning.)
Second, a smaller example, but nevertheless an example of “not thinking” and perhaps in some ways more ominous as it shows what the “regular” person may be doing with her/her brain: On “The View” one day, one of the cohosts said she had heard a program on Epicurus and went on to say what Epicurus thought happiness consisted in. She wanted to discuss Epicurus and his idea of happiness. Another cohost, however, responded: “But he (Epicurus) didn’t say anything about Jesus!” When the response was that Epicurus lived before Jesus, the “Jesus cohost” said: Oh, no, he didn’t!
I have come to the conclusion that very often the words people say do not first pass through the thinking part of their brains before those words come out of their mouths.
Now to “The Golden Compass”: I have already heard arguments and read articles about how this movie is promoting “demons.” (Incredibly, one person objecting vociferously to the “demons” in the movie was silenced when told that the word was spelled “daemons.” It may be that this “new” spelling does not represent what the word “demons” represents–as this spelling more often refers to Gnostic concepts. Now there would be a can of worms to open. But I digress.) It seems the basis for the argument against the movie is that the author of “The Golden Compass” is a flaming atheist. (Well, evidently, he has not lived long enough to come to the “foxhole” aspect of life.)
I am wondering: I dealt with young people for many years of my life. I was always impressed with their ability to, in the end, think for themselves–except in rare cases. But I am beginning to wonder about the Millenium generation–and/or their parents who are the generation after the baby boomers. Did the baby boomers do such a poor job with their anarchical approach to raising their children that (are they generation X?) the parents of the Millenials are afraid their children will stray from their “beliefs.” Was Generation X raised with so little structure that they now hunger for structure and absolutely impose such rigid structure on their children and react almost irrationally when their “beliefs” are questioned?
Further, it seems that the word “believe” has replaced “think.” (Another example of the hunger for structure?) Have today’s children completely lost the ability to think? Are they not clever enough to realize that perhaps not everything they see and hear on TV or in a movie or even (on the wild chance that they actually do so) READ is not ipso facto true. Are these children not able to think for themselves and come up with some of their own thoughts?
In the end I will opt for the fact that children (finally, at some point in their lives) will begin to think for themselves. At least it’s a hope I have.
In addition, I think it’s not unusual for individuals to go through “stages” of thought in their lives. At times an individual may be an atheist; at other times, he/she may hold various other opinions, depending on the time of the individual’s life; in the end I hope that the individual, thinking for him/herself, will out.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — December 6, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
Jim, Another thing that caught my eye about your blog: This “dust” business. Sounds mysteriously like the Gnostic concept of the “spark” of the Divine in each person, and which concept is part of the theology of the Orthodox Church too. Now that’s a concept that intrigues me.
This “Dust” also sounds mysteriously like “The Secret” which Oprah pushed earlier this year. It seems the idea of “The Secret” is just think right or “wish” right, and all things will come to you. Problems arise when people don’t think right, i.e., get caught up in things that keep them from following their own fulfillment. Thus, it turns out to be a matter of, if your poor, it’s your fault because you don’t think right. If people have trouble in life, blame the one who doesn’t think right. However, the nature of life is that wisdom is gained through the trials and tribulations one “goes through.” As bitter a pill as that is to swallow.
I also find myself wondering how the “dust” concept is (might be) related to the concept the physicists are talking about: dark matter.
Pullman’s concept sounds quite derivative to me. Seems he just took others’ concept, gave these seemingly dissimilar (yet very similar) concepts a new name and ran with it. You are right his concept is a “throwback.”
As to the concept being “immature” which you mention: I totally agree–but then the whole “thing” with the Millennials seems to be me, me, me. What better way to capture the attention of the me-me-me’s but tout an idea of me-me-me.
But then again, doesn’t every generation think they know how to solve the problems of the world, if only the old people would listen to them? I know I went through a phase of that thinking myself way back when.
But in the end it seems to me that Pullman’s “dust” is an old idea just jazzed up for the “young ones.”
And as usual, I come to your ideas from out of left field.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — December 7, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
Jim, Another thing that caught my eye about your blog: This “dust” business. Sounds mysteriously like the Gnostic concept of the “spark” of the Divine in each person, and which concept is part of the theology of the Orthodox Church too. Now that’s a concept that intrigues me.
This “Dust” also sounds mysteriously like “The Secret” which Oprah pushed earlier this year. It seems the idea of “The Secret” is just think right or “wish” right, and all things will come to you. Problems arise when people don’t think right, i.e., get caught up in things that keep them from following their own fulfillment. Thus, it turns out to be a matter of, if your poor, it’s your fault because you don’t think right. If people have trouble in life, blame the one who doesn’t think right. However, the nature of life is that wisdom is gained through the trials and tribulations one “goes through.” As bitter a pill as that is to swallow.
I also find myself wondering how the “dust” concept is (might be) related to the concept the physicists are talking about: dark matter.
Pullman’s concept sounds quite derivative to me. Seems he just took others’ concept, gave these seemingly dissimilar (yet very similar) concepts a new name and ran with it. You are right his concept is a “throwback.”
As to the concept being “immature” which you mention: I totally agree–but then the whole “thing” with the Millennials seems to be me, me, me. What better way to capture the attention of the me-me-me’s but tout an idea of me-me-me.
But then again, doesn’t every generation think they know how to solve the problems of the world, if only the old people would listen to them? I know I went through a phase of that thinking myself way back when.
But in the end it seems to me that Pullman’s “dust” is an old idea just jazzed up for the “young ones.”
And as usual, I come to your ideas from out of left field.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — December 7, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
Jim:
regarding the controversies of ‘The Golden Compass’ which you are so readily discussing having, seemingly, never read the book, I think it needs to be said that this is just a book (well 3 books really).
MCS in his reply shows disdain for modern media
“or even (on the wild chance that they actually do so) READ”
in comparison with the book.
It stands out to me as a rather hypocritical stance to levy accusations of immaturity at a story (neither of you have even read) for its lack of ‘modern’ ideas, while at the same time criticising modern forms of media as thought-stifling trash.
Perhaps Pullman’s ideas don’t align themselves with the current interests of your research or reading, but they have no obligation to. He is writing a story, one that does not claim to be true (unlike a certain other book) and that is meant solely to entertain. It is not meant to enlighten or convert as people seem to believe.
Indeed it is the complete opposite of atheist propaganda. The trilogy deals directly with actual gods, and ghosts and spirits and angels. Atheists don’t believe god is evil, they believe there is no god.
Certainly the books are not pro-establishment, but if there is one establishment stifling thought it is the church, and so good luck to Pullman, if it makes any brainwashed kids realise they are allowed/obligated to question authority then it will have transcended its role of entertainment.
I also find your cynical views on teenage sex to be a bit immature. Only in the recent time frame of the last couple hundred years have teenagers been considered too young to have sex. Essentially the human race are mammals and as such are ready for reproduction after puberty. In many other parts of the world this view is still maintained. (I don’t deny that I would consider this chauvinistic in some examples, but then I was raised with western ideologies, and however hard I try to look beyond that, I still have base feelings that are swayed by my 20th century british upbringing.
You wrote:
“But without God and the hovering superego, just what in Pullman’s world keeps our beautiful desires from being sullied by cruelty, power-lust, neurosis and all the other bad tendencies that people actually have? Where would the virtues necessary to sustain our social order come from?”
I find it a little naive to consider that our social order is ‘sustained’ (is it?) but even if you do, then why must it be that our society is derived from authorities such as churches and the sins/virtues they preach.
Had religion not evolved with humanity, then there would still be some status quo and some society. It might have been different from what we have now, but it might have been similar.
There is a ‘sustained social order’ in every animal community, they manage that without virtues imposed by churches or governments.
I have to go, but I want to say that if you are going to try analyse a text, you need to read it at least partly. And don’t get hung up on your current thougths, they will change.
Comment by alex — December 31, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
Jim:
regarding the controversies of ‘The Golden Compass’ which you are so readily discussing having, seemingly, never read the book, I think it needs to be said that this is just a book (well 3 books really).
MCS in his reply shows disdain for modern media
“or even (on the wild chance that they actually do so) READ”
in comparison with the book.
It stands out to me as a rather hypocritical stance to levy accusations of immaturity at a story (neither of you have even read) for its lack of ‘modern’ ideas, while at the same time criticising modern forms of media as thought-stifling trash.
Perhaps Pullman’s ideas don’t align themselves with the current interests of your research or reading, but they have no obligation to. He is writing a story, one that does not claim to be true (unlike a certain other book) and that is meant solely to entertain. It is not meant to enlighten or convert as people seem to believe.
Indeed it is the complete opposite of atheist propaganda. The trilogy deals directly with actual gods, and ghosts and spirits and angels. Atheists don’t believe god is evil, they believe there is no god.
Certainly the books are not pro-establishment, but if there is one establishment stifling thought it is the church, and so good luck to Pullman, if it makes any brainwashed kids realise they are allowed/obligated to question authority then it will have transcended its role of entertainment.
I also find your cynical views on teenage sex to be a bit immature. Only in the recent time frame of the last couple hundred years have teenagers been considered too young to have sex. Essentially the human race are mammals and as such are ready for reproduction after puberty. In many other parts of the world this view is still maintained. (I don’t deny that I would consider this chauvinistic in some examples, but then I was raised with western ideologies, and however hard I try to look beyond that, I still have base feelings that are swayed by my 20th century british upbringing.
You wrote:
“But without God and the hovering superego, just what in Pullman’s world keeps our beautiful desires from being sullied by cruelty, power-lust, neurosis and all the other bad tendencies that people actually have? Where would the virtues necessary to sustain our social order come from?”
I find it a little naive to consider that our social order is ‘sustained’ (is it?) but even if you do, then why must it be that our society is derived from authorities such as churches and the sins/virtues they preach.
Had religion not evolved with humanity, then there would still be some status quo and some society. It might have been different from what we have now, but it might have been similar.
There is a ‘sustained social order’ in every animal community, they manage that without virtues imposed by churches or governments.
I have to go, but I want to say that if you are going to try analyse a text, you need to read it at least partly. And don’t get hung up on your current thougths, they will change.
Comment by alex — December 31, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
Alex,
I agree with you, and you definitely have a point: One has no business criticizing a text that one has not read.
And I must also say that I realize that I have inadvertently fallen into the very “thing” I hate to much: Someone talking about a topic about which he/she has no knowledge.
YET: There is some validity to me, it seems, to comment on comments made by others, which was my intent.
AND while you may be right that I showed “disdain” for modern media. And certainly, you may be, perhaps ARE, an extremely well-read person. I make no comments about you in particular. My comments were directed to the Millenial Generation as a WHOLE. After having spent 36 years teaching in high school and college classrooms, I think I am entitled to and have a good basis for my opinion that “illiteracy is rampant in the land”–and even more so with the last generation.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — January 5, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
Alex,
I agree with you, and you definitely have a point: One has no business criticizing a text that one has not read.
And I must also say that I realize that I have inadvertently fallen into the very “thing” I hate to much: Someone talking about a topic about which he/she has no knowledge.
YET: There is some validity to me, it seems, to comment on comments made by others, which was my intent.
AND while you may be right that I showed “disdain” for modern media. And certainly, you may be, perhaps ARE, an extremely well-read person. I make no comments about you in particular. My comments were directed to the Millenial Generation as a WHOLE. After having spent 36 years teaching in high school and college classrooms, I think I am entitled to and have a good basis for my opinion that “illiteracy is rampant in the land”–and even more so with the last generation.
MCS
Comment by Anonymous — January 5, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
>>And don’t get hung up on your current thoug[h]ths, they will change.<< And hopefully, that will also apply to you, my friend. Jim
Comment by Jim — January 21, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
>>And don’t get hung up on your current thoug[h]ths, they will change.<< And hopefully, that will also apply to you, my friend. Jim
Comment by Jim — January 21, 2008 @ 1:47 pm