There is something that is absolute difference. Deleuze sees it in what he calls the War-Machine. It is without respect or reason, without emotion or attachment. It borders on the suicidal and self-defeating. It is always and absolutely conflictive difference. It does not accept “community” or the contemporary notion of “diversity.” It rejects the Hegelian subsumption of difference under identity. It does not believe in “unity in diversity.” It engenders hate. It follows no rules, no laws, no structures. It does not act for some “good.” It does not even act for some “evil.” It simply acts.
Deleuze believes that the best example of the War-Machine is Genghis Khan and his Mongolian warriors. Even though they conquered the Chinese empire and large portions of the Muslim one, they slept in tents. They razed cities, drove around the Great Wall, and killed for kicks. Yet they never built (or rebuilt) cities, did not institute a new government, nor even made it mandatory for the people they destroyed to adhere to their laws. This is because they had none. There was no hierarchy. They were rhizomatic….like weeds. Yet, because of their lack of respect for laws, rules, and structures, they were also suicidal. At any moment, they could have brought about their own destruction. Yet they would still act without remorse.
Another example is that of Geronimo. Here was a man upset at the Spanish. Along with just two troops, he snuck past the guards and into the center of the Spanish encampment…and opened fire. They were able to shoot 20 people dead. It was a massacre by three. That is the intensity of the War-Machine.
Today, there are many groups surfacing in this mode. I say “mode” because it is not something one can always avoid. Currently, the Christian Right, as well as other groups of neofundamentalists (e.g. the al Qaeda brand), are becoming machinic. They are moving towards that suicidal grasp. The recent problem with Ted Haggard is one such example. One cannot become the War-Machine without losing control, ethics, and morality. The War-Machine is pre-philosophic, pre-ethical, pre-morality. It is passion and intensity. It deterritorializes its past (i.e. removes the context of its past in which it is situated) and creates a new context which disregards both its contemporary locality and its historical context. As Nietzsche said (On the Genealogy of Morals, of which Deleuze quotes often), “They come like fate, without resaon, consideration, or pretext…” The War-Machine becomes the face of the other: a blank wall with two dark eyes. It is the completely unknown.
Technorati Tags: Christendom, Deleuze, Khan, Mongols, Nietzsche, postmodernism, State, Ted Haggard, war machine
Published 2 years ago
in Rants.
Yesterday marked the first day of class for this term. In my class last night, we began with discussing “what is religion” (which is a good topic). One of the things we decided on was threefold (and in my terms):
- To locate some kind of absolute, be it God, some Ultimate Reality, etc.
- To draw humans closer to that.
- To answer the “big questions”
Here’s the diatribe: Christendom, in its current state, has completely failed at #2. Most religious practices in Christendom fail to do this consistently because it is more about the actual practice and not the internal state that is supposed to arise because of the practice. In other words, Christendom is more interested in worship (i.e. “going through the motions”) than it is about worship (i.e. a change in self with regards to God).
In another vein, the word “sacred” originally meant “set apart.” But it’s not the kind of “set apart” that seclusion brings. It’s the kind of “set apart” that is temporary. In other words, it is marginality. True religious experiences occur in the margins of “normal society” and that is where the religious community finds its identity. But, this identity does not require the continued marginality, in fact, it excludes it. Take, for instance, Buddhist monks and nuns. These people serve a set, temporary time in a monastary (i.e. marginal community) and then return to “normal society” and their regular activity. Christendom fails at drawing people closer to God because its religious activity is not marginal. It is an expected social event every Sunday (or Saturday for the 7th Day Adventists), not a marginal experience. Now, i am not saying that churches should rid their buildings of “normal” things (such as the video and audio equipment, etc). What i am saying is that there must be some kind of intentionality–”mindfulness” (if you will allow the current Buddhist concept). Without this, Christendom is not a religion, but a cultural phenomena no different than an NFL game.
Technorati Tags: Christendom, culture, marginality, religion
It seems that so many people nowadays, even Christian fundamentalists, confuse the cultural phenomenon of Christianity and the spiritual phenomenon of Christianity. To be a “real” Christian (for them) is to be both cultural and spiritual.
Yet, this is not really the case. For a historical lesson, let’s travel to Denmark around 1850. During this time, everyone born a Dane was automatically a Christian. To become a citizen, one must convert to Christianity. Now, that may sound good at first, but let’s now fast forward a hundred years. Denmark, still with its official state religion as Christianity, has amazingly little church attendance. Why? Because everyone is a Christian. This is because they confused cultural Christianity with spiritual Christianity. They thought that because they walk around claiming “Christian” as their religion that they needn’t actually practise it. That is the problem of confusing cultural with spiritual.
Now then, let’s return to the mid-19th century Denmark. Here we have a philosopher running around named Soren Aabye Kierkegaard. He’s writing more books than can be imagined and many of them under psuedonyms such as Johannes Climacus. One of his main contentions against his culture was that cultural Christianity. He attacked it every chance he got. In fact, he made a distinction which i believe is important between the cultural Christianity (or as he called it, “Christendom”) and the spiritual Christianity (”Christianity”). One of his last books was even titled Attack upon Christendom. That’s how adamant he was against the confusion between the two.
Where does that leave us? Well, in short, we must recognize that one needn’t be a cultural Christian (i.e. in Christendom) to be a spiritual Christian (i.e. in Christianity). Once we realise that being a Christian does not involve hanging out with a bunch of people claiming to be Christian, but rather following Christ, things will change for the (universal) Church. Until then, we must suffer unwarranted persecution because of cultural Christians (i’d suggest Pat Robertson as one) acting publicly without an attitude of Christ.
Technorati Tags: Christendom, Christianity, cultural Christians, Kierkegaard, postmodernism, Theology
Talk
Chris
thainamu
Chris Martin
Wilson, Rick, brad, christopher, brad, christopher, brad, christopher, brad
christopher, Jeffrey Rodriguez
pfunked, christopher, pfunked