Ono Ekeh's Blog, page 5
September 13, 2017
Ten Commandments and Parallel Worlds
The ten commandments are often used to sketch out the parameters for Christian morality. But they seem to me to be secondarily about morality and more a statement about God and his relation to his creation.Wikipedia has a great chart on the various numbering traditions of the ten commandments (numbering them is not as straightforward as it would seem).
The medieval Christian tradition divided the commandments into two tables. The first three (or four) on the first and the rest on the second. The division makes sense on the face of it. The second table is a set of clear moral and negatively phrased moral prescriptions, "thou shalt not." These have to do with one's relations to those in one's community.
The first table, on the other hand, focus on God. Then there's the fourth, which no one's quite sure where to place. Honoring father and mother would seem to be an easy fit for the second table, but there is something about honoring father and mother that seems to stand in proxy for honoring God.
(First Table)I am the Lord thy God, you shall have no other God's before me (thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image)Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
(Second Table)
4. Honor thy father and thy mother.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, servants, animals, or anything else
Now, there is one approach to the ten commandments that would say that these commandments reflect a moral goodness inherent in existence and not even God would/could contradict them. Not that he would want to but that it would be contradictory to his nature. So it is always eternally wrong to steal or to murder or to commit adultery, just as it is always eternal wrong to have another god instead of God.
Another approach, represented by a medieval, John Duns Scotus, says that while the first table of the commandments reflect prescriptions that are inherent to existence, the second doesn't. So God cannot truthfully say to not worship him or to take his name in vain. However, there is a world or an arrangement of things in which God could will that adultery is acceptable (of course then, it may not be called adultery). In this case, rightness and goodness are determined by God's will as opposed to the first case where rightness and goodness are established by God's nature.
With parallel worlds then, you can maintain a system of the Christian God with a moral system markedly different than we have in ours. The key would be that the first table of the law can't be violated and the other commandments have to be in harmony with them.
July 3, 2017
Knowing How the Movie Ends--"Wit" v "Dying of the Light"
I recently did what I have never done before. I returned a Netflix movie before I was done watching it. What movie is this? You might ask. The Dying of the Light with Nicolas Cage. Well, you might say, this is not quality entertainment, and I would reply, I love movies and never said anything about "quality." So why did I give up?
One--lack of time.
Two--I vas seriously bored and unentertained Why? Because I knew how the movie was going to end. Huh? Why does that matter? You ask. We all know how movies are going to end. This is true, which is why I needed to figure this out.
Let's view the trailer first. There you have it. I have to say that I'm a proud Nicolas Cage fan. Apparently among actors, he is regarded very highly (according to Wikipedia). So I am in good company.
Broad story--Nic Cage is a CIA guy who was tortured by a terrorist. The terrorist is presumed dead but Cage believes he is still alive. The terrorist guy, though, had a rare disease and is ailing and will soon die if he is still alive. Nic Cage (I know--his character) is also ailing from a mental disease caused by repeated trauma to the head--the torture session earlier. So you have these two old foes, who nature is killing, but Cage is bent on making sure nature does not subvert justice. So I think the unique angle here is that we don't have the sexy Tom Cruise mission impossible guy who is uber capable, but we have an ailing man who is deteriorating before our very eyes. We see the symptoms play out as the movie develops.
So, over the course of three days, I labored, 20 minutes at a time, to watch this film. Finally, I said, this is not going to happen. I had seen enough. I knew how it would end. With the help of his friends (one played by the remarkable Late Anton Yelchin) he would find this terrorist. There'd be some sort of confrontation and they both die but he gets the satisfaction of meting out justice. (I don't even have time to read the Wiki entry--that's valuable sandwich time.) My question for me is, do I not want to see someone deteriorate before my very eyes? I don't know. Seeing all his "moments" was getting very old and I just could not bear forty more minutes of him losing his temper, or forgetting where he was, or mixing words, etc. Could this be my inability to address human frailty and come to grips with the existential fact of my demise? That could be it, except that one of my favorite movies (besides The Chronicles of Riddick) is Wit.
Here's the trailer for Wit ( I couldn't find a real good one so I went for this. The other ones I found were essentially five minute summaries of the entire movie!)
Wit shows the progression of a devastating ovarian cancer on an English professor. She breaks the fourth wall and so we get these very funny, witty, and brilliant insights into the process. it does get heavy at the end and the viewer is not spared anything. You watch her deteriorate before your eyes and it is painful and hard to watch. From the start of Wit, it is clear that this will not be a happy ending, that we will not be spared the gruesomeness of being a "patient" of this sort, with all its attendant indignity. We know how it ends.
So why would I like this and not Nic Cages' film? Wit is a mirror and Dying of the Light is a blurry facsimile of the human end. Wit engages because it reflects possible truth. Dying of the Light is tedious because there's no real payoff at the end. You don't learn anything at the end (I know. I haven't seen the end. . . . I have a right to my opinion, so back off!)
With Dying of the Light you learn . . . (haven't seen the end so I don't know what you learn). With Wit you learn about the inherent indignity of being a patient. You learn about the perspective of the patient. You learn about what becomes important the closer you are to death.
One irony, as the English professor wastes away, she wants less of John Dunn's poetry, a difficult metaphysical poet, and wants more simplicity and wants to express herself in the most basic of terms. On the other hand, the film features a young resident who is a researcher and uninterested in clinical work. He was a former student of hers which creates an interesting and funny dynamic. But towards the end, her poetry class seems to have provided him the best paradigm for his work and you see the work of the Humanities cheating through and reframing his perspective.
That's payoff.
So in the words of Dylan Thomas
"Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
One--lack of time.
Two--I vas seriously bored and unentertained Why? Because I knew how the movie was going to end. Huh? Why does that matter? You ask. We all know how movies are going to end. This is true, which is why I needed to figure this out.
Let's view the trailer first. There you have it. I have to say that I'm a proud Nicolas Cage fan. Apparently among actors, he is regarded very highly (according to Wikipedia). So I am in good company.
Broad story--Nic Cage is a CIA guy who was tortured by a terrorist. The terrorist is presumed dead but Cage believes he is still alive. The terrorist guy, though, had a rare disease and is ailing and will soon die if he is still alive. Nic Cage (I know--his character) is also ailing from a mental disease caused by repeated trauma to the head--the torture session earlier. So you have these two old foes, who nature is killing, but Cage is bent on making sure nature does not subvert justice. So I think the unique angle here is that we don't have the sexy Tom Cruise mission impossible guy who is uber capable, but we have an ailing man who is deteriorating before our very eyes. We see the symptoms play out as the movie develops.
So, over the course of three days, I labored, 20 minutes at a time, to watch this film. Finally, I said, this is not going to happen. I had seen enough. I knew how it would end. With the help of his friends (one played by the remarkable Late Anton Yelchin) he would find this terrorist. There'd be some sort of confrontation and they both die but he gets the satisfaction of meting out justice. (I don't even have time to read the Wiki entry--that's valuable sandwich time.) My question for me is, do I not want to see someone deteriorate before my very eyes? I don't know. Seeing all his "moments" was getting very old and I just could not bear forty more minutes of him losing his temper, or forgetting where he was, or mixing words, etc. Could this be my inability to address human frailty and come to grips with the existential fact of my demise? That could be it, except that one of my favorite movies (besides The Chronicles of Riddick) is Wit.
Here's the trailer for Wit ( I couldn't find a real good one so I went for this. The other ones I found were essentially five minute summaries of the entire movie!)
Wit shows the progression of a devastating ovarian cancer on an English professor. She breaks the fourth wall and so we get these very funny, witty, and brilliant insights into the process. it does get heavy at the end and the viewer is not spared anything. You watch her deteriorate before your eyes and it is painful and hard to watch. From the start of Wit, it is clear that this will not be a happy ending, that we will not be spared the gruesomeness of being a "patient" of this sort, with all its attendant indignity. We know how it ends.
So why would I like this and not Nic Cages' film? Wit is a mirror and Dying of the Light is a blurry facsimile of the human end. Wit engages because it reflects possible truth. Dying of the Light is tedious because there's no real payoff at the end. You don't learn anything at the end (I know. I haven't seen the end. . . . I have a right to my opinion, so back off!)
With Dying of the Light you learn . . . (haven't seen the end so I don't know what you learn). With Wit you learn about the inherent indignity of being a patient. You learn about the perspective of the patient. You learn about what becomes important the closer you are to death.
One irony, as the English professor wastes away, she wants less of John Dunn's poetry, a difficult metaphysical poet, and wants more simplicity and wants to express herself in the most basic of terms. On the other hand, the film features a young resident who is a researcher and uninterested in clinical work. He was a former student of hers which creates an interesting and funny dynamic. But towards the end, her poetry class seems to have provided him the best paradigm for his work and you see the work of the Humanities cheating through and reframing his perspective.
That's payoff.
So in the words of Dylan Thomas
"Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
June 10, 2017
This is the Record of John--Orlando Gibbons
Orland Gibbons (1583-1625) wrote this absolutely beautiful anthem on John the Baptist, one of my favorite figures in the New Testament. From time-to-time, I search youtube for recordings of the song. This is not the one I have on my iTunes, but I think this vocalist is phenomenal.
Gospel of John 1:19-23
This is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed and denied not, and said plainly, I am not the Christ.
And they asked him, What art thou then? (Art thou Elias? repeated x1) And he said, I am not. (Art thou the prophet? repeated x1) And he answered, No.
Then said they unto him, What art thou? that we may give an answer unto them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? And he said, I am the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, (Make straight the way of the Lord repeated x2)
Gospel of John 1:19-23
This is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed and denied not, and said plainly, I am not the Christ.
And they asked him, What art thou then? (Art thou Elias? repeated x1) And he said, I am not. (Art thou the prophet? repeated x1) And he answered, No.
Then said they unto him, What art thou? that we may give an answer unto them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? And he said, I am the voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, (Make straight the way of the Lord repeated x2)
