borderpolice said:
This is why i have a slight preference for allusion to transcendence, to that which is not (currently) observable, as the cut off criterion for delineating the realm of the religious
that which is is the ground of all meaning
it is the god principle
however, the ground of all meaning need not be a transcendent ground
i.e., heidegger locates the ground of all meaing in the *relationship* of human beings to that which is -- for without human being, that which is would not have being -- i.e., it would be inarticulate, silent, dead -- it would be, for all intents and purposes, meaningless
(and that which is is all that we encounter in and around us -- i.e., depending on our comportment or mood it is the sheltering sky, the threatening sky, the undead matter of the universe or the milky way at night -- but it does not exist outside our comprehension, in some transcendent realm)
human beings relate to that which is, first, by finding themselves thrown into existence, and, second, by anticipating their own mortality or utter demise = realizing that what you have in or close to hand is all you're ever going to have, so make the most of it before you pass
i.e., human being is structured by absence = all that is present emerges out of and returns to absence
in badiou that which is = the void out of which new elements are brought into representation
i.e., in the representation of any situation certain elements are deemed inconsistent w/ that situation (impossible) -- and so the event is the reordering of the situation such that certain elements that in fact belong to the situation are now represented -- what had previously been deemed impossible is proven possible -- and the elements that are now represented were not previously in some transcendent space -- they do not come from the outside -- rather, they already inhered in the situation (set of elements)
in heidegger man oscillates b/w authentic & inauthentic modes of existence -- and yet it is built into the structure of man's existence that he can seize upon his existence and make it truly his own -- this is an existential possibility that is always present
in badiou there is no such possibility "there" to be seized at all times -- men live for the most part in "states" of untruth, regimes of positive knowledge, where everything is a matter of routine, knowledge a matter of filling in the blanks -- and what redeems the situation is not so much man as man drawing out the implications of his own mortality -- rather a person lives in relation to some kind of discourse, of science, art, politics or love -- of these politics and love are perhaps the most accessible to man as man -- certainly politics, insofar as each of us belongs to some place some where -- and yet in badiou the event simply seems to happen, and only then can men redeem themselves by wagering that the event is indeed an event, and in so doing become subjects of that event, forcing its truth into presence, representing the situation w/ elements previously thought inconsistent w/ it -- and yet the people who make these events happen must seemingly be (1) subjects of an earlier truth-event, as in science or art or politics (except that badiou presents these people, prior to the new event, more as automatons of the state machinery rather than proper subjects), or else (2) they are randomly struck down in the midst of their everyday lives, as in the case of love
of course perhaps badiou is picking up on the late heidegger as opposed to the early heidegger, since the late heidegger thought the account in b+t too centered on the human subject -- i.e., as though men, upon grasping their mortality, could simply will their own authenticity -- w/ result that late heidegger tended to anthropomorphize being as a compensatory strategy, i.e., to show man's dependency on something other than his own will and the material he has in hand -- whereas badiou locates the dynamic element, as it were, in the infinite material of any given set -- repressed by any representation (subset) of the set are elements inconsistent w/ that representation but which nonetheless belong to the set and which eventually make their presence felt
(of course i'm likely making a complete mish mash of both heidegger and badiou)
the point is that there need not be a transcendent ground for there to be meaning or religion
though i do suspect that religion requires a relationship to the whole, rather than simply to various sets
borderpolice said:
the trajectory of religious developments points to increasing differentiation into multiple ritual approaches. a multiplicity of religions [although it is possible that globalisation may reverse that trend ... we'll see], rather than being a modern phenomenon, and despite modernity facilitating
differentiation, is as old as religion itself. this suggests that positing a future convergence towards
one religion, instead of being a likely outcome, points to a problem in your approach to understanding
religious phenomena.
i think it should be clear from what i've said above that by "one body" that i don't have in mind ecumenism
again, the true religion based on spinoza would likely exist alongside traditional religions
(it would only replace them if it had, in addition to proselytizers, guns missiles bombs and swords)
the true religion need not claim all hearts
you asked what is the purpose of religious communication -- and i answered "to create one body"
at a religious celebration people sing together, rise and kneel together, dance together -- they do all of this together -- i.e., the intended effect is to make out of many one body because, viewed under the aspect of eternity, each participant amounts to nothing
(it's the same principle as soldiers marching)
the proper mood is that of being over-awed by the presence of the lord = wonder at the intricate works of nature = collective shiver at the dead expanse of the universe and the fiery sun that will consume the earth
and the rituals are designed to produce (or induce) this mood by breaking down people's bodies
borderpolice said:
another problem with what you say is meditative and privatistic approaches to religion which don't really fit the convergence towards unity paradigm you seem to advocate.
i have no use for meditative and privatistic approaches to religion
that is, i see religion as accomplishing what philosophy or, to use a more modest term better suited to most cases, reading & thinking & discussing cannot accomplish -- namely, it does what can only be done collectively
religion allows for frenzy, ecstatic celebration, etc -- and again, it produces the realization that we amount to nothing
(and if sunday mass is dull & sober -- then that's an argument against sunday mass, not against religion)
whereas solitude allows for serious reflection, for getting things worked out properly -- i.e., for aspects of truth that must be won on one's own, perhaps w/ help from others in sober conversation, but in the end through one's own hard labor (or else left neglected)
borderpolice said:
yet another problem is to distinguish this conception of religion from other mass ritals such as football fandom.
football fandom may have its merits -- but don't these merits (collective frenzy) speak to what existing religion fails to accomplish?
football as a space for frenzy despite being about the most trivial things
football satisfies needs otherwise left unserved