Narrative Thinking

While listening to the Reformed Christian thinker James Whites (somewhere in the second half of this) he mentioned that there are two ways that people interact with ideas...

The first he called narrative thinking, which is characterized by people who just see an event happening -- such as the Coronavirus -- and now all of their thoughts on both things immediately connected to it and more abstract ideas are understood through this lens.

James White

The second he actually just called slow thinking (a blunder but he was perhaps coming up with this off the top of his head), but it really should just be understood as philosophy. We can simply call it philosophy because it focuses on finding the truth independent of the events that are happening and with the big picture in mind.

Narrative thinking is basically a mistake. It's playing with a deck that doesn't have enough cards because it is basically not considering the problem in its totality, but only as it stands in the present. A good example of this that many Westerners learn is the Treaty of Versailles, being regarded as far too damning and punishing to the Germans and thus immediately setting the grounds for another war.

Many politicians also think in terms of narratives -- everything is about the immediate problems that constituents face, and it is never good enough to have a long timeline for success in most circles. Few people want to wait months or years for a benefit, let alone decades, and so people look to the most immediate way to create change, even though these chances may fit poorly into metahistory. 

This is why, in one sense, a crisis is the very worst time for people to begin thinking about what has to be done. They are no longer thinking soberly, but thinking of this specific narrative and nothing else. In a sense, it is not unlike making a decision in a state of duress.

Anyone who thinks about politics or important events through the lens of what is immediately happening, not through the broader picture of what will happen in 100 years and what happened 100 years prior, is a menace to public discourse.

Teen Drama

I had a friend in high school named Justin -- very good guy, and so was his brother. But his brother was a perennial loser -- shabby dresser, thin, bad skin, big nose, weak chin, etc. We loved the guy because he could talk music and loved geeky things. He was a film school student and would recommend we watch great flicks. Really nice guy.

There was a girl who we knew that he eventually developed a crush on... it all came to a head at some barbecue that I wasn't at.

There was a trampoline... and at some point, Savannah (the girl he liked) was jumping on the trampolien at the same time as Justin's brother, and, in fear of falling off, she had grabbed onto Justin... Nothing else happened that day in 2002. It was probably one of the most forgettable summer days in the world, except two weeks later this blew up in our social scene...

Justin's brother had written a love-letter via AOL mail to Savannah, and in it this goofy dork confessed that he had great feelings for her. He candidly spoke about how he had been so lonely in New York, and had so little interactions with others, and that when Savannah touched him while they were on the trampoline, it was so powerful to him -- he became light headed, the touch was electrifying! He felt alive and awoken, and now he really would love to take her on a date and show her a good time...

When I had heard about this I felt a little sick to my stomach and wondered if we were all laughing because of this sappy love letter that was a failure... But it turned out that Savannah had spun this that it was not pathetic, funny, cringeworthy, but that Justin's brother is some kind of creep and scary.

It baffled me. The loser went from a guy who whiffed bad in a loveletter confession to someone who she had made sound like a potential threat. Truth be told, this drama was really just getting mileage because the cut-copy-pasted loveletter was so hilarious, but she and some others thought that people were interested because "we've gotta get this guy under control!"

Justin's brother was humiliated, and Justin felt probably a whole different collection of difficult emotions.

I still think about this as a good example of why teenagers are idiots, and also how the perspectives of people can be so radically different.

On the Son Not Knowing (Mt. 24:36)

On Reddit, a user had asked about the proper interpretation of Matthew 24:26, stating that Christ actually that "Christ didn't understand the Trinity." While the question itself is a bit absurd, I was inspired to look into the matter myself and came up with a response that has been modified for consumption on the blog...

Naturally, there will be a Protestant interpretation, and I will use the interpretation of Charles J.  Ellicott, a Bishop in the Church of England. interpretation of this is that Christ had put on self-imposed limits to His Divinity while on Earth:

Neither the Son.—The addition to St. Matthew’s report is every way remarkable. It indicates the self-imposed limitation of the divine attributes which had belonged to our Lord as the eternal Son, and the acquiescence in a power and knowledge which, like that of the human nature which He assumed, were derived and therefore finite. Such a limitation is implied by St. Paul, when he says that our Lord “being in the form of God . . . made Himself of no reputation” (or better, emptied Himself), “and took upon Him the form of a servant.” (See Note on Philippians 2:6-7.) It is clear that we cannot consistently take the word “knoweth” as having a different meaning in this clause from that which it bears in the others; and we must therefore reject all interpretations which explain away the force of the words as meaning only that the Son did not declare His knowledge of the time of the far-off event.

Note that this is actually Ellicott's interpretation of the passage of Mark 13:32, which corresponds directly to the Matthew 24:36 passage.

Charles J. Ellicott

I was a bit surprised to see him cutting off the possibility that this was something that he actually knew. It was like he wanted to truly break away from the older interpretations, which he would have been aware of, and it was a vital part to the Anglican understanding of the Trinity at this time to speak of Christ as self-limiting on Earth. 

Admittedly, this is, to some degree, more elegant because it simplifies the problem more, and this may even be the sort of argument which has more direct appeal with non-Christians and atheists. It's also something that you can argue easily without becoming tripped up or having to stretch the argument out to someone who is already unconvinced of the Trinity. I might even find myself tempted to use this argument if I felt it was more appropriate, but, ultimately, you have to actually go with the right argument that backs up our strong interpretation of Christianity that does not seek to diminish the power of Christ. 

... And whenever I want to see what a proper theologian has to say about this, someone who can really set the standard for Church theology, St. John Chrysostom is my first stop. He did not disappoint as he wrote quite at length on it, and his interpretation would be more classical and what you would find from the Orthodox and likely from many Catholics... It also affirms a stronger and more robust understanding of the Trinity. 

St. John Chrysostom

It's all also written in a very classic style that can be a bit abstruse and flowery. It's a hard style to read but it is also one of my favorite styles because in what it lacks in clarity it makes up for in one-liners buried in paragraphs and its extensive treatment of the topic, but I understand why the modern mind ended up moving away from the style: we want information clear, concise, and immediately presented to us. 

Allow me to summarize his arguments as best as I can. 

I. Christ was very immediately closing the line of inquiry and making it a grave matter, very distant from those who spoke to, by saying God alone knows it -- remember the particular reverence for God which Jews have -- doing ablutions when they were even going to write his name in the Torah. To talk about God the Father, in this context, is indeed an "awful" thing:

Therefore He refers it to His Father, both to make the thing awful, and to exclude that of which He had spoken from their inquiry. 

The mere mentioning of the Father should be enough for religious Jews to be stopped in their tracks, and that this is something that is said prior to the Crucifixion and resurrection.

IIa. Christ then proceeds to tell them a sign for when the end times are coming, clearly showing that He does actually have knowledge of it. It is merely that what is given to us is extremely limited.

... that the silence is not a mark of ignorance on His part, see, together with what we have mentioned, how He sets forth another sign also.

He is referring to how Christ in passages 37- 41 literally gives us some important ideas about these end times that were inquired about. 

Moreover, before St. John Chrysostom says these signs, He has even given us this passage to show that Christ and the Holy Spirit certainly are not ignorant of it:

And the Father He knoweth clearly, even as clearly as He knoweth the Son; and of the day is He ignorant? Moreover, "the Spirit indeed searcheth even the deep things of God," [2819] and doth not He know so much as the time of the judgment? But how He ought to judge He knoweth, and of the secrets of each He hath a full perception; and what is far more common than that, of this could He be ignorant? And how, if "all things were made by Him, and without Him was not even one thing made," [2820] was He ignorant of the day? For He who made the worlds, [2821] it is quite plain that He made the times also; and if the times, even that day. How then is He ignorant of that which He made?

IIb. He mentions that Christ also further closes off this line telling them that it is their duty to watch for it, as a thief may come in the night. This was his means for encouraging all Christians to look for the end times and the day of Judgment in order to always be working in preparation for it, for their own demise as well even, so that "they may always be ready;" " His meaning is like this: if the common sort of men knew when they were to die, they would surely strive earnestly at that hour. "

Christ tells them to keep watch in passages 42-44.

IIc. "After this, He openly calls Himself Lord, having nowhere spoken so distinctly. "

He is referring to verse 42 in which Christ says "“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come." Previously, He is simply referring to Himself as the Son. 

III. St. John Chrysostom also argues that His claims to ignorance of the final days were not even meant to be interpreted this way, but rather are rhetorical statements, which is really the heart of the argument. The Golden Mouthed gives us these beautiful words: 

Wherefore He first saith this, "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord shall set over [2832] His household to give them their meat in their [2833] due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord when He cometh shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, that He shall make him ruler over all His goods." [2834]

Tell me, is this too the language of one who is in ignorance? For if because He said, "neither doth the Son know," thou sayest He is ignorant of it; as He saith, "who then?" what wilt thou say? Wilt thou say He is ignorant of this too? Away with the thought. For not even one of them that are frantic would say this. And yet in the former case one might assign a cause; but here not even this. And what when He said, "Peter, lovest thou me?" [2835] asking it, knew He not so much as this? nor when He said, "Where have ye laid him?" [2836]

And the Father too will be found to be saying such things. For He Himself likewise saith, "Adam, where art thou?" [2837] and, "The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is waxed great before me. I will go down therefore, and see whether their doings be according to their cry which cometh unto me, and if not, I will know." [2838] And elsewhere He saith, "Whether they will hear, whether they will understand." [2839] And in the gospel too, "It may be they will reverence my Son:" [2840] all which are expressions of ignorance. But not in ignorance did He say these things, but as compassing objects such as became Him: in the case of Adam, that He might drive him to make an excuse for his sin: in that of the Sodomites, that He might teach us never to be positive, till we are present at the very deeds; in that of the prophet, that the prediction might not appear in the judgment of the foolish a kind of compulsion to disobedience; and in the parable in the gospel, that He might show that they ought to have done this, and to have reverenced the Son: but here, as well that they may not be curious, nor over busy again, as that He might indicate that this was a rare and precious thing. And see of what great ignorance this saying is indicative, if at least He know not even him that is set over. For He blesses him indeed, "For blessed," saith He, "is that servant;" but He saith not who this is. "For who is he," He saith, "whom His Lord shall set over?" and, "Blessed is he whom He shall find so doing."

So, the singular passage raises this question of whether or not the Son knows, but it was only a rhetorical device to (I) deter future inquiry, (II) in other passages immediately following it He proceeds to call Himself Lord and speak clearly of the signs, and (III) these rhetorical devices are used elsewhere in the Bible which show that Christ referring to the Son as not knowing is also a sort of device. 

And please remember that I am no theologian at all but only attempt to field questions here and there that may not be being addressed. 

Shamanic Cross Dressing & Spirituality

We frequently misunderstand homosexuality in the non-Western and ancient West. I'd like to focus on the concept of Two-spirited genders and the likes that are being used by postmoderns to legitimize a lot of the revolutionary ideas about gender, and point out that these things are understood in a different context. 

This Twitter thread by Survive the Jive (that I've converted into a single page) is a good starting point: people in these cultures know that their shamans and spiritual guides dress up like women or otherwise play with gender -- perennialist philosopher and occultist Evoa explains it as the feminine form giivng 'birth' to whatever the other world wants to give out, and so the shamans in these communities occasionally act as women. 

This is, of course, not all that they do -- some shamans act like animals. In voodoo, the voodoo houngan or mambo appoints a 'cheval' (horse) or acts as the horse h imself which the spirit rides, and basically acts in a very crazy fashion while also revealing information that the spirit wants to be known. Sometimes, though, they simply act as the god themselves, and not as a spirit, and this requires them to do things like get drunk, chew glass, swear, threaten, etc. 

To reinterpret these things in the LGBTQ context is not always correct. They are primarily religious and while, of course, this can be accompanied by some tribes and groups having shamans that fully embraced the role and did breakdown gender norms and barriers by Western and perhaps even local standards, to suggest that this is proof of a greater trend in human sexuality is absurd when we know that, more often than not, this is not the norm. 

It is interesting to see that this is not so distance from myself. The Korean baksu (male shamans) will wear mubok (shamanic clothing) that is highly feminine:

It is not explicitly stated to be feminine, though. The Shaman's clothing, according to this Namu Wiki article, will differ based on the region, the ceremony or god/spirit being communed with, or even by the shaman's own personal preference. The clothing tends to be overwhelmingly colorful, some suggesting that the colors and dancing were enough to make some people faint back in an era when seeing such a colorful array of clothing would be uncommon, and at least five colors are worn to show a harmony among Taoist spirits... 

Regardless, the man is wearing clothing that would normally be associated with a woman: a fancy, bright colored dress that differs form more typical men's traditional fashion. 

Korean men traditionally wore pants and shirts,  and while wealthy Korean men did wear far more ornate clothing, it was along the same lines. 

In the image below you can clearly see that the mubok is similar to a noble woman's clothing more than it is to a nobleman's. 

The shaman's clothing flows longer, while the nobleman's clothing does cover his legs to a degree, but not so much as to be radically different. It also has to be emphasized that men in the Joseun era tended to dress very monochromatically, while women would be adorned in a greater diversity of colors. 

I would consider this to be evidence that there is, to some degree, the vestiges of shamanic cross dressing among Korean shamanism, and it is merely that Korean shamanism was largely eradicated and had even existed in the late Joseun period as a folkish tradition distant from the intellectuals that little is reliably recorded and it did not survive in a more robust form. 

If anything is true of shamanism and paganism in general, it is the tendency for these traditions to go far into the past and to be lost to us. You hit some primordial element that is completely unexplained and requires us to read into it to some degree to make sense of it. Because these societies did not leave many written records and what they left was rarely about this, and just like us, they tend to forget their own traditions and origin stories, particularly of the more folksy things, we are left to our imaginations. 

Unfortunately, whenever we are allowed to speculate, we tend to see whatever we want, and to utilize it to suit our own purposes.