The post here evoked this commentary from yours truly:

I think in some ways nostalgia is backwards; it is often the things we desire placed in the context of what-was, and a bitterness emerges either from the thought that they are gone and cannot be recovered (which is wrong if they never-were,) or that perhaps we are unable to achieve them and thus the pain is less if we project them onto the past.

Do you think <em>nostalgia's</em> dangerousness is linked to the clarity of one's concept of telos?

I for one was not blessed with a terribly good childhood; certainly there was enough money (as much as I'm aware) but other things were lacking. Thus in some sense I have always felt the stranger and considered Rockwell to only communicate <em>ideals</em> but not real memories. I dislike Rockwell's furtherance in 'The Painter of Light' unless it's in a picture-puzzle (I have the same attitude towards abstract art as well,) and given this disposition I was never terribly offended by Rockwell.

The imagined is the imagined, and who would not like to have that Thanksgiving if but for just a moment where everyone stops quarreling for five minutes? Photographs and paintings are strange deceivers; we see but a fragment but we create a world from it. The fragment is from the picture, the world comes from us. Kincade goes beyond the believable and belies an understanding of what he thought - or thought that others thought - Rockwell meant. But I cannot dismiss all of it out-of-hand because to me these represent moments of memory, where for just a second things were like a movie or painting - like at the moment when you forgot your coldness and pain and appreciated the warm house you were approaching in the snow with an unaffected appreciation. Despite my bad childhood, there were and always will be those Rockwell Moments.

The post-modern and the nihilist-chic in art seem to vulgarize these moments out of existence, which exist side by side with the vulgar, the obscene, the romantic, the serious, the painful, the joyful... and on and on.

It is like reading the newspaper, seeing a photograph of a crime scene, and intuiting you knew what happened because you saw the photo. The great photographer can summarize the scene in a photo (maybe) but it is a trick of the mind that turns every photo into a master's summary. There is I think good reason why Icons remained in that particular style and did not substantially evolve. The photo puts the world (or one thinks) into one's head; the icon puts your head into the other world.

Of course, a caveat should be that I am in this saying that there was a different purpose between Rockwell and Mapplethorpe; the former tried to catch a moment of the ideal, the other tried to end all ideals altogether. (The proper approach is to be the Rockwell of the obscene; that is a task for a giant.) That the former is a crude approximation shouldn't be discarded I think, but it should not be discarded for the latter.

Back to nostalgia, is it not a case of 'memories of to-morrow'? We just don't have a setting for remembering the future. Adam is both our ancient past and our possible future.

Also, here is my take on the thing:

Adam

I want to be like the old ones
Walking long endless days
Among the grasses and sighs of summer
Where there cities of stone
And among the cairns and high places
The depths of lakes and seas
Call out in response to light steps
And deep, far places loom
Breathing with unseen life

I want to be like the ancient ones
Who climbed the rope to heaven
And came down again to sit
For days over days and nights
On the grotesque cliffs
And breathe the morning dews
Sleeping mildly under moons
To awake and continue always
Unceasing in thought

I want to be like the elders
Who of old were unknowable
Singing the first tones
To that unceasing song
So that man joined
Who plucked the strings
Of the first bows and harps
Whose hands spoke to the stones
And moved them, Whose hands
Knew what the earth was.

I want to be like those
Whom I have for but names
Singular, but never alone
With no need for pining
Or fearing or despairing
Whose lights were flames
And minds were mirrors
Who wrote the first word
And erased it
Because the world was too young.

‘I said, “Would not the same objection hold against the Trinity as against transubstantiation?” “Yes,” said he, “if you take three and one in the same sense. If you do, to be sure you cannot believe it: but the three persons in the Godhead are Three in one sense, and One in another. We cannot tell how; and that is the mystery!”’ [JOURNAL OF A TOUR …]

From... http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2009/09/18/samuel-johnson-on-americans-etc/#comments

Sadly as time goes on, I am more and more sympathetic to the Tory sensibility; mostly it has to do with not having political power, and mostly the lack of political power comes in the form of a revelation of its consistent actuality since my birth. As a young energetic intellectual sort of person I had a lot of passion for politics; we can safely say that the messianism of the recent elections - especially as regards Obama - sufficiently cleared my eyes on the issue.

Granted, some reactionary literature on the subject has changed my views a bit, and perhaps some of it is overstated, as I can see contained within the danger of traditionalism and all of the schismatic possibilities contained therein. The problem with traditionalism is not that we become 'behind the times' (these days we are continually behind the times, even people of my age!) but that in our steadfastness we may overplay our hand and cut ourselves off from our neighbors.

It is not the man who gardens by hand that I find intolerable, or who abstains from twitter or the internet (both useful and admirable traits) but the man who does so intolerably. I mean this in the sense that I find myself wounded and offended; with God's help I would never seek his hurt. If every letter is a complaint against the internet, each plow a hatred of tractors, and so forth, I find a vague unsettling incompatibility. Or in truth I think there is a bitterness, a kind of wrath, that boils beneath the surface. If it is really so much better to do it the old way (it often is) then joy should be, I think, the expression involved. Not that I can make anyone behave joyfully, I simply find it incongruous, and detect that what often sends children to the cities and the technocracy is fleeing the traditionalists. Granted, there is no more there in what they seek; the cities and technocracy are as dehumanizing as any trend in our history, from slavery to temple prostitution, and so forth, while in different ways. 

I have no objection to technology or its advance, nor to the exploration of space and so forth. I find the recent trend among people to fold strictly inward - traditionalism and socialism - to be a bit sick in the head. In the long run we must find a way to live in space or other planets or become Easter Island. Sustainability is just a way to be a bit more humane - a kind of chivalry if you will - about the act, if in the end we do not accept that we must discover a way to create new societies in livable places elsewhere. 

Oddly I find again that I am not 'totally at home' and wonder just what sort of work and economy is possible in sustainable societies; I do not think that human society of any kind has ever been sustainable or ever will be. Does that make me more bleak than them? Even an agrarian society which is successful needs to keep expanding. The vitality of life produces children; the children cannot keep subdividing the land into perpetuity. Unless the death rates are so high - something which we do not tolerate if we are able - the society will need to continually expand. 

However, I have a great sympathy towards ethical concerns; a love of place (though such love for me always feels bittersweet) and the aesthetic communicated. 

A variation on the theme here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrGmD2wk8m4

It makes me wonder; there must be a connection between Chuck Norris facts, Jack Bauer facts &c, and the rampant narcissism 'round about these days. It's odd since they are all not written by the person and some are written for fictional persons (Jack Bauer for instance, instead of Kiefer Sutherland.) While I was amused by the Chuck Norris facts - knowing that for instance it was based mostly on his character in Walker: Texas ranger, this video I thought crossed the line. But then, CNR did make a play or musical or some such - about his own life.

If anything, it is a kind of myth-making, making men into those who watch over us (theos) or the mighty ones (titans.) We could say that nobody believes it, since it is obviously far fetched and fantastic, but then, we're told we have a hard time telling fantasy from reality.

I suppose we take those we identify with and make them into gods, and this is part of 'phantasia' - a kind of pagan delusion. Is the antidote if God identifies with us, and we in turn identify with not his divinity, but his humanity?

Another thought is about the stylization of the video. Jib Jab tends to be masterful in stylization; which is to say the motions of the characters, camera angle (implied as it may be) cuts, and so forth. It's so frenetic. I remember someone telling me that video is inherently boring; the notion of multiple cameras and cutting between them is to make it interesting. The rate at which some of these things go, (like the video above) I can only imagine what it does to the heart, continually being flashed with changing images and bright lights. I wonder how much anxiety, ADHD and mania is just caused by viewing pulsing, shining rectangles. I'll bet it aggravates the conditions severely.

But what doctor would recommend, 'Don't watch TV for awhile'?

I recall it being said that it is a mistake to try to make church services for people who don't go to church services. (I think it was Terry Mattingly.) In the same fashion, I think it bears noting that we shouldn't put ourselves into contortions making radio stations - internet or otherwise - for those who don't listen to radio.

So when we argue about styles and and liturgical appropriateness, we're sort of asking for a radio station for people who go to church services (but never liked music radio.) If you can't stand Casey Kasem, Garrison Keillor, Bill O'reilly, Rush Limbaugh or the host of these folks - it is unlikely you'll be interested in any radio show with 'production values'. The values espoused therein are somewhat effected - as medium is a kind of message - but not entirely determined thereby. Regardless, if you aren't a radio listener, you can't expect to find radio shows espousing your values in toto - since one of them is devaluing radio shows.

Then again, there's plenty of radio shows espousing at least one of your values - they aren't playing.

Either way you'll not be a good judge since no matter how well they prevent the medium from becoming depraved, your attitude towards the medium itself renders the judgment poor.

I don't rate news shows, or news blogs. Why? I don't like them or read them. Even if I have something to say - such as their continual bias, bad prose, whatever - I don't read them, I never have, and I really won't be satisfied until they stop posting news.

As a final parting shot, in the introduction to the NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint) the edition notes that it is intended for the academic reader, one who has a level of familiarity with biblical studies. Unsurprisingly, most 'church nerds' (myself included, with certain caveats) prefer this version over the OSB (Orthodox Study Bible.) Oh, I don't doubt it's a better version for certain technical reasons, but perhaps only if you're a scholar. Thankfully, they made a translation for non-scholars.

Did they make a translation for poets? Oh, sure. That's called the King James Version. Now, just to get Sirach in that style...

I have been told by my priest that Anglicanism is not so much an entity in and of itself, as we might say of the Roman Catholic church. It is instead, in the context of England, a series of phases in England's religious life. Thus one generation is raised 'evangelical' and used to low church; and so seeks a deeper experience; their children are used to high church and perhaps don't connect; they desire a low church experience (or cease coming at all.)

The best way to sum up the concern that Orthodox have (who are aware of the potential problem), converts, reverts, cradles and re-treads, is that Orthodoxy in the United States does not become 'a phase in the religious life of America.'

It is this expression alone, I think, that sums up all of the issues. We would not say that Vladimir's conversion was a reflection of a 'phase in the religious life of Russia' - nor again would we look on the conversion of Nina, Gregory (of Armenia,) Paul, Peter, Patrick, Thomas, Matthias, Columba, and so on, as reflections of a 'phase in the religious life' of their given region or ethnicity!

By this I mean one thing; does the motion towards Christendom appear to be a radical departure - whether sudden or gradual - from that people's way of life, from their character? Does it appear to be an action which disdains the world and its concerns, which are reflected in that culture's patterns of life - in general?

It comes down to this, that if we were not Orthodox, and we became Orthodox, if it does not represent a genuine departure, then it most likely represents, like the Oxford movement, simply another phase in our 'religious life' - one that in a generation will disappear.

Can most groups that call themselves Christians substantiate a claim that they are otherwise? What do you suppose is required that we take to heart - in the ancient sense of having it rest in the very center of our being - Christ's commands and the following Apostolic interpretation by John the Divine?

I mean this:

As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go." Jesus replied, "Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head."

He said to another man, "Follow me." But the man replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."

Still another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family." Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God."

John the Divine, writing in his epistle about this says:

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

And the world passes away, and the lust thereof: but he that does the will of God abides for ever.

We are given three warnings, and I think, three signs: The first is that a Christian cannot feel at home in the world; this is a strong disdain, about which G.K. Chesterton says:

I walked the ways and heard what all men said,
Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
Being not unlovable but strange and light;
Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite
But softly, as men smile about the dead.

(The Convert)

Warning the man who tells him that he will follow, Jesus simply tells him that if he follows, he will not feel at home in the world any longer. It is like being dead.rnrnThe second man wants to care for his family first, not that his father had died - (though we can use this image if we wish) - but I am informed that the Aramic idiom means 'let me care for my father first that I might keep the commandment, honor your father and mother.' Implying, naturally, that he should do so until his father passes away.

About this John Chrysostom has said:

And herein too we should admire the instructiveness of His teaching, that He nailed him fast to His word, and with this freed him from those endless evils, such as lamentations, and mournings, and the things that follow thereafter. For after the burial he must of necessity proceed to inquire about the will, then about the distribution of the inheritance, and all the other things that follow thereupon; and thus waves after waves coming in succession upon him, would bear him away very far from the harbor of truth. For this cause He draws him, and fastens him to Himself.

To translate to modern English as best as I can I will render it thusly:

And here also we should admire the power of His instruction, that He nailed him fast to His word, and in this way freed the man from endless troubles, such as funeral lamentations and mournings, and the other things that follow. By this I mean, the will, the inheritance, and endless other things. And you can see that waves after waves of these concerns would carry him far from the harbor of truth. Therefore, the Lord draws him in and fastens him to himself.

One concern that we have, and have too often is that of burying our dead. The warning is simple: Let the dead bury their own dead. (Temper and contrast this with the instruction given to Hermas.)

The third and final warning seems strangest (and most severe!) and this comes in the form of a man who wishes to first say good-bye to his family. (Ironically, in our own English, good-bye comes from the phrase, 'God be with ye' )

We look at this judgment as severe - but it is not so much a judgment - of the person of this man - but a warning. Imagine that you need to catch a bus. Would you say to the driver, "wait, first let me go and say good-bye to my family, and then I will get on." Unless your family is there wishing you good-bye at the bus stop, you will quite simply miss the bus.

A mere movement never has these three characteristics. Consider; Firstly, it is a reflection simply of the culture; therefore it does not look on those things as one dead, but is very concerned about them. Secondly, it wants to drag its whole family along; it has to make sure that everyone is okay with what is happening; it is a popular movement. And third, it clearly places minor worldly concerns, such as personal politics, over the concern of reaching its destination. Thus it inevitably feels as though it is 'behind the times' and is ever trying to 'catch up with them.'

Instead it should be running ahead, wherever the Lord is going, and only saying good-bye to its family if it is in shouting distance. "I'm sorry! I have to go! Please understand!" Today the Lord would have probably said to the man, 'Leave them a voice mail.'

However, we should notice that the result of these radical conversions is not a worldly thing; the man who follows Christ without concern for those three things will find that they are taken care of ('Have no anxiety for to-morrow, for instance) our concern is not that our culture is okay with what we're doing. Our concern also is not that our culture is angry, or against what we're doing. If we do not say good-bye, our family has no time to give objections or affirmations.

But knowing us, we will inevitably slip up and try to find a place to lay our heads; we will sometimes bury the dead for the dead, and will at other times miss an opportunity because we are concerned with a minor worldly care. We should be reminded of the mercy of God, who when Moses was doing this very thing while standing in his very presence does not respond with wrath, but instead mercy. When Moses, who should be going and freeing his people, instead dawdles with a question such as, "who will I tell them sent me?" God gives him what to us is his most important name, "I AM".

It is this name which is abbreviated in three letters identifying Christ in an icon in his halo. (ho on - the existing one.) As Gabriel says to Mary, 'With God, all things will be possible!'

So I'll restate my question: What does it take for us to take these things to heart?

Theotokos, pray for us sinners now, and in the hour of our death. Amen.

Looking at Arrowrock Photography brought to mind this poem, found at Visiting and taking Photographs:

St Gregory Nazianzen

Of all the ancients,
You I think I could live with
(some of the time)
comfortable in you
like an old coat
sagged and fraying at the back,
(its pockets drooping with important nothings
like string, and manuscripts of poems)
perfect for watching you off your guard,
rambling round your country garden,
planting roses, not turnips,
contrary to the manual
for a sensible monk;
master of the maybe;
anxious they might take you up all wrong;
shaking your fist at an Emperor,
(once he had turned the corner
out of sight);
every foray into speech
a costed regret.
Your heart was like a spider's silk
swinging wildly at the slightest breeze,
too tender for this tumbling world
of mountebanks, and quacks and gobs,
but tuned to hear the distant voices
of the singing stars
and marvel at the mercy of it all.

This quote is commonly attributed to various sources, but to my
knowledge it
belongs properly on the lips of Benjamin Franklin.

Regardless of what Ben meant when he said or wrote this, it has come
to mean particular things in the minds of particular people. My own
supposition about his meaning is that - in response to people who tell
others to simply watch and pray - Ben thought that you had to go out
and get it, and if you took action, God would help you.

This seems consistent with his way of life, and obviously reflects his
Deistic theology. Did he believe that God would not help you if
you didn't help yourself? Maybe. Deists can hold to that, and
depending on how deeply he believed in Deism, he may have really
believed that. I can only speculate.

As for us, these days, there seem to be two distinct groups of
meanings people associate with this phrase. The
first is the totally Deistic approach:

Unlike my background, my wife came from a church-going
family. Soon after our marriage, we attended a family meal at my
parent's house. I never remember saying grace over meals growing up,
and my dad, perceptive as always, was sensitive to his new
daughter-in-law's sensibilities. Before the meal, he asked my mother,
somewhat rhetorically, if we shouldn't say grace before eating. My
mother shot back with "Well why should we do that? We raised every bit
of it ourselves." Technically, my mother was right; the vegetables
came from our garden, and the beef from our cattle. Aside from the
butter, flour, sugar, and tea, nothing was purchased. For that was my
mother's religion--the old American canard that "the Lord helps
those who help themselves." But my dad, raised in a Christian
home, was rightfully shocked, recognizing the impart of my mother's
words. She just looked at him, as if to say "well?" That is another
similarity my mother shared with Mrs. Buckley--she never apologized
for anything. [my own bold]

This is the 'its ours/mine and no-one else's' kind of
individualism which is used by those on the left to attack those on
the right these days. It is in fact used to attack all manner of
things, including capitalism, corporations, gun ownership, and so
forth. It is a troubling position, certainly, and one which could
inspire fear in those who are 'have nots'. But in my background, and
in that of many others, the phrase means something quite different.

Now, to be certain, this phrase does not appear in scripture. The
sense in which it was originally said is - and I am not going out on a
limb saying this - completely contrary to Christian teaching. God
helps all, even the helpless. Nonetheless, here is my summary of what
my mother told me some time ago:

Pray like there is no human ability, and work like no prayers avail.

We can fall into the idea that once we have prayed, or perhaps thought
sentimental things about the goodness of God, we have 'done our part'
and God will do the rest. As if! If Paul is correct in his calling he
and Timothy 'co-workers of God' it means precisely that both of the
following are true (both, and not just one or the other:)

God helps those who help themselves

And

God is not a respecter of persons

This is a way we approximate the truth of the matter; that is, we do
not know the exact will of God in all things. We do know that
participation in the divine nature is not inactivity or passivity; it
is love.

Therefore in consideration of our actions, we hope fervently in the
mercy of God, but we work as though God, like with Abraham's prayers
for Sodom and Gomorrah, is waiting for us to act before He will do His
part.

All of this besides, we all comprehend that when a gift is given, the
recipient must receive. No matter how passive his reception is,
reception is an act on his part. Even the most disabled person can do
this act of reception; and therefore help themselves by receiving the
gift.

As that Fleetwood Mac song says:

"If I could / Maybe I'd give you my world
How can I / When you won't take it from me?"

Our stance on culture and quotes need not be reactionary - remember
that in baptism, the old and new have the same outward form. Worth
considering when it comes time for the washing of the vessels.

As I enter
This room, empty
Is that sixth sense
Frailty, fear or
Is the nothingness
Not undone but
Unrun, the compressed
Ever-at-rest
Coil of a silent spring?

In the song, "A Murder of One", by The Counting Crows, the following rhyme is presented:

"I dreamt I saw you walking / up a hillside in the snow
Casting shadows on the winter sky / as you stood there counting crows
One for sorrow / two for joy
Three for girls / and four for boys
Five for silver / six for gold and
Seven for a secret / never to be told"

This kind of relation might be natural to sevens, but consider the following: http://ping.fm/5TPP7

All early cultures were exposed to the night sky. The seven celestial objects visible with the naked eye (that moved in a way that clearly indicated they were not stars) worked their way into the myths and legends of most early cultures. Time was and still is easily measured by celestial events...

We learn the following about this set of seven (Visible 'planets' - wanderers)

1. Saturn's characteristic is that of sorrow, or mourning;


2. Jupiter's characteristic is that of jubilation, or festal joy;


3. Mars' characteristic is that of masculinity, and uniquely masculine pursuits (warfare for one)


4. Venus' characteristic is that of femininity, and of uniquely feminine pursuits (child-bearing for one)


5. The sun is the light-bringer, and ours (Sol) is yellow in color.


6. The moon is the reflector of the sun's light, but is pale and silver instead. (The moon represents, among other things, virginity)


7. And Mercury has the characteristic of being the messenger, which we should recognize is the primary function of the secretary, i.e, the keeper of secrets. (mercurial means 'inconstant'; 'angel' which means messenger, refers to the divine messengers who appear when God wills, which to us seems arbitrary and inconstant.)

The question is, where do you think the rhyme in this song comes from? Do you think there is such a thing as a poetic coincidence?

'Symbol'

A painting I have seen
Upon the rills and rocks
The skies and sun and sea
Within composed have been
Not as the builder's blocks
Or as a building be;

It is not the play of mind
Upon the trellis'd trees
Nor the gilder's gloss
Or the sculptor's grind
Nor just for he who sees
Is this 'thrown across'

The world, a plot, a story, a frame
The work of art, "the Light", His Name.