It's been a good start to Lent. A fresh spiritual dimension this year, thanks to Fr. Tischner and Jacek Żakowski's lively discussion of the catechism. Plenty of new insights delivered with each chapter; ideas to shake up dusty old nostrums and offer a fresh perspective. My mind is still open to the book's arguments; 21 chapters left to sway me.
Dieting is easier this year, as I've neither given up dairy products (principally cheese and natural yoghurt remain on the menu) nor tea. By around 11am, I feel a headache coming on due to lack of caffeine; a mug of tea does the trick. We forget that tea is also a source of caffeine, though not as rich as coffee (which I've not drunk now since mid-January).
No alcohol - that's easy, no meat (miss those steaks!); salt snacks went in the bin ages back; fast food limited to Fillet O'Fish from the Scottish Restaurant (no fries, no sugary drinks). Plenty of fruit and veg, stir-fry mixed sprouts with cous-cous, salmon, tuna, prawns and mackerel, brown bread, cholesterol-reducing spread in place of butter. One thing I said I would put on the diet - bitter 85% cocoa-solids chocolate (good for the brain) - I've been skipping. A double portion (40g) today.
And exercise is going well. I didn't overdo the start (10 press-ups, 15 sit-ups), so after a week I'm up to 17 press-ups and 30 sit-ups, without any aching muscles. No rush, take it easy, I'll add on each day what extra I can do without pushing myself too hard, there's still five and half weeks to go. And I'm feeling very good on all of this.
No scales or tape-measure - a week's too early to spot any decrease in circumference around the waist.
I've noticed my blog traffic's declining - Lent's not the Most wildly interesting subject to read about; I shall return to more popular matter after Easter, coping with diminishing popularity must also be a Lenten form of self-denial!
This time last year:
A study in symmetry: Kabaty Metro station
This time two years ago:
To the Devil with it all - a short story
This time three years ago:
Waiting for the meltdown
This time five years ago:
Flat tyre
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
Wrocław airport's new terminal
As a matter of record - today I flew from Wrocław to Warsaw, travelling through the new terminal building that's less than a year old, completed in (good) time for last year's football championships (now a receding memory, eh?). Like Gdańsk's new airport, the new terminal is bright, spacious, modern and functional.
I'm puzzled by the old terminal building; there's no notification as to whether it's functioning or not, and if it is, what's flying from there. I guess it's closed, but can find no confirmation online.
I'm puzzled by the old terminal building; there's no notification as to whether it's functioning or not, and if it is, what's flying from there. I guess it's closed, but can find no confirmation online.
 |
| Wrocław Airport: Terminal 2 exterior, night |
 |
| Wrocław Airport: Terminal 2 interior |
 |
| Wrocław Airport: Terminal 2 interior, from Level 2 |
 |
| Wrocław Airport: Terminal 2 from Level 1 looking up |
Monday, 18 February 2013
All I know, is that which I know not
We come to the fourth conversation between Fr. Tischner and Jacek Żakowski. We return to Abraham in the desert, so that Fr. Tischner can explain what the new catechism means by 'negative theology' - knowing what we know God is not. He asks Żakowski to read from St Thomas of Aquinas: "Speaking of God, we cannot define, who He is, but only who He is not, and what place is taken by other entities in relation to Him".
Abraham, we will remember, heard God tell him, that if he really loves Him, he will sacrifice his son unto Him. And now - did God really tell Abraham to kill his son? Or did Abraham think that's what God said? Abraham in the wilderness experienced (so the Bible tells us) being chosen by God - being spoken to by God. He hears God speaking - but - says Fr. Tischner - misinterprets God's words. "Sacrifice your son!" That's what Abraham heard. But what God said - we don't know.
The result - a will do commit a great moral wrong to prove his love for God. There is an unspoken allusion here (five years before 9/11) about the temptation to indulge in religious fundamentalism - to set a higher value on religion than on human morality. The result - totalitarianism. When father informs on son, brother informs on brother. In the name of a greater good, you create a "good evil", says Żakowski. Fr. Tischner quotes Kierkegaard, that in the name of religion, one suspends morality.
This, says Fr. Tischner, is a very human drama. Justifying the greatest evil with the greatest good. Żakowski asks him whether there's an answer to this, other than scepticism. Fr. Tischner refers him to the new catechism, to the concept of negative theology. "Speaking of God, we cannot define who He is, only who He is not. Which means we can never be certain of what God is saying to us."
NOW we get to an interesting point. I DO believe in prayer, in the concept of a dialogue between myself in the silence of my soul, receiving a reply to my questions that I do consider to be from beyond my consciousness, from a higher - indeed - the highest - authority. A voice invariably kind, and wise, and optimistic and positive. Never aggressive, never judgemental. But...
"Can you never be certain, what God said to you?" asks Żakowski. Fr. Tischner replies: "You have to be very critical towards it. You have experience that there's something being said, so you are not lost; but what is being said goes through many filters of all your feelings, emotions, experiences, limitations, associations, reminiscences - through the filter of the entire mechanism of your human perception."
What then, can we do, to ascertain what God is really trying to say to us? Are we truly capax Dei? Żakowski says that when the voice of God tells us to sacrifice our son, kill a neighbour, or hit someone on the head, we should heed St. Thomas of Aquinas and bear in mind that we can never really be certain of what God has told us. Fr. Tischner says that in such cases, you should consult the advice of your brothers and sisters in faith. "Is it possible that this what God has told me?" asks Żakowski. And, continues Fr. Tischner, "through the faith of others you will hear the words of Christ, who will tell you to put your sword in its sheath. Which means when you want to bear witness, go yourself unto that altar, do not send your son or your neighbour, who may believe differently.
Because, we cannot really know what God is saying to us, the catechism says "we think that this is good," "we think this is the truth", where the old Tridentine catechism said "this is good", "this is the truth," says Fr. Tischner.
And now we get to my favourite metaphor in the book so far. Quoting the mystic St John of the Cross, Fr. Tischner says that the spiritual journey is like walking up a mountain; you should never stop on the journey to admire the landscape, thinking that to be an absolute, because every step further up the mountain gives you an enhanced view. The path to Absolute Good is never-ending; God bids us to keep climbing ever higher and higher. "What you see, what you can see, what you will see, depends on how high you have climbed", says Fr. Tischner.
The sense of what Abraham experienced is straightforward; the God of Abraham is not a jealous God. God takes away the delusion of truth, but through that brings us nearer to truth.
This time four years ago:
It's not rich countries that build roads, its roads that build rich countries
This time last year:
Snow that was doomed to melt
Abraham, we will remember, heard God tell him, that if he really loves Him, he will sacrifice his son unto Him. And now - did God really tell Abraham to kill his son? Or did Abraham think that's what God said? Abraham in the wilderness experienced (so the Bible tells us) being chosen by God - being spoken to by God. He hears God speaking - but - says Fr. Tischner - misinterprets God's words. "Sacrifice your son!" That's what Abraham heard. But what God said - we don't know.
The result - a will do commit a great moral wrong to prove his love for God. There is an unspoken allusion here (five years before 9/11) about the temptation to indulge in religious fundamentalism - to set a higher value on religion than on human morality. The result - totalitarianism. When father informs on son, brother informs on brother. In the name of a greater good, you create a "good evil", says Żakowski. Fr. Tischner quotes Kierkegaard, that in the name of religion, one suspends morality.
This, says Fr. Tischner, is a very human drama. Justifying the greatest evil with the greatest good. Żakowski asks him whether there's an answer to this, other than scepticism. Fr. Tischner refers him to the new catechism, to the concept of negative theology. "Speaking of God, we cannot define who He is, only who He is not. Which means we can never be certain of what God is saying to us."
NOW we get to an interesting point. I DO believe in prayer, in the concept of a dialogue between myself in the silence of my soul, receiving a reply to my questions that I do consider to be from beyond my consciousness, from a higher - indeed - the highest - authority. A voice invariably kind, and wise, and optimistic and positive. Never aggressive, never judgemental. But...
"Can you never be certain, what God said to you?" asks Żakowski. Fr. Tischner replies: "You have to be very critical towards it. You have experience that there's something being said, so you are not lost; but what is being said goes through many filters of all your feelings, emotions, experiences, limitations, associations, reminiscences - through the filter of the entire mechanism of your human perception."
What then, can we do, to ascertain what God is really trying to say to us? Are we truly capax Dei? Żakowski says that when the voice of God tells us to sacrifice our son, kill a neighbour, or hit someone on the head, we should heed St. Thomas of Aquinas and bear in mind that we can never really be certain of what God has told us. Fr. Tischner says that in such cases, you should consult the advice of your brothers and sisters in faith. "Is it possible that this what God has told me?" asks Żakowski. And, continues Fr. Tischner, "through the faith of others you will hear the words of Christ, who will tell you to put your sword in its sheath. Which means when you want to bear witness, go yourself unto that altar, do not send your son or your neighbour, who may believe differently.
Because, we cannot really know what God is saying to us, the catechism says "we think that this is good," "we think this is the truth", where the old Tridentine catechism said "this is good", "this is the truth," says Fr. Tischner.
And now we get to my favourite metaphor in the book so far. Quoting the mystic St John of the Cross, Fr. Tischner says that the spiritual journey is like walking up a mountain; you should never stop on the journey to admire the landscape, thinking that to be an absolute, because every step further up the mountain gives you an enhanced view. The path to Absolute Good is never-ending; God bids us to keep climbing ever higher and higher. "What you see, what you can see, what you will see, depends on how high you have climbed", says Fr. Tischner.
The sense of what Abraham experienced is straightforward; the God of Abraham is not a jealous God. God takes away the delusion of truth, but through that brings us nearer to truth.
This time four years ago:
It's not rich countries that build roads, its roads that build rich countries
This time last year:
Snow that was doomed to melt
Sunday, 17 February 2013
Wait to spend or save lives now?
The story about the dangerous lack of pavement along ul. Karczunkowska takes a further turn. After the "40 million zloty pavement" story broke on Skyscraper City (thread moved here - from post no. 597 onward) the notion that the simple provision of pavement along Jeziorki's beleaguered main artery could cost 4 million let alone 40 million zeds, some new stuff came to light.
The city authorities were not just planning a length of pavement along the road. The 40 million project (now put on hold indefinitely, we are told) consisted of widening Karczunkowska to 16 metres (from six), putting in pavement and cycle path, and takes into account the building of a viaduct over the railway line by W-wa Jeziorki station. And probably acoustic screens and all the other bells and whistles that go along with an EU-standard road of this significance. Buying a five-metre strip on either side of the road probably represents the lion's share of the 40 million.
This puts the citizens of Jeziorki in a bind. If the authorities do lay the pavement now, and in a couple of years EU funds become available to rebuild Karczunkowska as a super-duper freeway, people will moan (and with some justification) that the money spent on laying the pavement was wasted. The pavement (which might have saved a life or two) will have to be ripped up as the road gets widened. Motorists will complain that yet again their journey times will be lengthened because the authorities couldn't do everything in one go (as happens when a road's ripped up to lay gas pipes, then ripped up again a few months later to lay water pipes).
If the authorities don't lay a pavement - the current state of affairs will continue. It's not too bad on a dry day from April to October. But at night - it's dangerous. When the snowploughs shift the snow off the asphalt onto the roadsides, there's nowhere to walk but along the asphalt. When the snow melts leaving deep mud on the roadsides, there's nowhere to walk but along the asphalt. And with drivers hurtling along the road at 80+ kmh (despite the 60 kmh limit), it's only a matter of time before there's yet another fatality here.
I'd be inclined to lay the bare minimum of pavement along the southern side of the road - so that a pedestrian can walk, feet dry, all the way from Puławska to Warsaw's boundary with Zgorzała. The land will have to be bought anyway, so there's no money wasted here; using the right materials could mean they could be re-used, re-laid as the new pavement once the budget's available for the full-Monty upgrade of Karczunkowska. It is a very scary road to walk along right now.
A lowest-possible cost provision of a pavement would increase road safety tremendously and its future removal would not be the subject of local criticism.
The city authorities were not just planning a length of pavement along the road. The 40 million project (now put on hold indefinitely, we are told) consisted of widening Karczunkowska to 16 metres (from six), putting in pavement and cycle path, and takes into account the building of a viaduct over the railway line by W-wa Jeziorki station. And probably acoustic screens and all the other bells and whistles that go along with an EU-standard road of this significance. Buying a five-metre strip on either side of the road probably represents the lion's share of the 40 million.
This puts the citizens of Jeziorki in a bind. If the authorities do lay the pavement now, and in a couple of years EU funds become available to rebuild Karczunkowska as a super-duper freeway, people will moan (and with some justification) that the money spent on laying the pavement was wasted. The pavement (which might have saved a life or two) will have to be ripped up as the road gets widened. Motorists will complain that yet again their journey times will be lengthened because the authorities couldn't do everything in one go (as happens when a road's ripped up to lay gas pipes, then ripped up again a few months later to lay water pipes).
If the authorities don't lay a pavement - the current state of affairs will continue. It's not too bad on a dry day from April to October. But at night - it's dangerous. When the snowploughs shift the snow off the asphalt onto the roadsides, there's nowhere to walk but along the asphalt. When the snow melts leaving deep mud on the roadsides, there's nowhere to walk but along the asphalt. And with drivers hurtling along the road at 80+ kmh (despite the 60 kmh limit), it's only a matter of time before there's yet another fatality here.
I'd be inclined to lay the bare minimum of pavement along the southern side of the road - so that a pedestrian can walk, feet dry, all the way from Puławska to Warsaw's boundary with Zgorzała. The land will have to be bought anyway, so there's no money wasted here; using the right materials could mean they could be re-used, re-laid as the new pavement once the budget's available for the full-Monty upgrade of Karczunkowska. It is a very scary road to walk along right now.
A lowest-possible cost provision of a pavement would increase road safety tremendously and its future removal would not be the subject of local criticism.
The Chosen Ones
The third discussion between Fr. Tischner and Jacek Żakowski centres on what it means to be chosen by God - the God who in the Old Testament asks "where art Thou?" to Adam (who hid) and to Abraham (who, in the desert, answered "here I am", before being tested by God). And Mary, who had her doubts watching her Son's crucifixion. And Jesus, who on the Cross, asked God why He had deserted Him.
Fr. Tischner then engages Żakowski on a thought experiment: "What if Jesus, who believed that he was going to die on the Cross, for the sins of all Mankind, to be resurrected as the scriptures had foretold - what if God hadn't given him the resurrection?" By holding up the central tenet of the Christian faith to question, Fr. Tischner speculates that in such a scenario - in which Jesus had lied or been tragically deluded - then God ceases to be a good God, but becomes a malicious Demiurge - an inferior, subordinate creator.
This is key. In such a circumstance (and did the Resurrection happen?) Fr. Tischner would rather suppose it would suggest the existence of a second-rate deity rather than none at all. I would concur, but would use this to question further the nature of God, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent - and God's long-term plan. But no doubt to the nature of God the conversations in the book will return.
Żakowski continues to speculate upon what an unresurrected Christ would mean for believers - a prophet, whose prophecies do not end up being fulfilled. Fr. Tischner asks whether it would be possible to show one's solidarity with a good man in the face of a malicious God. Żakowski says he could entertain such a notion. But the catechism? The catechism assumes the existence of a good God, but that human faith (in a good God) will be put to the test. "To that faith will come tests."
Żakowski then brings the conversation round to Martin Luther, who, outraged at the selling of indulgences and holy wars, rebelled against the institution of the Church, introducing schism and heresy. Was he, asks Żakowski, capax Dei? Was Luther called by God? Did Luther reply "here I am?" Fr. Tischner replies that indeed, Martin Luther, rebelling against the institution in the name of the Gospel, in the name of a good God - said "here I am".
Żakowski replies that here arises a space for dangerous subjectivism. For Martin Luther was one, and the result of his rebellion was crisis in the Church. If good faith was the reason behind Luther's actions, then can we not say that each one of us could be a Luther? What then of the institution of the church?
Fr. Tischner's answer is surprisingly liberal. Faith comes from choice, from freedom; by consciously saying to God "here I am" one is not alone; one is saying to God "here I am" as did Abraham, Luther and Christ - the Church is a collection of those with faith, those who say "here I am" to God. Faith forms the Church and in faith is the place of the Church."
Jesus is still central in Fr. Tischner's concept of faith in God; he is opening up to Protestants, but a universalism - a God that could be recognised by all forms of conscious, questioning, life across the entire Universe - requires a further leap of faith. Maybe this will be touched upon in further chapters (22 to go before Easter Sunday).
This time last year:
Fixies in the snow
This time four years ago:
Just the ticket (in praise of Warsaw's 20-minute bus/tram/metro ticket)
Fr. Tischner then engages Żakowski on a thought experiment: "What if Jesus, who believed that he was going to die on the Cross, for the sins of all Mankind, to be resurrected as the scriptures had foretold - what if God hadn't given him the resurrection?" By holding up the central tenet of the Christian faith to question, Fr. Tischner speculates that in such a scenario - in which Jesus had lied or been tragically deluded - then God ceases to be a good God, but becomes a malicious Demiurge - an inferior, subordinate creator.
This is key. In such a circumstance (and did the Resurrection happen?) Fr. Tischner would rather suppose it would suggest the existence of a second-rate deity rather than none at all. I would concur, but would use this to question further the nature of God, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent - and God's long-term plan. But no doubt to the nature of God the conversations in the book will return.
Żakowski continues to speculate upon what an unresurrected Christ would mean for believers - a prophet, whose prophecies do not end up being fulfilled. Fr. Tischner asks whether it would be possible to show one's solidarity with a good man in the face of a malicious God. Żakowski says he could entertain such a notion. But the catechism? The catechism assumes the existence of a good God, but that human faith (in a good God) will be put to the test. "To that faith will come tests."
Żakowski then brings the conversation round to Martin Luther, who, outraged at the selling of indulgences and holy wars, rebelled against the institution of the Church, introducing schism and heresy. Was he, asks Żakowski, capax Dei? Was Luther called by God? Did Luther reply "here I am?" Fr. Tischner replies that indeed, Martin Luther, rebelling against the institution in the name of the Gospel, in the name of a good God - said "here I am".
Żakowski replies that here arises a space for dangerous subjectivism. For Martin Luther was one, and the result of his rebellion was crisis in the Church. If good faith was the reason behind Luther's actions, then can we not say that each one of us could be a Luther? What then of the institution of the church?
Fr. Tischner's answer is surprisingly liberal. Faith comes from choice, from freedom; by consciously saying to God "here I am" one is not alone; one is saying to God "here I am" as did Abraham, Luther and Christ - the Church is a collection of those with faith, those who say "here I am" to God. Faith forms the Church and in faith is the place of the Church."
Jesus is still central in Fr. Tischner's concept of faith in God; he is opening up to Protestants, but a universalism - a God that could be recognised by all forms of conscious, questioning, life across the entire Universe - requires a further leap of faith. Maybe this will be touched upon in further chapters (22 to go before Easter Sunday).
This time last year:
Fixies in the snow
This time four years ago:
Just the ticket (in praise of Warsaw's 20-minute bus/tram/metro ticket)
Saturday, 16 February 2013
Looking for The Answer
"Everybody's lookin' for answers" was a refrain in the Coen Brothers' 2000 movie O Brother Where Art Thou. We hear that there's only book that's got the answers, "from Genesee down to Revelations", according to Bible wholesaler Big Dan Teague.
The catechism states that faith is the answer given to man by God, who reveals Himself to bring light and sense to life. So Fr. Józef Tischner notes that if the answer is given to man by God - there must be a question - framed in the language of he who questions. Fr. Tischner says that too often, we frame the question in a cosmological language, seeking God in the Universe - rather than within the drama of human life. "We ask of our creator, of a reason, of a purpose". And we seek to locate that creator within an earthly frame - heaven above us, hell below. Fr. Tischner tells Jacek Żakowski that both Heaven and Hell lie between us and our fellow man. "We seek God as a participant in our personal drama," says Fr. Tischner, "people can be emissaries of heaven or of hell - this," he says, "is fundamental."
Fr. Tischner moves on the question of 'dialogue' in the catechism - the notion that God speaks to us. Dialogue occasioned by hearing the word of another. A word that may come from another person, or from one's own conscience.
"Adam, where art Thou?" asked God of the first man, who had just eaten fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Topographically, God knew. Just as when we, capax dei, capable of God, hear God's question - "where are you?" the question refers not to being lost in a forest or unknown town, but within the drama of life. A metaphysical and strong question. People, says Fr. Tischner, who do not have the awareness that they are lost, do not hear the question. And, he confirms, God is in that question.
Well here I have a question. If I seek, does that necessarily mean I'm lost? Personally, I don't think so. It is a lifelong quest for understanding that I would not place within an ontological framework of perdition and redemption.
And when Fr. Tischner states that 'we are not part of the cosmos', I would disagree strongly. We are billion year-old carbon, even though we are sentient billion year-old carbon. Fr. Tischner refers again to Adam, hiding from God, because he knew everything. The creation myth of Adam, present in the three Abrahamic religions, carries with it a strong message: Man has fallen because he sought to acquire knowledge. The desire for knowledge, given to Adam by a satanic serpent, is the cause of man's fall from grace and banishment from a stress-free existence in the Garden of Eden. Fr. Tischner continues: "When you hear the question 'where are you', you must see that question through the eyes of the questioner". Placing one's self into the position of the other person allows for a meaningful dialogue. "And this, according to the Greeks, is how thinking is born. The main function of thinking is to change points of view, and this way we arrive at many common conclusions". He quotes Heidegger: "Asking questions is divine thought".
So a contradiction here to the message from the story of Adam: "He, who is curious, who seeks a further truth, immerses himself in mystery, as though in water, and opens his eyes, and sees what is happening there - not because he doubts, but because he is curious what else he can see there, what else constitutes truth. Sometimes it seems that this is missing in people today. And even within religion."
Question what you are told? This is indeed remarkable coming from a Catholic priest. Certainly, something quite at odds with the teaching within cults (see this Economist review of recent books about what goes on within Scientology). Fr. Tischner is being very open towards free-thinkers - dangerously so, the Radio Maryja wing of the Catholic Church in Poland would argue.
Żakowski asks: "to be moved to ask of God 'where are you', must you be chosen, touched by God? No, replies Fr. Tischner. "You must be touched by freedom! Not the experience of your own freedom, but experiencing freedom in others." "God is free and demands freedom," interjects Żakowski. "God teaches me freedom when God chooses me," replies Fr. Tischner, saying that here is a fundamental difference between the old and new catechism. "God teaches freedom, and when we pray 'thy will be done' we are saying 'thy freedom be done', my freedom, on the measure, on the pattern, of God's freedom. These are new horizons opening up to us."
Fr. Tischner explores the relationship between faith and trust and intelligence - 'fides quaerens intellectum' in the words of St Augustine - faith (or more precisely, trust) seeks understanding. "Only when there is faith/trust does understanding come. The mind awakes, when one trusts."
Żakowski asks whether that trust should not be earned. Fr. Tischner replies that without trust, human dialogue bogs down in mutual suspicion, then attempts at finding ways to better one's adversary, and then violence. If we trust one another, we can talk, we can solve problems, we can try to understand.
To where should we look for answers? "To a faith that understands," says Fr. Tischner, concluding the second discussion.
I'm left with the feeling that this is all well and good, appealing to me - but from the point of view of a religion trying to draw a theological line in the sand - it's all a bit wishy-washy. Still, there are 23 more discussions to come - before Easter Sunday, 23 more opportunities to reconcile this apparent dissonance.
This time last year:
Fresh powder in Warsaw's parks
This time three years ago:
Another Lent starts
This time five years ago:
Okęcie dusk
The catechism states that faith is the answer given to man by God, who reveals Himself to bring light and sense to life. So Fr. Józef Tischner notes that if the answer is given to man by God - there must be a question - framed in the language of he who questions. Fr. Tischner says that too often, we frame the question in a cosmological language, seeking God in the Universe - rather than within the drama of human life. "We ask of our creator, of a reason, of a purpose". And we seek to locate that creator within an earthly frame - heaven above us, hell below. Fr. Tischner tells Jacek Żakowski that both Heaven and Hell lie between us and our fellow man. "We seek God as a participant in our personal drama," says Fr. Tischner, "people can be emissaries of heaven or of hell - this," he says, "is fundamental."
Fr. Tischner moves on the question of 'dialogue' in the catechism - the notion that God speaks to us. Dialogue occasioned by hearing the word of another. A word that may come from another person, or from one's own conscience.
"Adam, where art Thou?" asked God of the first man, who had just eaten fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Topographically, God knew. Just as when we, capax dei, capable of God, hear God's question - "where are you?" the question refers not to being lost in a forest or unknown town, but within the drama of life. A metaphysical and strong question. People, says Fr. Tischner, who do not have the awareness that they are lost, do not hear the question. And, he confirms, God is in that question.
Well here I have a question. If I seek, does that necessarily mean I'm lost? Personally, I don't think so. It is a lifelong quest for understanding that I would not place within an ontological framework of perdition and redemption.
And when Fr. Tischner states that 'we are not part of the cosmos', I would disagree strongly. We are billion year-old carbon, even though we are sentient billion year-old carbon. Fr. Tischner refers again to Adam, hiding from God, because he knew everything. The creation myth of Adam, present in the three Abrahamic religions, carries with it a strong message: Man has fallen because he sought to acquire knowledge. The desire for knowledge, given to Adam by a satanic serpent, is the cause of man's fall from grace and banishment from a stress-free existence in the Garden of Eden. Fr. Tischner continues: "When you hear the question 'where are you', you must see that question through the eyes of the questioner". Placing one's self into the position of the other person allows for a meaningful dialogue. "And this, according to the Greeks, is how thinking is born. The main function of thinking is to change points of view, and this way we arrive at many common conclusions". He quotes Heidegger: "Asking questions is divine thought".
So a contradiction here to the message from the story of Adam: "He, who is curious, who seeks a further truth, immerses himself in mystery, as though in water, and opens his eyes, and sees what is happening there - not because he doubts, but because he is curious what else he can see there, what else constitutes truth. Sometimes it seems that this is missing in people today. And even within religion."
Question what you are told? This is indeed remarkable coming from a Catholic priest. Certainly, something quite at odds with the teaching within cults (see this Economist review of recent books about what goes on within Scientology). Fr. Tischner is being very open towards free-thinkers - dangerously so, the Radio Maryja wing of the Catholic Church in Poland would argue.
Żakowski asks: "to be moved to ask of God 'where are you', must you be chosen, touched by God? No, replies Fr. Tischner. "You must be touched by freedom! Not the experience of your own freedom, but experiencing freedom in others." "God is free and demands freedom," interjects Żakowski. "God teaches me freedom when God chooses me," replies Fr. Tischner, saying that here is a fundamental difference between the old and new catechism. "God teaches freedom, and when we pray 'thy will be done' we are saying 'thy freedom be done', my freedom, on the measure, on the pattern, of God's freedom. These are new horizons opening up to us."
Fr. Tischner explores the relationship between faith and trust and intelligence - 'fides quaerens intellectum' in the words of St Augustine - faith (or more precisely, trust) seeks understanding. "Only when there is faith/trust does understanding come. The mind awakes, when one trusts."
Żakowski asks whether that trust should not be earned. Fr. Tischner replies that without trust, human dialogue bogs down in mutual suspicion, then attempts at finding ways to better one's adversary, and then violence. If we trust one another, we can talk, we can solve problems, we can try to understand.
To where should we look for answers? "To a faith that understands," says Fr. Tischner, concluding the second discussion.
I'm left with the feeling that this is all well and good, appealing to me - but from the point of view of a religion trying to draw a theological line in the sand - it's all a bit wishy-washy. Still, there are 23 more discussions to come - before Easter Sunday, 23 more opportunities to reconcile this apparent dissonance.
This time last year:
Fresh powder in Warsaw's parks
This time three years ago:
Another Lent starts
This time five years ago:
Okęcie dusk
Friday, 15 February 2013
Elliott Erwitt exhibition opens in Warsaw
An exhibition to see. Photographer Elliott Erwitt (85 years old, working with the legendary Magnum Photos agency since 1954) has personally selected 50 of his favourite images for display at Warsaw's Leica Gallery (ul. Mysia 3). Among the photos some of his trademark dog photos, some famous faces (Marilyn Monroe, Khrushchev and Nixon, Jackie Kennedy, Che Guevara), much humour; evocative landscapes and cityscapes from America and Europe from the late 1940s to modern times.
The exhibition's opening night drew an enormous and appreciative crowd of all ages (below), with a large showing of hipsters (some touting film cameras). If you missed it, this exhibition, Personal Best for Leica, is open to 11 March (Mon-Sat 10:00-23:00, Sun 12:00-18:00), admission free.
Below: a study in appreciation. Black and white photos in black frames with white mounts on white walls. Each photograph was absolutely flawless in its presentation - prints without any visible scratches, dust specks or blemishes. The darkroom work complements that of the photographer.
A digression. Note the three people in the foreground; all are using mobile devices - to communicate or to photograph with. Today, we can all be Erwitts; two billion (at least) mobile phones with built-in cameras are in use around the world. What mobile-phone snappers lack in skill and lens quality, they make up for in ubiquity. Yesterday's meteorite over Chelyabinsk, for example, was caught on camera by thousands, as well as by CCTV and dashboard cameras (a very Russian phenomenon).
Below: my favourite image from the exhibition - steam train, Wyoming, 1954. Exactly my time, my place. Erwitt's photos of Wyoming and North Carolina were for me the stars of the show.
A word about Leica, host of the exhibition. My first proper camera was a Leica (an M2, before that I had a pre-war Leica IIIb). I used a Leica rangefinder as my principal camera from a quarter of a century (1982-2007). What a brand. What associations. Yet today - lost. The sense of a digital camera costing $7,000 (body only) that comes with lenses that neither autofocus nor have vibration reduction (for several thousand additional dollars) is lost on me. Only a purist, a show-off or obsessive could consider such a purchase - especially since each successive digital Leica rangefinder only shows to highlight the shortcomings of its predecessor. A Nikon D3200 does an admirable job for a twentieth of the price. (If you are a Leica fan thinking of leaving a rude comment here - do you want to buy one of my old Leicas? I have an M2, M3 and M6 I want to get rid of, with 21, 35 and two 50mm lenses...)
A final photo digression. It would be good to see vibration reduction/image stabilisation technology in use on fast (f2 and faster) prime lenses. Manufacturers have ignored this - it would give photographers a good reason to update their prime lens fleet.
This time last year:
The first heavy snow of winter
This time two year:
God's Dwelling Place - a short story
This time three years ago:
Beat this for a snowy winter!
This time four years ago:
Poland's most popular outergarments
This time five years ago:
The Frost Gods return
The exhibition's opening night drew an enormous and appreciative crowd of all ages (below), with a large showing of hipsters (some touting film cameras). If you missed it, this exhibition, Personal Best for Leica, is open to 11 March (Mon-Sat 10:00-23:00, Sun 12:00-18:00), admission free.
Below: a study in appreciation. Black and white photos in black frames with white mounts on white walls. Each photograph was absolutely flawless in its presentation - prints without any visible scratches, dust specks or blemishes. The darkroom work complements that of the photographer.
Below: Erwitt's Che Guevara comes across as a vain poseur, basking in the light of his self-image. No doubt Guevara was delighted by it.
A word about Leica, host of the exhibition. My first proper camera was a Leica (an M2, before that I had a pre-war Leica IIIb). I used a Leica rangefinder as my principal camera from a quarter of a century (1982-2007). What a brand. What associations. Yet today - lost. The sense of a digital camera costing $7,000 (body only) that comes with lenses that neither autofocus nor have vibration reduction (for several thousand additional dollars) is lost on me. Only a purist, a show-off or obsessive could consider such a purchase - especially since each successive digital Leica rangefinder only shows to highlight the shortcomings of its predecessor. A Nikon D3200 does an admirable job for a twentieth of the price. (If you are a Leica fan thinking of leaving a rude comment here - do you want to buy one of my old Leicas? I have an M2, M3 and M6 I want to get rid of, with 21, 35 and two 50mm lenses...)
A final photo digression. It would be good to see vibration reduction/image stabilisation technology in use on fast (f2 and faster) prime lenses. Manufacturers have ignored this - it would give photographers a good reason to update their prime lens fleet.
This time last year:
The first heavy snow of winter
This time two year:
God's Dwelling Place - a short story
This time three years ago:
Beat this for a snowy winter!
This time four years ago:
Poland's most popular outergarments
This time five years ago:
The Frost Gods return
Wednesday, 13 February 2013
Capax Dei
The first discussion between priest-philosopher Józef Tischner and journalist Jacek Żakowski concerns the core difference between the current (post-Vatican council) catechism, and the old Tridentine one. Out goes the doctrine of the Catholic Church as intermediary between God and Man. Rightly - a revolution, says Fr. Tischner. Catching up with the Protestants after 400 years, ripostes Żakowski. And a good thing too, replies Fr. Tischner - chapter 1 of the new catechism opens with the statement Capax Dei - Man is capable of God. To be capable - to be open - to be seeking - the Eternal, the Absolute, the True. Man is indeed capable. Man's consciousness does yearn for the numinous, the metaphysical and the transcendental. It is in our nature. [But are all men equally capable?]
We seek answers - not just to what will happen to us after we die - no; the questions we've been asking from childhood about life, reality, the universe, what it is to be human, a search for meaning and direction, a search - conscious or not conscious - for God.
How then should we search? The old Tridentine catechism would rather suggest that we don't search - that we merely accept the answers from God's church on earth, God's vicar and intermediary. Everything that we are expected to believe we is handed down in minute detail (the Blessed Virgin Mary's Assumption into Heaven for instance). Only this way can theological teachings, and through them social order, be preserved, reasoned medieval kings, who found Christianity a useful system for backing up their 'divine right' to rule.
But, says Fr. Tischner, things have changed. The current catechism is human-centric, rather than church-centric. So is he saying we can all find our own ways to God? (those of us of course who genuinely seek?)
Wouldn't things start to fall apart? A billion individual approaches, each one slightly different, tuned to individual needs and tastes; the church loses its authority, doctrinal dilution takes place.
Hasn't this process started already? No doubt these questions will arise in later chapters.
Lent going well so far, no craving for alcohol, coffee or meat. Let alone for confectionery, cakes, fizzy drinks, salt snacks or other bad things.
This time last year:
Who are the thickies of Europe?
This time two years ago:
Oldschool Photochallenge: Response No. 2
This time three years ago:
Oligocene water from Jeziorki
We seek answers - not just to what will happen to us after we die - no; the questions we've been asking from childhood about life, reality, the universe, what it is to be human, a search for meaning and direction, a search - conscious or not conscious - for God.
How then should we search? The old Tridentine catechism would rather suggest that we don't search - that we merely accept the answers from God's church on earth, God's vicar and intermediary. Everything that we are expected to believe we is handed down in minute detail (the Blessed Virgin Mary's Assumption into Heaven for instance). Only this way can theological teachings, and through them social order, be preserved, reasoned medieval kings, who found Christianity a useful system for backing up their 'divine right' to rule.
But, says Fr. Tischner, things have changed. The current catechism is human-centric, rather than church-centric. So is he saying we can all find our own ways to God? (those of us of course who genuinely seek?)
Wouldn't things start to fall apart? A billion individual approaches, each one slightly different, tuned to individual needs and tastes; the church loses its authority, doctrinal dilution takes place.
Hasn't this process started already? No doubt these questions will arise in later chapters.
Lent going well so far, no craving for alcohol, coffee or meat. Let alone for confectionery, cakes, fizzy drinks, salt snacks or other bad things.
This time last year:
Who are the thickies of Europe?
This time two years ago:
Oldschool Photochallenge: Response No. 2
This time three years ago:
Oligocene water from Jeziorki
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
