"Suspension of Belief": Just Because It's Difficult, Doesn't Mean You Shouldn't Try, Post-Modernism Be Damned!

There are things that I often ponder.

1. Why do I bother getting into these discussions with believers? I understand getting into these discussions with other academic biblical scholars, but believers? Where is my head? I suppose that old habits die hard; I miss the academic arguments of my Master's and PhD - there is no one where I am now that has any academic biblical historical critical (or for that matter, broad philosophical) training, much less the old style training in the importance to attempt "epoché" in all that one does:

1. Epoché (ἐποχή epokhē, "suspension") is an ancient Greek term which, in its philosophical usage, describes the theoretical moment where all judgments about the existence of the external world, and consequently all action in the world, are suspended.

We used this term to describe what we try to do when we anaylse biblical texts. We divest ourselves as much as possible of our ingrained belief systems and view the texts as if we had never seen them before or heard them interpreted. It comes out of the phenomenological philosophy of Edmund Husserl, described sometimes as phenomenological reductionism.

Why do people think that everyone else's belief affects their translations, but not their own analyses - even when they don't go to the primary sources? Not that there is one definitive ancient Greek, Aramaic, ancient Hebrew text of the different books of the "Christian" Bible. There is no "original". Even if we could lay our hands on the actual original handwritten text of, for example, the Gospel of John, and the written documents of the historical narrative within it (the basis around which many of us agree that the Gospel of John was built) and where it was written, what would, and would not, this tell us:

• for me, the biggest would be the ur-text - what a goldmine that would be (just saying)
• we could follow the changes in the text throughout the western historical tradition more clearly (I can always dream)
• we would have more definitive answers (maybe) about the mindset of the original author
• we would have a greater understanding of the community out of which it came
• we would have greater understanding of the development of the belief system that became Christianity, and it's move away from the Judaisms of the first two centuries
• however, it would tell us nothing about "truth"
• it would not explain whether or not Jesus was divine; it would only tell us that a group of people had ventured further down that murky slope of integrating Greek and Roman mindsets with Jewish mindsets, and then started to argue (rather cautiously, I would suggest) that Jesus was divine

What does it matter, actually, whether the translation is "Jesus (the Word) is "a" god or Jesus (the Word) is god? On such things, heresy is always born. (Gospel of John 1:1-18)

Of course, the caveat is that I don't believe that Jesus was in any way shape or form "god". He was an (Israeli, Jewish, Palestinian, Galilean - take your pick) prophet in a long line of prophets (the Isaiah school/tradition?) . That he spoke "truth to power", I have no doubt. That is, after all, what a prophet did. His tradition led him in a certain way, in much the same way as the Buddha's tradition formed the structure of his dissent with the faith. The one was Jewish, the other Hindu - but they were both men.

Then again, if we're "proof-texting" this, one only has to go to the Gospel of Matthew (at least the ur-text one could say). Matthew 1:1-17 makes it clear that there are 42 generations between Abraham and Jesus. including David and Solomon. So, apparently, Jesus was descended from the kingly line of David biologically. This means that Jesus can only be the biological offspring of Joseph, but wait ....... Of course, shortly thereafter (v. 18 ff) we get the Holy Spirit story of Mary's pregnancy. I don't have time (nor the inclination) to go into the wherefores and whys of biblical criticism on the subject. Suffice it to say that there are plenty of commentaries, articles, and books dealing with the issue, if one were so inclined to follow up on this topic

Then there is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis - I'm not going down that rabbit hole right now - probably later - stay tuned.

Why this post?

1. Triggered by a conversation that I had last night.

2. Avoidance of writing the review of Sacred Witness that has been burning a guilt hole in my mind. It deals with all of these issues.

3. Avoidance of writing the reviews of Ray Donovan that are also burning a hole - but a different kind of hole, more emotional than anything else. The third season has started. I began my post yesterday morning and it sat there all day. It is call "Disconsolate". I wrote a few things, then it kept rolling around in my head - all the things that should go into the post. I just couldn't get around to writing them down - avoidance, emotional pain. Needless to say, but it was a difficult first two episodes. The next two have been easier. It will be up soon.

.

Triggers: Ray Donovan: Season 2.7

I wrote that I was going to review Ray Donovan episodes after season 1 was finished. Well I didn't get around to it. After watching the second season to episode 7 (binge watching), I am beginning to wonder whether that was a deliberate avoidance.

Season 2:7 was full of triggers for me. The impact wasn't all immediate but the biggest "gotcha" was near the end when Ray stands in the middle of the room staring at his wife and says "Conor wanted the family; Conor got a family", snort-smiles, shrugs and walks away (at 46:45). Interestingly enough, I remembered it as "I wanted the family, I got the family." What is really boils down is that we keep looking for some kind of stability in the structures around us - even when we watch it crumbling. Ray tries to run, tries so hard to  make it right in all the wrong ways. The fights, the screaming, the drinking, the disintegration, the obliviousness - all because we can't change the past. The old truism "you can run, but you can't hide", it will come and bite you in the ass is borne out again and again.

My mother ran, my father took care of her. I ran, nobody took care of me, I just ended up in so many ways like Ray, trying to create stability, trying to take care of everyone and everything, and frankly, at times, not doing a very good job of it. This is not a pity comment, but a reflection comment. I think that I did better in many ways than my mother did (and certainly better than Ray - LOL). But watching this episode, brought back so many of the fights (with my original family, my marriages, my children). There were so many of the moments when one was incapable of doing anything but fight because there was no other release. Then the "I'm sorries" but nothing ever really changed. Then eventually, the complete sense of utter defeat. Things only seemed to change with the complete destruction of a world, sometimes forces from the outside, sometimes from within. Then one started all over again.

If one wonders whether or not this show is getting it right, I would say that, at least the personal aspect is certainly true to the reality of the intergenerational impact of childhood sexual abuse. The family dynamics of generations of sexual abuse, whether acknowledged or not, are being played out in this series. It is gut-wrenching and soul-destroying; it leaves no one undamaged.

I will get to the entire series, episode by episode, In the meantime, I boogie to "Walk this Way" and go find Aerosmith's Pump.

So Satisfying

The second last episode of Ray Donovan and Ray killed the priest.

I'm with Bunchie(y?): "I'm glad you did it, I didn't think I would be, but I am."

It was a brilliant episode. Just watched the last 10 minutes again. Kudos to the writer Ron Nyswaner, the director Daniel Minahan & the creator Ann Biderman. Liev Schreiber is brilliant as always.

I will be writing about the show as a whole when I have watched the last episode. After reading a few critics, I think that there is a need to thoroughly digest and expound upon it. It just rings true on many levels for me.

So much of what I have commented on in earlier posts are reflected in this story line. See, for example, They Still Call Him "Father". The Power of the Belief System or Anger, Anger, and Rage. They both contain aspects of impact/response that make me feel very comfortable watching this show.

I will be watching the last episode shortly & will hope that it is a fitting end to the first season!

Ray Donovan: In Canada, it's on The Movie Network

And here is the link:

http://www.themovienetwork.ca/series/raydonovan

I have looked at a couple of reviews and some of the official website material. There will be a lot to write about. I am not sure that some of the reviewers/bloggers are actually understanding the characters. However, that is to be expected.

One blogger seems to think that the show is a bit "fantastical" in that no one could get away with what he does. While the stars' cases are handled quickly, I might suggest that people go and read up on Pellicano and then decide whether someone could "get away" with being like Ray. 

According to Wikipedia, "Pellicano is known to have represented Anthony "the Ant" Spilotro, the Chicago mobster charged with monitoring the Las Vegas casino "skim" for the Chicago mob. Gustave Reininger, the co-creator of NBC's acclaimed television drama Crime Story, was served both a subpoena and a warning from Spilotro through Pellicano.^{[23][24][25][26][27][28][29].  "}

Note: Crime Story was on TV from 1986-1988. If anyone is interested, here is the link to the Vanity Fair article, "The Pellicano Brief". It seems Pellicano's rise to fame started in 1977. Took them until 2006 to indict him - rather a long run and far from fantastical.

The writing in Ray Donovan is solid - may not be pleasant but it promises to be very interesting.

Ray Donovan: Showtime, Sunday nights at 10

Finally, a series about the longterm negative impacts of child sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests.

See it on Showtime - in the States, the first episode is on-line at  http://www.sho.com/sho/ray-donovan/home

I don't know if it will be on Netflicks - or other carriers, but a full season has already been shot.

I was excited in the first 15 minutes and blown away by the end of it. I had to sit on my hands to keep myself from calling people late at night to tell them to find some way to watch it.


I assume that the inspiration for the story's setting was Anthony Pellicano, private investigator to the stars. See the LA Times for stories about his trial.

We have two brothers (of 4) that we know were sexually abused by a priest (whom their father kills when he gets out of jail). The one is an addict (in & out of rehab) who has had a settlement - & is still drinking etc. - & Ray Donovan - although he has apparently never told anyone - & suffers from flashbacks. There is also a sister who was an addict and committed suicide. All of this is the underbelly of the lives of Ray Donovan and his family.

Just a note: the level of violence in the show is limited but extreme.

Looking forward to tonight's episode & will probably write reviews of the show at some point in the future - probably when it has aired all of the first season.

As an aside, it is wonderful to see Liev Schreiber, and Jon Voigt is suitably creepy as Ray's father. There was a wonderful cameo (maybe he will be on again, fingers crossed) by Elliot Gould as Ray's boss and mentor.