The other side of Pullman, or the Buddha-Jesus tag team

[Elok]

Okay, I trudged through Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy as promised, just so I wouldn't be an uninformed jibbering loon....about this particular subject, anyway. The impression I got was one of...well, not so much a strawman, because strawmen are deliberate misrepresentations for easier attack. My impression of Pullman was that he didn't have a complete understanding of what he criticized.
NOTE FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT HDM IS ABOUT: This is another frigging religion/philosophy post. Sorry.
Take one of the later chapters in The Amber Spyglass, "Marzipan." I already returned the books to the library so I can't quote, but that chapter seemed to be the synopsis of his entire philosophy. He condemned Christian asceticism as a denial of nature that can't possibly make life better for anyone.
But here's the catch: the point of asceticism isn't supposed to be the elimination of desire, but the control of desire so it won't control you. Buddha pretty much hit the nail on the head. Continuous hedonism leads to always wanting one more ****ing thing for your entire life, and the voice of what's "natural," inside your head, can say several things at once. Look at drunks. Completely uninhibited behavior, and it's pretty random. Nature takes the form of philosophy, dancing, crude come-ons...who defined the "natural" order that religion ostensibly subverts? And given the relative nature of happiness(a kid with a new video game is about as happy as a rich WASP who just got a new polo pony), what the hell's the point of a life ruled by the joy of the moment? You're eternally getting sick of one thing and wanting another-unless you indulge yourself in rationed amounts instead of gorging on your pleasure, whatever it is. Then the joy stays novel. So asceticism is in a sense essential for happiness.
It's about 1:30 AM where I am so I'm not terribly lucid. Does anybody here see what I'm getting at?

[darkgrendel]

Um... *thinks for a second* Nope. Sorry.

But then I didn't think the trilogy was that bad. Not wonderful, mind, and a bit too damned plodding at times (far too many times, to be honest), but not awful either. I didn't read it looking for philosophy in it, though.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is another frigging religion/philosophy post. Sorry.

Why? You post well.

He condemned Christian asceticism as a denial of nature that can't possibly make life better for anyone.

Aah, but that assumes Christians are ascetics. We do teach that desire should be subsisted, but we do not teach that the body is inherently sinful or evil, making a distinction between the person and the act.

For example, some critique the ideal of waiting for marriage to have sex as unrealistic, or even dangerous, many of these people presume this without fully understanding why sex should be delayed.

You're eternally getting sick of one thing and wanting another-unless you indulge yourself in rationed amounts instead of gorging on your pleasure,

Indeed, that's one of the pleasures of simplicity.

Good night Elok.

[darkgrendel]

Originally posted by obiwan18 Aah, but that assumes Christians are ascetics. We do teach that desire should be subsisted, but we do not teach that the body is inherently sinful or evil, making a distinction between the person and the act.

Actually, that's not true at all- there are Christians who teach just that. To talk about Christian asceticism does not imply that all Christians are ascetics, any more than talking about Christian fundamentalism implies that all Christians are right-wing bigots.

[Ben Kenobi]

that's not true at all- there are Christians who teach just that.

Now I must ask where you are getting this from.

Why do you think Christians teach that the body is inherently sinful?

[darkgrendel]

Let's look at Puritanism, shall we? Granted that's a bit dated, but I'm certain there are those who still feel that way.

Now, would you reread my post, namely that bit about how talking about a subset of a group is not the same as saying that the trait inherent to that subset applies to the entire group?

Thanks.

[Ben Kenobi]

darkgrendel:

Now, would you reread my post, namely that bit about how talking about a subset of a group is not the same as saying that the trait inherent to that subset applies to the entire group?

No, I saw that in your earlier post.

Now I understand why you think so, because of the Puritans.

[darkgrendel]

Clearly, though, you didn't get it, which is why I'm suggesting you reread. This lack of it-getting is evidenced by your asking "Why do you think Christians teach that the body is inherently sinful?" when I had just gotten done saying that there are Christians who teach that, but not- but not!- that all Christians do so.

[monolith94]

"Let's look at Puritanism, shall we?"

Yes, lets. They burned people to get their property and fussed because they had hallucinagenic mushrooms in their grain supply.

Now can we talk about something a little bit more relevant?

[darkgrendel]

I was citing an example, as he seemed to think there weren't any. And as I said, I'm certain there are those Christians out there today who still believe that humanity is inherently sinful, etc.

[monolith94]

Interestingly enough, the denomination the puritan church evolved into, the congregationalists, are currently one of the most liberal denominations that exists.

Is Pullman gloriously celebrating materialism in his books? Just curious, I haven't read them (they're on hold at the library).

[Elok]

DP, sorry...

[Elok]

Okay, so nobody understands asceticism. Asceticism is, or can be, a basic term for denial of the flesh on any level. Any time you feel the urge to do something for self-gratification and decide not to, you are practicing some form of asceticism. The practice of controlling your desires does not necessarily mean you regard all flesh as evil, any more than the authority of parents over their children means kids are wicked. It just means you believe your mind must control your body. Neither your testicles nor your stomach were given you for you to think with them, so if they start dictating your actions for you some discipline is in order. I think Pullman's mistake lies in ignoring that concept%

[monolith94]

"His philosophy is to pursue one's natural urges and thereby live life to the fullest. I don't think the service of desire leads to personal fulfillment."

Ah, but one ask - are the desires to buy that big tv, to fück that hooker, to snort that cocaine NATURAL urges? Or are they simply a product of... I don't know, society? My natural urges right NOW are for emotional connection with loved ones, to observe the world around me, to create, etc...

[Ben Kenobi]

I was citing an example, as he seemed to think there weren't any. And as I said, I'm certain there are those Christians out there today who still believe that humanity is inherently sinful, etc.

No, I wanted to know where your head is at, once you insisted that I was wrong.

Now that I do know I know not to waste my time on something as irrelevent as the Puritans.

The practice of controlling your desires does not necessarily mean you regard all flesh as evil, any more than the authority of parents over their children means kids are wicked.

Now we are on the Christian side of the line, and away from Buddha. Buddha teaches the superiority of the spirit over the flesh, and that when you die, you will eventually become one with a great life force.

Christianity teaches that we get our own bodies, so quite a difference between the two philosophies on this point.