PhD Extract 1 – Intro

I thought I’d start a series of posts that will be extracts from my Phd. I hope to re-engage with my research and also distil some of the things that I truly like about it. Here are the first few paragraphs of the introduction.

The voice is one of the ways in which Christians engage with the bible. The reading aloud of scripture is a ritual that most Christian groupings undertake as part of their gathered worship. This ritual is normally done with a single voice. I propose that this approach reflects and reinforces a hegemony, where dominant voices diminish and marginalise other voices. In response I engage with the multiplicity and plurality of the bible by using sound art practice, experimenting with the act of reading aloud in different ways. This leads to a polyphony of voices – the intermingling of voices of multiple readers and multiple characters in the texts. This polyphony is one that contextualises voices, where voices can have an effect on each other, since sound is so often contextualised by other sounds.

Contextualisation is often how we make sense of sound and in that resonance of contextualisation I narrate some personal context to introduce and make sense of this project. There are two realities that currently affect me as I attempt to finish this writing. This PhD is being completed while my mother is unwell. Part of her condition is a loss of the conventional ability to speak. She can still use her voice and speak but our shared conventions of language are lost to her. The voice is often connected to language and this project will explore how voice and language carry each other. My mother cannot communicate conventionally but those that listen to her over a period of time can more fully understand what she is communicating. To speak of voice and language is to speak of speakers and listeners. Speaking and listening is a key exploration of this project.

My mother, for the most part, can utter one word: “Ponnam.” “Ponnam” is a word in the Malayalam language that indicates a need to go – it encapsulates the phrase ‘I want to go.’ When my mother utters it, however, it can have several meanings: ‘I want to walk,’ ‘I am too hot,’ ‘I am restless’ and so on. It takes a careful listening and asking of questions to understand what she is communicating with ‘Ponnam.’ The sound of ‘Ponnam,’ which means one thing to most listeners, is now filled with multiple meanings and possibilities. What is happening here is polyvalence, a multiplicity that polyphony alludes to; what seems to be a single thing, ‘Ponnam,’ refers to many things and sometimes many things together: ‘I am uncomfortable, and I would like to sit up.’ Similarly, polyphony often seems like a unity, a single thing, but it is many things occurring together. Distinguishing the differences within, and how they work together, will give a fuller and better understanding of the situation/s we find ourselves in.

I use the word ‘Ponnam,’ a word in Malayalam. The presence of a foreign language points to a difference: a difference of culture, of personhood, of being. Growing up with two different languages, in two different cultures, I have had to negotiate how these differences work with each other with no easy resolution. Living with this multiplicity is personal to me but most human beings must live and engage with some form of multiplicity in their daily living.

An important point of connection with my mother is the reading aloud of the bible. I read aloud to her and we both listen to versions of audio bibles across two languages. The bible is a site of complex interweaving relationships and connections for us. It connects us to the past by evoking memories, remembered stories and phrases; it connects Christians because it is a shared sacred text across the community; it forms identity while also giving the potential to reconstrue identity. The bible, with its multiple books, meanings and voices, is the site of inquiry.

Community 2

Continuing my ramblings on community.

Today’s complexity of being part of a community is that, it is less likely in an urban setting to belong exclusively to a single community. We are part of several networks. I have a family network, a church network, a friends network and so on. There might be overlaps but each network is different with its own sets of patterns and rituals.

Belonging to different communities simultaneously allows for great individual growth. No community can be too oppressive and the different communities engage the self in different ways. The banter and the humour of my Indian friends enrichens and fulfils me in a way that a church service can’t. But yet again, I am veering towards talking about the individual or rather framing this as the individual. Possibly the true way to talk of this is through conversation as the frame of engagement will be fundamentally different. Possibly this is why podcasts are so popular. Perhaps yet another one is in order.

So does this simultaneous belonging weaken and atrophy the communities we belong to? Or is there a sense where the different networks in some sense feed each other and keep things in a balance? How does the ‘us’ balance with the ‘I’? Or rather are the many ‘us-es’ somehow constituting the ‘I’? I blather on, but my fundamental question is how a community is meant to function in a way that is beneficial to those within, to itself and to those outside? I think this is an important question regarding church.

A model of agreed principles isn’t enough. And yet my framing of the question is possibly asking for precisely that. So if the question is problematic what has brought the question about? I think it’s the sense that there is a lack in our understanding and practice of community. The inability to fully name this lack coupled with a sense that there is something we can do to address this lack is what prompts these questions. So I shall ramble on. Or maybe start a conversation. Or a podcast

Atonement in Scripture: Why Trump and Cruz Are the Direct, Logical Result of American Evangelical Theology

Some people might say oh this is American, however American Christianity is hugely influential around the world, so this must be looked at and engaged with. This is a reblogged post from elsewhere. Not mine.

The Anástasis Center for Christian Education & Ministry

Donald Trump Delivers Convocation At Liberty University LYNCHBURG, VA – JANUARY 18: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump delivers the convocation at the Vines Center on the campus of Liberty University January 18, 2016 in Lynchburg, Virginia. A billionaire real estate mogul and reality television personality, Trump addressed students and guests at the non-profit, private Christian university that was founded in 1971 by evangelical Southern Baptist televangelist Jerry Falwell. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Thirst for Retribution

‘How could this happen?’ bemoan some conservative evangelicals.  Titles abound, such as:  The Inexplicable Evangelical Support for Donald Trump.[1]  But the reality is far from inexplicable.  Noam Chomsky weighed in with an argument about economic inequality and working class whites, which I think has lots of validity.[2]  But the argument from economic inequality doesn’t explain everything – after all, why did Southern states refuse Obamacare?  Why don’t more Southerners vote for Bernie Sanders?  We are becoming…

View original post 13,094 more words

Christmas fragment 3

Christmas celebrates a this worldly God. This is a problem. Some find the fleshliness difficult. Others find God difficult. A this worldly God on close reflection is a constant challenge to our ideas of world and god.

After I wrote that sentence I realised that I did the classic act of reducing world and god to ideas. So I add: A this worldly God on close reflection is a constant challenge to our ideas and experiences of world and god.

A this worldly god is inevitably messy intricately weaving himself into our experience, our biases and our appropriations.

A this worldly god seems infinitely interpretable; he is part of each ones experience through all time, but a this worldly god is also frighteningly particular and singular for as a human creature he is limited to his body.

A this worldly God is a problem.

Christmas Fragment 2

Christians worship a refugee.

At a time when politically stable societies celebrate Christmas with family it’s worth remembering that Mary and Joseph suddenly had to move from Nazareth to Bethlehem and then a little while later flee to Egypt.

The Christmas story is inherently filled with instability and danger. From this place of confusion it looks outwards and says ‘Peace to all’.

Christmas Fragment 1

Christmas is messily materialistic. The Word became flesh. Blood, bodily fluids, wordless crying are at the heart of Christmas story. It is icky, joyful and fills the senses.

This is why with so many objects criss crossing the planet it fulfils part of the spirit of Christmas. The handling of the card, the wrapping of the gift, the prising of the plastic, the eating of food, the drinking of wine affirms our bodily humanity; for God affirms bodily humanity in its messy state by taking on a breathing, weeing, gurgling body.

A parable of talents

Once in the land of Naad three young people were sent away from their home, each to a different land. They were to learn of that land and come back with new skills and knowledge.

Three years passed; they came back and there was a feast to welcome them. At this joyous time the priests and the elders summoned the young ones to ask them of their journey. All became quiet as the first one spoke.

“I learnt of how things work. How to put together things. How to harness energy, how to make lights flash and how to programme machines so that they do our bidding.”

“Welcome!” cried the elders and priests, “enter into our community, use your gifts here, make money here, be part of the greatness of our people.”

The second one stood forward. “I learnt about the body and its diseases. I learnt of many cures, how to fix a broken nose and how to get nicer skin. I even learnt the strange art of ‘fitness regime’ so that we might never be ill again.”

“Welcome!” cried the elders and priests, (especially the ones who had a stinking cold), “enter into our community, use your gifts here, make money here, be part of the greatness of our people.”

The third one stood forward, eyes bright, countenance joyful. “I learnt of God. Who reaches out to us. I learnt about us. Who reach out to God. I learnt of many great things; of how to transform our lives, of new ways of doing our festivals, of ways to fight for justice as God would love us to do.”

There was a great silence. Then a small cough. A shuffle of feet.

One of the priests then cried out. “Diane!…Diane!”

Diane stepped out from the crowd.

“Diane, can you put this bright young thing on your ROTA?”

Incarnation 3

The Incarnation asks questions of our privileging of the mind  and its activities, over the body. The young discipline of embodied cognition does a lot of research in how we seem to use our bodies in much deeper ways than we’ve been led to believe. The problems that AI and robotics face is from this over privileging of the mind over the body. Moravec’s paradox indicates that reasoning and thinking need far less computational resources than simple motor tasks of the body. Therefore there is something about the human body which is more than just simple mechanics. It could be argued that is how contemporary society over a variety of cultures views our body. A mechanical motor home for a disembodied ‘I’. The Incarnation seems to indicate otherwise.