There Is No Spoon... Except That There Is and You Are Living as if The Spoon Absolutely Matters

I am struggling to finish a paper this morning. When I was looking at schools, I wanted to be in a Theological Ethics program. That's a very specific program that's not offered too many places. Typically programs are divided into Theology or Ethics because the Modern academic understanding is that the two are separate. This isn't simply the result of academic specialization, it's also a result of the Modern view that reason alone stands apart from the world and is somehow able to determine or reflect what is, let alone what ought to be done- or what is universally good. It's why we say something like, "C'mon be reasonable..." when someone doesn't see or do things our way. We imagine that there is some kind of universal reason that will convince somebody leaving only 4 oz. (that's about 100 ml, CityFrog) of milk in the refrigerator is wrong. (That's not the whole of the case- but it's something most of us can probably relate to).

So, briefly, Theological Ethics understands that there are systems in which reason functions according to specific parameters. It examines the specific commitments and knowledge that are those parameters and how those are lived. I didn't get into the school that offers the best Theological Ethics program in the world, go figure. The school I am at has a Theology, Ethics, and Culture program. I am not in that program- I'm in the Philosophy of Religion/Theology program. I originally applied to the "TEC" program but after meeting with the faculty we decided I would be better suited to the "PR/T" program. Here's why:

The TEC program does account for the theological and cultural influences on ethics. That's good. However, it imagines that you can freely deconstruct and recreate ethical systems however you see fit simply by replacing parts here and there. If you see a problem and want a specific outcome, create a system that leads to it. I guess you can do that, but it doesn't seem very effective. That's not so good. To me, that is very similar (different and better, but still similar) to separating Theology and Ethics. Here's why:

People are very committed to their systems- even if they aren't aware that they are part of it. You can't just take apart someone's system because you don't like what it's doing, build up another one, and try to force it on them. No one will buy it- or few people will buy it, but then they're not a part of that system. If I want a result from you that your system doesn't "allow," my creating another system external to you and trying to make you fit it is just as unlikely to work as my appealing to an all powerful external reason and saying, "Hey, you, reason dictates that you shouldn't leave less milk than someone will use in the refrigerator." The other person will say, "That's stupid and unreasonable. Reason dictates I shouldn't waste milk by pouring more than I need." Will they then accept it if I say, "Here, dummy, try this system that will convince you to not leave dribbles of milk in the refrigerator."?

You can deconstruct, and build, and have competing systems if you'd like, but it seems like art and crafts. There is something to it- I'm not saying it's worthless, but it's not always what people are going to use- at least it's not what I'm going to use.

So, if you are committed to one system and you think it needs tweaking- you need to find the elements within that system that may allow for some tweaking. If you break the rules, you're not in the system, but you can push the boundaries and test the flexibility of a system so that it remains intact (if it is worth keeping intact).

To take the imagery too far: If a system is producing an unwanted result, it may be that result is an inevitability of that system. Or it could be that the system is being misused. Or parts of the system are not used as they should be. Still another option is that the system may be functioning exactly as it should be but incidental to its use is an unwanted byproduct or negative externality. Or a system might function great but has the potential to function even better.

One has to discover if the system intends the result or if the result is unintended but necessary to the system or the result of misuse or malfunction or if it's going well how it can go even better. If bad things are an intended result then it may be necessary to chuck the system. If it is one of the other options then the problem may be remedied or improved. If you want a car to stop leaking oil, or backfiring, or get better gas mileage, or not run on hyrdrocarbons, or go faster, or have a smoother ride, there are things you can do to it while still keeping it a car. If you want a car to fly you to the moon though, you are no longer dealing with a car.

I know this might sound very existential and post-modern. Deal with it. (If you're paying attention- you'll notice that something external to these systems is necessarily implied. You just don't know what it is- but that's one of the reasons Christmas matters.)

I want to know my system- so I am in the PR/T program. I am not too interested in building new systems out of parts I find lying around the academic workshop. That's why I am not in the TEC program. I did however decide to take the TEC "flagship" class but now find myself reluctant to color in their lines. My bad.

But now that I got this out of my system (wink), I suppose I'll finish my paper.

iTunes Can Only Play What I Put Into Its Library
I Got a Girl- Tripping Daisy
My Love- Paul McCartney
Company In My Back- Wilco
Blue 'N' Boogie- Dizzy Gillespie
Mr. Tambourine Man- Bob Dylan
Maggie's Farm- Bob Dylan
Here Comes Your Man- The Pixies
Stepping Into Tomorrow- Madlib
No Surprises- Radiohead
Flower- The Eels