|The "earthy" jokes between the Amish at the|
|beginning of Witness would have been far more|
|typical of Puritans than the usual cliched image.|
Regarding religion, Christianity is usually the culprit, specifically the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages--even though theological caviling regarding the body was a direct compromise with the truly wacky Gnostic ideas floating around Christendom at the time.
Which brings me directly to my point: religion, I understand. What amazes me is how often academic, ivory-tower intellectuals have an even more fuddy-duddy "eww gross" attitude towards physical realities than the religions they blame.
Joseph Campbell is a case in point.
I greatly admire Joseph Campbell. I am immensely grateful for his work that brought mythology and the influence of mythology on popular culture back into the public arena. Unfortunately, he is also a prime example of the ivory-tower intellectual's attitude towards the physical.
I recently took out the DVD of Campbell's talks with Bill Moyers. The first conversation is remarkable, very interesting. Campbell exudes a generous, inclusive attitude towards the world's religions or "mythoi."
Things go downhill from there. Campbell starts the next conversation by belittling all Christianity for its negative attitudes towards the body. Moyers is clearly surprised--he continually tries to pull Campbell back to some of the more tolerant statements our widely read professor made in the prior interview about the purpose of a "mythos" (any mythos) in an individual's life. To a series of questions from Moyers ("Okay, then where does this lead us?" or "leave us?"), Campbell then states emphatically (without realizing that he is contradicting himself) that nothing about religion is supposed to be LITERAL. (It isn't about, for example, a LITERAL resurrection.) It's all about the metaphor: what "it" means to us at the abstract level. THAT'S transcendence.
|As my progenitors thought,|
|"Let's go into the desert--and BUILD something!"|
So much distaste for physical realities reminded me of the famous line in Paul's letters when, after hanging out with a bunch of intellectuals, he states that the concept of a literal resurrection will always be a "stumbling block" to this type of thinker.
Since this blog focuses on popular culture, I will be concentrating on that, not theology. And my point about popular culture is that academics such as Campbell only tolerate it to a point--and that point is, oddly enough, where raunchy, bawdy physical humor meets Paul's stumbling block. The physical as a jolly, positive, enlivening reality* is almost too much for these intellectual types to bear. It MUST mean something else. It MUST be a metaphor. It MUST refer to the ideas we develop as we strive for the ineffable, just before we turn into atoms or light or something intangible.
As Cordelia in Angel would say: "Boring!"
This distaste for the physical is not the same as Augustine fretting over sex: "God, give me chastity and continence. But not yet." It is not the stigma of bastardy in the 18th and 19th centuries. It isn't even Victorian polygamists struggling between their Victorianism and their leader's instruction.
This is Gnosticism, a denial that the flesh is even a consideration. Jesus didn't have a body; it was a spiritual manifestation of his aura or other self that died on the cross. (I'm not making this up.)
Gnosticism is sort of understandable when one considers its context, the Middle Ages: unsettling ideas about bathing (it will kill you!), stupid ideas about hygiene, lots and lots of death. The denial--Hey, we are not even really here!--is somewhat comprehensible.
|Don't get me wrong: I LOVE Star Trek. And this|
|episode about John Doe is pretty interesting.|
|But he turns into energy at the end. Yawn.|
From a popular culture standpoint, it is also lame (even when Star Trek does it). Because grappling with a potential physical afterlife or, to keep this in the realm of science-fiction, physical transcendence is way more mind-blowing than dealing with a concept of transcendence that is all fuzzy and abstract.
Granted, I tend not to agree with people who think that the afterlife will be just like mortality, but I put down our disagreement to differing imaginations. And it's still better that some flaky, intellectual, starring-at-one's naval view of transcendence. Reality usually is.
*As I state in my comment on the post Defending Agatha Christie, Part 1, C.S. Lewis pointed out that ivory-tower, intellectual critics will often embrace a book with a despairing or sad ending as "real life" while rejecting a book with an optimistic, happy ending as pollyannaish, unrealistic, wistful thinking. Yet both reactions are based on emotional, subjective responses to events, not objective ones. Why should the first set of emotions be more "true" than the second?