"AMUSING" SCRIPTURE
I've been meaning to post some scripture in relation to my last post on Amusing Ourselves to Death ~
"Death and Destruction are never satisfied, and neither are the eyes of man." Proverbs 27:20
Our appetites are insatiable at times. Remember the commercial for those chips, "No one can eat just one." ? I think that's the same idea with our eyes and our souls although most may not ever realize it. People are hungrier and hungrier for the next big thing.
"Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever." Psalm 73:24-25
Are our hearts truly content or are they restless? Do you really desire nothing but the Lord? Where does your heart go when your mind slows down? What do you look to for satisfaction? If I find myself habitually turning on the TV, radio or reaching for my iPod when I'm bored, what does that say about my level of contentment? How deeply have I been shaped by this TV and entertainment culture?
Just some thoughts. Please share yours if you feel led. Blessings.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
BOOK REVIEW - AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH
by Neil Postman
This is the second go around on this book for me. The first time I read it in conjunction with another book, All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes by Ken Myers. I really recommend both. Lately, I've been thinking about my media intake - again. Not the content, but the fact that it's even on. Amusing Ourselves to Death is written by Neil Postman who is a professor of communications at New York University. The thesis of the whole book is that Aldous Huxley, instead of George Orwell, was right. Everyone knows about Orwell's book, 1984, and the concept of Big Brother. Aldous Huxley's book, Brave New World, contained a very different warning. Quoting from Postman's foreword -
"Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision...people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think. What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one."
Last week I watched a Frontline episode on PBS about growing up online. They interviewed a high school senior who admitted that he, along with the majority of his classmates, did not read the books that were assigned to them. All they had to do was go online and read the summaries on one of many "Cliff notes" like websites. Is this a proof of Huxley's theory? I'm not sure, but I digress.
Postman's whipping post in the book is television and he begins the book by explaining that he is not going to argue against content but form. The form of communication a culture uses largely determines its content. He gives smoke signals as a simple example. You obviously cannot discuss philosophy with smoke signals. The form determines the content. Postman's aim is to go backwards and trace the changes of form in America's communication and what that has done to its content. He discusses the change-over from the Age of Typography to the Age of Television here -
"As the influence of print wanes, the content of politics, religion, education and anything else that comprises public business must change and be recast in terms that are most suitable to television."
One fascinating point he makes in the first chapter has to do with his interest in this subject. As he studied the Bible in his youth, he noticed that God expressly forbid Israel from depicting Him using any kind of picture or idol. He says,
"The God of the Jews was to exist in the Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception requiring the highest order of abstract thinking. Iconography thus became blasphemy so that a new kind of God could enter a culture. People like ourselves who are in the process of converting their culture from word-centered to image-centered might profit by reflecting on this Mosaic injunction."
Now, I'm pretty sure Mr. Postman is not a Christian. But this argument sounds like something I've heard R.C. Sproul say in relation to video and audio Bibles.
This first chapter is called The Medium is the Metaphor. What he means is that the forms of our media powerfully influence our conceptions of reality. They do this in subtle ways without our notice. He uses the clock as an example. Without clocks humanity had no conception of saving time or serving time. He then mentions the invention of writing. When writing became dominant, there was less of a need for lengthy memorization and intensive listening. The eye replaced the ear as the primary organ of language processing.
What Postman is getting at is how our shift from writing to electronics (television and other image centered media)has changed the way we think and communicate. And is it a good thing. I think the title of the book gives away his own opinion.
It is foolish to think that any new technology or form of communication that is invented and embraced by a culture will not influence that culture beyond its gears or pixels. Postman says near the end of the chapter -
"And yet, such digging becomes easier if we start from the assumption that in every tool we create, an idea is embedded that goes beyond the function of the thing itself."
It is very easy to coast along with whatever new technology comes along. The default gear of our minds is neutral and it's easy to never think of the unintended consequences. To think hard and fight against the tide is extremely difficult. But I can't shake off the uneasiness in my soul when I don't have something to babysit my brain. Why am I constantly flipping channels? Why do I automatically turn on the radio when I get in the car? Why am I tempted to surf over to just one more website? Where has that habit come from? I think Postman's book goes a long way in answering that question. Our culture is addicted to amusement and I am continually saddened when I see myself tempted in the same ways.
I've decided to read a different book in conjunction with Amusing Ourselves to Death. A Treatise on Earthly-Mindedness was written by Jeremiah Burroughs in the 17th century. As Solomon says in Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun. We are all tempted to worldliness no matter the century. The enemy just continues to present it through newer and attractive means. Notice I said through and not in. The means in and of themselves are not evil. But it takes a wise man to be able to look at it and see through it to the benefit or detriment it will have on his soul.
More later. Blessings to you.
by Neil Postman
This is the second go around on this book for me. The first time I read it in conjunction with another book, All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes by Ken Myers. I really recommend both. Lately, I've been thinking about my media intake - again. Not the content, but the fact that it's even on. Amusing Ourselves to Death is written by Neil Postman who is a professor of communications at New York University. The thesis of the whole book is that Aldous Huxley, instead of George Orwell, was right. Everyone knows about Orwell's book, 1984, and the concept of Big Brother. Aldous Huxley's book, Brave New World, contained a very different warning. Quoting from Postman's foreword -
"Orwell warns that we will be overcome by an externally imposed oppression. But in Huxley's vision...people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think. What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one."
Last week I watched a Frontline episode on PBS about growing up online. They interviewed a high school senior who admitted that he, along with the majority of his classmates, did not read the books that were assigned to them. All they had to do was go online and read the summaries on one of many "Cliff notes" like websites. Is this a proof of Huxley's theory? I'm not sure, but I digress.
Postman's whipping post in the book is television and he begins the book by explaining that he is not going to argue against content but form. The form of communication a culture uses largely determines its content. He gives smoke signals as a simple example. You obviously cannot discuss philosophy with smoke signals. The form determines the content. Postman's aim is to go backwards and trace the changes of form in America's communication and what that has done to its content. He discusses the change-over from the Age of Typography to the Age of Television here -
"As the influence of print wanes, the content of politics, religion, education and anything else that comprises public business must change and be recast in terms that are most suitable to television."
One fascinating point he makes in the first chapter has to do with his interest in this subject. As he studied the Bible in his youth, he noticed that God expressly forbid Israel from depicting Him using any kind of picture or idol. He says,
"The God of the Jews was to exist in the Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception requiring the highest order of abstract thinking. Iconography thus became blasphemy so that a new kind of God could enter a culture. People like ourselves who are in the process of converting their culture from word-centered to image-centered might profit by reflecting on this Mosaic injunction."
Now, I'm pretty sure Mr. Postman is not a Christian. But this argument sounds like something I've heard R.C. Sproul say in relation to video and audio Bibles.
This first chapter is called The Medium is the Metaphor. What he means is that the forms of our media powerfully influence our conceptions of reality. They do this in subtle ways without our notice. He uses the clock as an example. Without clocks humanity had no conception of saving time or serving time. He then mentions the invention of writing. When writing became dominant, there was less of a need for lengthy memorization and intensive listening. The eye replaced the ear as the primary organ of language processing.
What Postman is getting at is how our shift from writing to electronics (television and other image centered media)has changed the way we think and communicate. And is it a good thing. I think the title of the book gives away his own opinion.
It is foolish to think that any new technology or form of communication that is invented and embraced by a culture will not influence that culture beyond its gears or pixels. Postman says near the end of the chapter -
"And yet, such digging becomes easier if we start from the assumption that in every tool we create, an idea is embedded that goes beyond the function of the thing itself."
It is very easy to coast along with whatever new technology comes along. The default gear of our minds is neutral and it's easy to never think of the unintended consequences. To think hard and fight against the tide is extremely difficult. But I can't shake off the uneasiness in my soul when I don't have something to babysit my brain. Why am I constantly flipping channels? Why do I automatically turn on the radio when I get in the car? Why am I tempted to surf over to just one more website? Where has that habit come from? I think Postman's book goes a long way in answering that question. Our culture is addicted to amusement and I am continually saddened when I see myself tempted in the same ways.
I've decided to read a different book in conjunction with Amusing Ourselves to Death. A Treatise on Earthly-Mindedness was written by Jeremiah Burroughs in the 17th century. As Solomon says in Ecclesiastes, there is nothing new under the sun. We are all tempted to worldliness no matter the century. The enemy just continues to present it through newer and attractive means. Notice I said through and not in. The means in and of themselves are not evil. But it takes a wise man to be able to look at it and see through it to the benefit or detriment it will have on his soul.
More later. Blessings to you.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
DANGEROUS FOOD!!
I've been really good lately about my food intake. I've been trying to lose a couple pounds. You know, the ones that start to creep on after 30 and take a lot more work to get rid of? I hate that. Anyway, there are a couple things I just can't keep in the house or I will want to eat the whole thing in one sitting. I've added pictures for dramatic impact. The first one is good ol' BBQ chips. I love these and could definitely eat half a bag in one sitting. I like most kinds but I think Lay's are really tops, especially the wavy version. The other dangerous food is Haagen-Dazs Sticky Toffee Pudding ice cream. Oh, wow! I heard about this ice cream last year when I was watching a program on the Food Network called Scoop! There was a contest to find a new ice cream flavor and this was the winner. I was curious so the next time I went to the store I bought a pint. WOW! This is my favorite ice cream flavor right now and I might go so far as to say that it's my favorite of all time. I only have one problem with it. I like my ice cream to be really hard. What I mean by that is I want to have to chew it. This ice cream, no matter how long I have it in the freezer, does not get hard. It's a very small problem but I think I can forgive them. I just hope this flavor stays around a long time. The next time I'm feeling deserving I will go buy another pint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)