Where I'm at

http://tallships.ning.com

A Note

From this point on, I will no longer post fiction or prose on O, Paragon. If I decide to continue writing pieces of philosophical or theological interest they will appear here but the stories and antics will not. They will appear somewhere else...to be determined at a later date...soon.

Qohelet

The following little essay is my meditations on Ecclesiastes. I say ‘meditations’ because this essay is not concerned with the polemics surrounding Ecclesiastes. I am taking Ecclesiastes as it has been handed to me (for my purpose it simply does not matter if Solomon is the author, if the book was written in the 3rd or 7th century B.C., etc.). When I approach Ecclesiastes I do so with very little knowledge of the Hebrew language or the prevalent views surrounding the Hebrew ‘Wisdom Literature’. I have only my own intuitive and rational sense as my guide.
To avoid allowing this meditation to meander, this essay aims at describing the apparent paradox (“all is vanity!” and yet “eat, drink and be merry”) in Ecclesiastes to better understand the overall message of the book. In the end, it will be clear that the author of Ecclesiastes has laid down a very insightful picture about man’s role in the world and the inner paradox that exists in man’s soul. Through the lenses of this paradox the many issues of Ecclesiastes will better be understood.
This essay, then, is something of my own existential grappling with Ecclesiastes and less of a strict verse-by-verse commentary. However, as we will see, approaching Ecclesiastes as a solitary individual with existential awareness is perhaps the most appropriate way of interacting with this book.
Let us turn to the words of Ecclesiastes—or better, let us turn to the words of Qohelet.
The Etymology of Ecclesiastes
The first overarching theme in Ecclesiastes can be understood as we discuss the book’s title.
The Hebrew Qohelet is translated ‘one who gathers’ or ‘one among a gathering’. In the Septuagint, Qohelet was translated into the Greek Εκκλησιαστησ with its root of Εκκλησια translated as ‘a gathering’ but which has become Christianized to mean ‘an assembly of Christians’ as used in the New Testament to indicate ‘Church’.
The etymology of Ecclesiastes is important for two vital reasons. First, we begin to see an unfortunate replacement of a possible meaning of ‘Qohelet’ of the single individual, ‘one’ in a gathering or the ‘gatherer’ with our modern meaning of ‘Ecclesiastes’ or the ‘Ecclesia’—an institutional understanding of ‘gathering’ or merely something that pertains to Church; (It will become clear later, but let me say now, that the message of Qohelet could never pertain to any assembly or institution!) if Qohelet were emphasizing an individual perspective about individuals and for individuals ‘Ecclesiastes’ would force a new and very collective (yet singularly Christian) orientation.
Second, even if the author chose the title ‘Qohelet’ because of its connotation of a ‘gathering’ it would describe a very different ‘gathering’ than that of ‘Ecclesiastes’. For when we read Qohelet we find the author discussing the nature and situation of all men under the sun. As a solitary voice, the author discusses the plight of mankind with wisdom from his personal experience. This emphasis of mankind is a very different type of ‘gathering’ than the connotation of a Church gathering.
Now, as we move on I will use ‘Qohelet’ as title, keeping in mind both issues just discussed. This title will help us remember an important theme in Qohelet; that the author is, on the one hand, a solitary individual with his experiences and wisdom and vanity and weariness and, on the other hand, is addressing a gathering of all men under the sun. Furthermore, the whole message of Qohelet can be understood, because it pertains to the author, to pertain to all of mankind. It is universally existential.
All is Vanity and Striving after the Wind
The first words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem are, “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity.”
We are confronted here with the beginning and the end of Qohelet. Vanity is a theme that permeates the entire book. It is absolute in its dominion over men’s actions and intentions. Vanity is without categories or distinctions. Qohelet presents us with a picture of reality in which all is vanity.
Vanity, the Hebrew word hebel, literally means vapor, smoke, breath; a thing of insubstantial material, a thing that does not last, a thing that can be chased but never caught, emptiness. But the word Vanity seems to capture more of Qohelet’s desired meaning. For Vanity, as it is used in English, connotes self-pride along with emptiness. Thus we see in Qohelet that all of man’s strivings are not only emptiness but also self-pride. (This dual meaning fits very nicely with the overall message of Qohelet, as we will see later.) As Qohelet states, the strivings of man are not merely Vanity but also a “striving after the wind”.
As with Vanity, the wind plays an important role in Qohelet. It becomes Qohelet’s preferred metaphor to describe mans striving for material, riches, wisdom, etc. but it also represents a type of parallel with man himself. Not only is the objects of man’s striving similar to striving after the wind but man begins to take on the very character of the wind. This could very well be why Qohelet includes Vanity and striving after the wind. When Qohelet describes the character of wind,
“Blowing toward the south, then turning toward the north, the wind continues swirling along; and on its circular courses the wind returns.” (ln. 12-15)
we cannot help but see a parallel with man’s character as he continually seeks new pleasures and works. This parallel becomes more apparent when Qohelet describes the character of himself as,
“I enlarged my works: I built houses for myself, I planted vineyards for myself; I made gardens and parks for myself and I planted in them all kinds of fruit trees; I made ponds of water for myself from which to irrigate a forest of growing trees...All that my eyes desired I did not refuse them I did not withhold my heart from any pleasure...Thus I considered all my activities which my hands had done and the labor which I had exerted, and behold all was vanity and striving after wind and there was no profit under the sun.” (ln. 57-72)
Here we see the author as blowing toward the south for one pleasure then turning toward the north for another pleasure, swirling all around and finally returning to Qohelet’s continual realization that all is vanity.
The picture, then, of Vanity and the wind present us with a simple yet insightful picture of man’s unsettled, anxious, striving nature.
Vanity shows the emptiness of self-pride and the fleetingness of being under the sun and the wind describes the illusiveness of the object of man’s striving as well as the character of that striving.
Under the Sun
To understand the full significance of Vanity in Qohelet we need to take one step further. As I have argued, Vanity has no categories or distinctions. But now we will see that it has one limitation. In Reason for Being Jacques Ellul helpfully identifies this limitation when he writes, “Everything, under the sun, is enclosed within the category of Vanity.” (Ellul, 58) Ellul points out that Vanity’s limit is its domain—under the sun. Ellul’s point is to show that within the domain of under the sun Vanity rules over the works of men. This is quite apparent in Qohelet.
Qohelet introduces the realm in which he is discussing, “I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and striving after wind.” (ln. 38-39) Like Ellul, Qohelet is careful to distinguish and limit Vanity and striving after wind to their proper domain of under the sun.
Having identified the domain of under the sun we raise a number of new questions. We are now slipping quickly into the most difficult (and possibly most central) issue in Qohelet; a profound paradox has now appeared.
What type of domain is under the sun?
Qohelet says, “There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven.” (ln. 106-107) He goes on to describe a time to give birth and a time to die, a time to plant and time to uproot what is planted, a time to kill and a time to heal, etc. This well-known poem that appears in Qohelet describes the servitude of man to Time. This is an extremely important moment in Qohelet. Here the author describes that whatever a man may do, whether it be wage war or make peace, he is within the noose of Time. Put very simply, the domain of under the sun is the temporal.
We can see the significance of Qohelet’s use of under the sun. For, in the ancient world as in our own day the one great measure of time is the sun! Whatever works a man does he stands under an ever-moving sun—marking the march of Time—ever reminding the man that he is within the domain of the temporal—the domain of the fleeting—of Vanity.
Thus, just as there is a time for five o’clock and a time for six o’clock and a time for twelve o’clock so is there a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build up, a time to weep and a time to laugh. All marks the progress of time. As is the sun’s reminder of the temporal. And each work of man simply signifies another minute mark within the temporal, the fleeting, the passing, the domain within time. Qohelet says that this march of time is ever towards the final days of a man’s life,
“For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust.” (ln. 141-145)
Qohelet has not only placed man within the temporal—but has properly discussed the great mark of anything temporal—its ending. It is easy to now imagine Qohelet’s continual return to calling the strivings of man Vanity and striving after wind. For no matter what works a man enacts, it is only for a moment. Then it slips away from him or he slips away from it.
Is this Qohelet’s message? Man is temporal, all his work is Vanity and striving after the wind? A totally pessimistic outlook on existence? This is the message for existence under the sun.
But Qohelet describes another domain; one that does not fall subject to the sun’s march of time or vanity or the fleetingly insubstantial of the temporal.
The Gift of God for Temporal Man
“I have seen the task which God has given the sons of men with which to occupy themselves. He has made everything appropriate in its time {but} he has also set eternity in their heart...” (ln. 124-127)
In all of Qohelet there is no other verse that discusses this ‘eternity in their heart’ but I believe it to be one of the more important existential points in the whole work. Take note how Qohelet places the ‘eternity in their heart’ in contrast to ‘everything appropriate in its time’. He maintains a temporal man but has added eternity to this man’s character that, we will see, enables man to have a posture towards existence that is decidedly not pessimistic.
The man with eternity in his heart remains under the sun. This much is certain for Qohelet says, “...he has also set eternity in their heart, yet so, that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.” (ln. 126-128) Here we see that even with eternity in his heart man does not step outside of Time or the temporal to join God in the infinite. Yet, despite this, Qohelet shows how a different posture towards existence can be obtained when the man with the eternal in his heart views ‘everything appropriate in its time’ as a gift from God.
“I know that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice and to do good in one’s lifetime; moreover, that every man who eats and drinks sees good in all his labor—it is the gift of God.” (ln. 129-131)
But if Qohelet, speaking of the gathering of all mankind under sun, is truthful and correct in his description of man’s nature as temporal with the eternal in his heart, then we begin to see the paradox (All is Vanity! vs. eat, drink and be merry!) fleshed out.
When man stakes his happiness on his works under the sun,
“All a man’s labor is for his mouth and yet the appetite is not satisfied.” (ln. 244)
When man stakes his happiness on the works given by God,
“For who can eat and who can have enjoyment without Him?” (ln. 100)
And finally we see the posture that Qohelet is describing. On the one hand, we see a man who is trying to find happiness in his own self-pride but is only chasing after the wind. This man finds only Vanity but, with the character of wind, continually seeks new pleasures, swirling around North and South and finally back again and always under the watchful eye of the very sun that this man is trying to avoid.
On the other hand, we see a man who has accepted that all is indeed Vanity under the sun and yet realizes that a good God gives him gifts that make a temporal, fleeting life more substantial. He has obtained something more than vapor and smoke.
This seems to be the central duality in Qohelet. (And to think that some commentators argue that Ecclesiastes was written by two authors!)

Wisdom and Remembrance
This essay has not yet dealt with two very important themes in Qohelet—Wisdom and Remembrance. I will quickly describe the role that each seems to be playing.
Two distinct types of Wisdom immerge in Qohelet.
The first type of Wisdom is discussed early in the book when the author is telling of when he was staking his happiness on his own works under the sun. Like all of the other strivings of this kind the Qohelet writes,
“And I set my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly; I realized that this also is striving after wind. Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain.” (ln. 45-48)
Later in the work, after Qohelet has discussed the happiness that occurs when a man stakes his happiness on the works given by God he writes,
“So I said, “Wisdom is better than strength.”...The words of the wise heard in quietness are better than shouting of a ruler among fools. Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good.” (401, 406)
Seeking wisdom as an end in itself caused ‘much grief’ for it was simply another empty Vanity of self-pride. But when Qohelet used wisdom to see more clearly into the nature of man and the world he exalts wisdom. In this sense, it is the wisdom of Qohelet that makes it so compelling.
Finally, as a conclusion, we will look at Qohelet’s final exhortation—remember God.
We can rightfully ask, how can the temporal man of self-pride turn towards his inner eternal heart and gain the appropriate posture towards life?
Qohelet answers with,
“Remember Him before the silver cord is broken and the golden bowl is crushed, the pitcher by the well is shattered and the wheel at the cistern is crushed; then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.” (ln. 486-489)

“Vanity of vanities,” says the Preacher, “all is vanity!”

Leaving Eva

The waiter brought a picture of water to the table and poured into each glass.
“ Practically every conversation that I have had on the subject ends with me feeling a sense of arrogant emptiness.”
Church stopped talking when the waiter, a man with dark skin reached into his apron and produced a pen and a small note pad.
“Whisky sour and some bread; rye if you have it.”
I smiled at the waiter and asked for a plate of olives and some tonic.
Eva passed and the other two fellows at the table ordered Mexican beer.
The cafe was not crowded. Although the tables were starting to fill as evening thirst prompted a strike.
“I feel that he was trying to fit his ideals into a box. I don’t think that they all fit so he just kept on trying cram them in while picking up the pieces that had overflowed and re-stuffing.”
“It wasn’t a lack of practice. He was merely starting from the wrong point; a total lack of clear foundations. His only solid grounding was assumptions. That was my problem, I just didn’t agree with his statement that man is inherently evil and destructive.”
Eva was quiet as she listened. She smiled at me from across the table and sipped at her water.
“Are you trying to stay interested,” I said to her.
“I am interested. I just wish I understood more of the lecture.”
“You didn’t miss much. It wasn’t very good.”
“I liked the part where he said that the only way for people to gain perfection was for them to metabolize nature’s order. It made me picture all of us standing in the woods or by a lake or something and the trees and grass and water just sort of seeping into our bodies.”
“Would it seep through our skin or into our mouths?” asked Church.
“I don’t know, I think through our skin. It would be seeping right through our pores. Into our arms and legs. Even little animals would start to be pulled into us, getting more scrunched the closer they got to us until they became like dust. Then they would just slip right into us, and we would be made perfect.
“What a wonderful thought,” said one of the guys, whose name I don’t remember.
Our food and drinks arrived and we talked about the summer and what we were all going to be doing.
I noticed a slight, blonde girl sitting by herself in the corner. She had a coffee and a book and was reading with her feet up on her chair. I wished that I could make her mine. Take her home with me and watch her read by my bedroom window in the morning.
I always slept with the window open during those nights. It was still cool enough to make my room feel fresh.
Eva nudged me under the table. She wanted to leave.
We paid and left the rest of them. The evening was warm and the street was full of people going into bars and cafes, or leaving from one dinner spot to get drinks at some other place.
On the sidewalk Eva stopped walking and put her hand on my shoulder.
“What are we doing,” she said.
“What do you mean?”
“Is this working?”
“Yes.”
“I think things are slipping.”
“What are you talking about?”
“Don’t raise your voice.”
“Sorry, I just...”
“I feel like you checked out in there. Like you left. I have been seeing you do that a lot lately.”
“I thought the conversation was boring and pretentious.”
“No, you left. You went somewhere.”
“Oh Jesus.”
“You’re forgetting about me. Last week you talked about braking things off casually like it meant nothing to you.”
Eva was looking straight at me. Her voice was straight and sure.
“Maybe things are not working,” I said, “maybe we should stop.”
“Ok.”
When I heard her say it my eyes flooded with tears.
“If I was a soldier and I went to war, I would be thinking of you. I would be waiting to come back and see you,” I choked, “I don’t want to end this.”
It was a stupid thought and I don’t know where it came from. I needed a reference point. I needed something to push of off, to make sense of the calm and the unfeeling. She held my head on her shoulder and I sobbed for the first time in years. We walked close on the way home.

The Only Moment We Were Alone

Scene 1: Driving in the country.

We see the reflection of a little boys face on the inside of the car window. It is early morning. The green country flashes by. The car meanders through green hills and lightly forested patches between farmhouses and large plots. We watch the country pass by from the inside of the car. The car turns into a driveway. The car stops and we hear a deep voice from the driver seat.

“This is my stop? Can you walk the rest of the way?”

The boy nods.

“That address should be right down the road.”

“Thank you.”

Emotionless the little boy gets out of the car with a large bag and stands by the side of the road while the vehicle drives off down a gravel driveway. He remains standing for a few seconds and then walks down the road. He is well bundled. It is cold.

Scene 2: Small bedroom—well lit by the morning light.

We see a man sitting on the side of the bed well dressed. He sits far up near the headrest and behind lies a woman on her side. The covers are pulled down to her waist and she is turned away from the man who is sitting. He is bent down tying a shoe. He finishes and leans around to say.

“I will be back tomorrow morning.”

He stands and walks out of our sight though we can hear him in the room still. The camera stays focused on the woman. From somewhere in the room he speaks.

“Do you fell like coming”?

We see her face close up. Without turning her head she speaks.

“I can’t…I don’t feel like being around people…and my head is pounding.”

He stoops and kisses her on the cheek and says goodbye. As he heads to the door we close back in on her face and she speaks.

“Tell them that I have the flu or something.”

He is standing in the doorway and speaks.

“Don’t worry about it…love you.”

She pulls herself up in bed.

“Love you too.”

Scene 3: Where a long driveway meets the road.

A nice car drives down the driveway and stops before the road. He jumps out of the car and goes to a mailbox in a long row of mailboxes. He opens the box and takes out a few letters. He glances through a handful of mail before getting back into the car and pulling out onto the street. As he pulls away we see the boy from scene one walking down the road towards us. We wait and watch until he is close. He stops by the same row of country mailboxes and walks along them and then stops looking at one in particular. We cannot see which one. He looks around at a few scattered driveways in the general vicinity and then walks down one of them.

Scene 4: The front porch of a farmhouse.

The boy is standing on the porch of a farmhouse. The boy knocks and is greeted by the barking of dogs. The door is opened and two dogs run out and an old man walks onto the porch. He looks curiously at the boy. The boy quickly realizes his error. We can see this in his face. We see a combination of disappointment and embarrassment. The boy speaks.

“Um…I came down the wrong driveway.”

The man squints at the boy and speaks.

“Who are you looking for”?

“Sissy Martin’s house.”

“The Martins just live the next property over.”

Turning to leave the boy mumbles.

“Thanks.”

As he starts walking back down the steps the man follows him out on the porch and calls to the boy.

“You can walk right across the field to the Martins from here. It’s better than having you walking along that road.”

The boy looks across the field the man is referring to without looking back at the man.

Scene 5: In the kitchen

The woman from scene two is Sissy Martin and she is sitting in her pajamas and shawl in her kitchen drinking a cup of coffee and reading the paper. She finishes her cup and walks to the counter to fill it up with more coffee. She adds some cream and a bit of sugar spilling some of the sugar onto the counter. She takes a sip of the coffee and then licks one finger and proceeds to dab the sugar on the counter and lick it off. She seems preoccupied.

Scene 6: From a distance we see the old man and the boy walking along some trees in a field toward us. The man has put on a warm coat and towers over the boy. As they walk the old man stops and points down at the grass.

“Here you can see where the deer have been sleeping. See how the grass is matted on the ground. They all slept close together last night. It was cold. But with all there bodies next to each other they probably stayed plenty warm.”

The boy listens intently and looks down at the grass where the man points. The man stands and speaks. He has a walking stick and uses it to outline the as he speaks.

“Here you had a couple fawns and here is where the doe slept all curled up around them.”

“Is the doe the dad or the mom”?

“The doe is the mother.”

“Where did the dad sleep”?

“Not here. He was somewhere deep in the woods. Or else on someone’s wall.”

The old man winks and the two walk further on.

“I saw a deer on the side of the road today. It was dead.”

“The animals don’t understand roads and cars. They live much slower lives.”


Scene 7: The old man and boy walk up to the Martin’s house. The old man knocks on the door and Sissy answers the door. She is obviously very surprised to see the little boy. The old man speaks.

“We took the shortcut through the field and your brother gave me some exercise.”

The boy speaks to Sissy.

“I went to his house when I was looking for yours.”

“Thank you for walking him Gabe.”

“No problem, see ya soon. Nice to meet you son.”

The boy smiles and then Sissy tells the boy to come inside with her.

Scene 8: The inside of the front door.

Sissy gets down on her knees and embraces the boy. We see her face over the boys shoulder.

“I am glad to see you…how did you get here?”

He pulls a letter from his pocket. It is folded up and crumpled.

“I new the address because of the letter you sent me on my birthday. I showed it to the man that drove me here.”

“Honey, why didn’t mom and dad just drive you”?

“I asked them a hundred times but they always said they couldn’t.”

“Did they know you came?”

The boy doesn’t say anything and looks as though he is about to be scolded.

“Oh…well, my little runaway, do you want something to eat”?

“I brought my own food.”

Scene 9:

They both sit facing each other at the table. Sissy leans over the table at the boy and he sits slumped in the opposite chair with his feet dangling above the floor. He is eating little chocolate chip cookies from out of a bag.

The boy has been talking and finishes a story through a mouthful of cookie.

“…but we went to see Cassy’s dance recital last night. Dad couldn’t come because he was tired and Mom had to stay home with Adam because he has chicken pox so my friend Ben’s mom picked me and Cassy up for the recital. And afterward Ben’s mom bought us all ice cream on the way home.”

As he finishes talking he pulls a container of pills out of his bag and opens it, gets a pill out and takes hold of his glass of milk. Sissy takes the container and inspects it while he takes a pill.

“What are these for”?

“I am supposed take one after I eat lunch and dinner. Mom said it is for my depression.”

“Your depression? Why are you depressed”?

He answers uncaring and unconcerned as if depression was just another word for hay fever.

“I don’t know.”

The phone rings and Sissy stands up and answers it. It is her husband and we hear.

“Hi—I’m fine—well don’t worry I actually have some company, Simon just stopped by. No—my brother.
Nope—just him.
He hitched a ride.
No—more like Tom Sawyer.
Were fine—call me when you get there and I will talk to you then. Love you too. Bye.”

She sits back down.

“Peter says hi.”

He nods. There is some silence.

“I want to come live here with you and Peter.”

“Why”?

“I just want to.”

“I think mom and dad would miss you.”

“You don’t really come over very much.”

“Well we get pretty busy.”

“But what about at Christmas.”

“Sometimes mom and dad have their own plans.”

“Do you like mom and dad”?

“Of course.”

“I don’t like them. That is why I ran away.”

This has obviously affected Sissy. She is becoming visibly emotional and this last comment can be seen in features and in her eyes. She starts to speak, though she is very emotional. She is holding back much anger.

“Sometimes they can be a little hard on all the kids. But they love you very much.”

When she speaks the last sentence she doesn’t believe it though she knows it is all she can say. Outside the sound of a car pulls up. Sissy stands and looks out the window. She looks back at Simon.

Scene 10: Outside the house on the porch.

Sissy stands with Simon. A woman gets out of the driver side and a young girl gets out of the passenger. The little girl runs up to Sissy and hugs her. The little girl speaks to Simon.

“I had to tell.”

Simon is emotionless as he was in the beginning. The woman walks up.

“You are in huge trouble. You do not run off and not tell anyone. You could have been hurt. Go get in the car.”

Sissy has shut down in the presence of her mother but speaks.

“His stuff is in the house.”

The mother speaks.

“Go get your things and get in the car.”

Simon turns and walks inside. The mother continues to talk.

“I don’t know what he was thinking. His councilor said that he seemed very angry and depressed lately. Did you tell him he could come here on his own”?

“No. I think he just wanted to see me.”

“Well, he can see you when it doesn’t involve running away. It wouldn’t hurt if you and Peter came by every ones in a while. Were only fifteen minutes away.”

“I know. We have both been busy with work.”

Simon has come back out on the porch. The phone inside is ringing and Simon looks up at Sissy.

“I can answer it.”

“It’s ok. We’ll let the answering machine get it.

“Go get in the car. You too Cassy.”

Sissy kneels down and hugs Simon and kisses him on the forehead.

“I am glad that I saw you. Next time call me and I can come pick you up.”

The two children go get in the car.

“Mom, why is Simon on antidepressants?”

“Because he is depressed and has a serious anger problem.”

“He is too young to be on drugs. They will mess with his little emotions.”

“Thanks, I’ll be the mother. He’s not ok. He needs something to balance him out. He was diagnosed with A.D.D. and the councilor is concerned that he might by manic.”

“Jesus Christ…he is ten years old.”

“I don’t need to argue about it. He is doing much better now that he is on the medication. It would have probably helped you when you were his age. You were the same way, always moping around one second and then off the walls the next.”

“Well that would have been easier for everyone.”

“What”?

“Never mind. Sorry you had to drive out here and get him.”

“It’s nothing. It’s just that we have been worried sick. I better go.”

“OK, bye.”

Awkward hug.

They pull out of the driveway and Sissy walks back inside. She hits the button on the answering machine. The message is from her husband Peter.

“Hey babe. Just wanted to see what you and Simon were up to. I will be at my folks in about an hour and will give you a ring. Love you. Wish you were here. Bye”

Sissy walks to the kitchen table and sits down in the chair that Simon was sitting at and eats a cookie. The boy left the bag on the table.

Cut to black

The Culverhouse

I found this sonnet in an old notebook. It was written about ten years ago.

God's acre had an extra room for rent,
But I–like Lazarus–had softer dreams
To Abraham's bosom I wouldn't be sent,
Nor to Pandemonium's burning scenes
I wouldn't leave my blowen or my rum
My feet would feel neither warmth nor witch bones
Now they feel the soft bog of Graveyard scum,
As I approach the basilisk grave stone
I stiffen at the shoulder of stone fate
The virgin side left behind–the dark kind
Where I see my name on the chiseled slate
The truth–a tormenting surfaced design
And now I feel the dirt beneath my back,
In a long dark hole–within a body sack

On Diversions and Freedoms

I finished this essay yesterday afternoon and am glad to be done.


This paper seeks to clarify two important types of freedom that occur within a larger discussion of diversions in Jacque Ellul’s writings. In the end, the spiritual importance of correctly identifying these two freedoms will be apparent. Additionally, diversions will be shown to be the most dangerous ramification of the technological society with regards to an individual’s soul.
Diversions are a difficult topic to discuss. Partly because one must understand what is being diverted from and to. However, Ellul presents an extremely broad definition of diversions that is very helpful in understanding the term within Ellul’s narrow context of the spiritual health of an individual within the technological society.
Ellul derives his notion of diversions directly from Pascal’s Pensées.
“With diversions we take a giant stride along the path of abstraction and addiction by means of the technical society and fascination. We are referring to diversions not just in the sense of amusement but in the sense of Pascal: being diverted from thinking about ourselves and our human condition, and also from our high aspirations, from the meaning of life and from loftier goals.” (Bluff, 358)
With reference to “referring to diversions not just in the sense of amusement”, Ellul notes that Pascal considered his pursuit of Algebra to be this kind of diversion. Amusements, which we can easily understand as diversions, join the ranks of an almost infinitely broad definition. Anything can be this kind of diversion. The term simply becomes a placeholder for everything that an individual could use to divert himself.
Let this definition of diversions suffice. We will return to discuss the psychology of man’s diverting and the existential place he diverts from, but first we must understand the role that the technological society plays in the success of diversions.
There are two main factors for this success.
In Propaganda Ellul describes the Western man within the technological society.
“Above all he is a victim of emptiness—he is a man devoid of meaning. He is very busy, but he is emotionally empty, open to all entreaties and in search of only one thing—something to fill his inner void. To fill this void he goes to the movies—only a very temporary remedy...He is available...He is the lonely man...” (Propaganda, 147)
It is ultimately this availability and loneliness that Ellul sees to be at the heart of a man’s susceptibility to propaganda. But Ellul finds man’s emptiness to be at the very heart of modern human condition. It is from this emptiness—to fill the void—which man seeks diversions such as the movie.
Thus, the first factor in diversions success stems from the modern human condition.
The second factor can be found in technology.
Technology’s role in the success of diversions comes in the form of choices.
“Naturally, modern man can choose from a hundred automobile makes and a thousand kinds of cloth—i.e., he can choose products. On the level of consuming, the range of choice is vaster. But on the level of the role in the body social, on the level of functions and behaviors, there is a considerable reduction. The choice among technological objects is not of the same nature as the choice of human conduct...The ‘either/or’ refers to ‘either the car or the TV.’” (System, 321)
This issue of choices plays an important role in the success of diversions for Ellul. Without choices a man would be lost for distractions because diversion contains a necessary dissipation.
“...one diversion quickly has to replace another. We jump endlessly from diversion to diversion without stopping, without stepping aside, without realizing what we are doing...And thanks to technique our society has now made this possible for the first time in history.” (Bluff, 359)
In the technological society our empty, void filling man now has limitless options to divert himself with. The success of diversions finds full fruition.
Up until now we have not spoken of freedoms. But with Ellul’s notion of choices and diversions clearly understood we can move on to define the first type of freedom.
A new definition of freedom exists in the technological society. As discussed, it is a freedom of choices. However, there are some important psychological elements of this freedom that deserve discussion.
“First of all, freedom is no necessarily having lots of consumer goods to choose from.” (System, 320)
As an example, Ellul discusses the freedom of marriage. He argues that within the technological system a proponent of “free-love” is not avowing their freedom but is merely reducing marriage and their partner to a mere “object of satisfaction”—no different than any commercial choice. He argues that such a “choice” is nothing “other than what the technological system proposes.” The technological system provides a complete redefining of freedom such that man thinks that he is free because of his choices, yet has become an addict of this perverted freedom and the choices of diversions.
“Things that are only diversions are declared by the authorities and the media to be an enhancement of freedom...Do we not see that we are overwhelmed by freedom?...For diversions are always against freedom inasmuch as they are against conscience and reflection.” (Bluff, 359)
This first kind of freedom is the technological freedom. It is no longer concerned with the existential necessity of choice but merely with kinds of choices. Litanies of choices are presented to the man yet the kinds of choices have been selected by the ideals of the technological society.
Let us now turn our attention to the psychology of man’s diverting. Then the second type of freedom will become clear.
Ellul doesn’t explicitly describe the cause of man’s desire to divert. However, throughout his discussion of diversion he continually describes the modern man as defined by emptiness and loneliness and then turns to Pascal for his definition of diversions. Pascal, conversely, spends a good deal of time delving deeply into the existential place that man seeks to divert from. Like Ellul, we will turn to the Pensées for further help.
“...The only thing which consoles us for our miseries is diversion, and yet this is the greatest of our miseries. For it is this which principally hinders us from reflecting upon ourselves and which makes us insensibly ruin ourselves. Without this we should be in a state of weariness, and this weariness would spur us to seek a more solid means of escaping from it. But diversion amuses us, and leads us unconsciously to death.” (Pascal, #171)
Like Ellul, Pascal describes man, when not distracted, as ultimately empty. This emptiness and wariness stems from Pascal’s notion that when a man turns inward to his soul he finds the Christian notion of brokenness. Pascal understands man to rightfully and inherently want to escape from this brokenness (“a more solid means of escaping from it”). This solid means, for Pascal, is ultimately the choice of faith and the acceptance of the message of Jesus. Conversely, diversions allow a man to have a momentary surrogate of escape. Yet this surrogate fulfills in man his desire to escape his condition but ultimately leads to avoidance.
Similarly, Ellul says, they “divert us from existential and essential truths and realities”. The deadly problem arises when man can constantly divert himself from confrontation with his broken nature. He can live eternally in a state of diverted escape. Within the technological society this kind of eternal escapism has become attainable and man can never search himself for questions of his existence or spiritual truths.
Ellul describes this fully with the example of video games.
“I am firmly convinced that the whole system of technical games...is one of the most dangerous factors of tomorrow’s people and society. It leads us into an unreal world...this unreal world is not the one that is necessary for a day...which one returned at once to real life. The unreal world here is one of fantasy from which there is no longer any reason to return...like an addiction...They divert us radically from any preoccupation with meaning, truth or values...this is for me the greatest danger that threatens us as a result of technical development.” (Bluff, 364-365)
The second type of freedom can now be discussed. We have come to understand the technical freedom as very antithetical to existential choices. Technical freedom presents man with an abundance of choices yet has sealed man off from any type of important choice. This notion of existential choice will compose our second type of freedom. We call it existential freedom.
“How could this human being...sovereignly perform what is expected of him: i.e., make choices, judgments...How and in terms of what could he give a different direction...than the one that technology gives itself...?” (System, 325)
It is clear how thinkers like Pascal or Kierkegaard would respond to Ellul’s question. Separate from any society and independent of any technology, man must avoid distractions and diversions and turn inward; find that unseen existential place and see himself for what he truly is; a fallen man in need of the Lord Jesus Christ. From this existential place, a man then has the freedom to make the important choice to follow Christ.
But Ellul comes at the answer from a different direction. He clearly would agree with the model of these Christian existentialists but is not willing to make the pure move of individualism. He is not prepared to abandon Western man in his technological plight.
Ellul’s existential freedom is simply the need for the Western man to realize that he has lost all freedom.
“If we have any chance of emerging from this ideologico-material vice, of finding an exit from this terrible swamp that is ours, above all things we must avoid the mistake of thinking that we are free. If we launch out into the skies convinced that we have infinite resources and that in the last resort we are free to choose our destiny, to choose between good and evil, to choose among the many possibilities that our thousands of technical gadgets make available...if we believe all that, then we are truly lost, for the only way to find a narrow passage...is to have enough awareness and self-criticism...to see that for a century we have been descending...we show our freedom by recognizing our nonfreedom.” (Bluff, 411)
This admittance is still deeply intertwined with the notion of diversions. For man cannot possibly face into his plight without first avoiding diversions and finding that existential place of self-criticizing. Ellul was clear about that earlier. But Ellul is a sociologist and more importantly he seems to care deeply about the Western man. He sees the working out of the individual’s turn inward to have ramifications beyond the individual’s spiritual health. He who is willing to grapple with existential questions and see that his very existential freedom has been replaced by technological freedom stands a fighting chance at helping to stop the onslaught of technology. This is Ellul’s hope.
Pascal concedes the most obvious problem with Ellul’s hope when he acutely defines man’s human condition to be one of constant escapism from truth. It is rare for a man to have the courage to pursue truth at this existential level. Man would find himself with a war on two fronts.
How can man ever have the courage to turn inward and fight a battle against technique?
Ellul understands this problem. It is thus not surprising that he couches man’s hope of fighting technology within man’s ability to overcome diversions and his desire to escape the truth. His response to this problem is one of hope.
In the last pages of The Technological Bluff we see a new Ellul. We are distanced from Ellul the doomsayer of The Technological Society and are introduced to Ellul the hopeful.
Ellul concedes that his description of technique in The Technological Society has been shown to be faulty. His original excavation of modern society showed that “Technique integrates everything. It avoids shock and sensational events...The anxiety aroused in man by the turbulence of the machine is soothed by the consoling hum of a unified society.” (Society, 6)
Ellul describes how technique has not provided the technological society with the stability and planning and efficiency but has actually left “a margin of chaos, it covers gaps without filling them, it gives evidence of mistakes, and it has to multiply deceptions to veil the absence of feedback in the system.” (Bluff, 412) This is the technological bluff. The promises of technique have not been fulfilled. In a sense, these “gaps” in the system are new to the Ellul of The Technological Society.
And like the archer who found Achilles’ weakness, and with renewed hope, Ellul pounces on his enemy.
“We must be prepared to reveal the fracture lines and to discover that everything depends on the qualities of individuals...we, profit from the existence of little cracks of freedom, and install in them a trembling freedom which is not attributed to or mediated by machines...but which is truly effective, so that we may truly invent the new thing for which humanity is waiting.” (Bluff, 412)
He finds his hope of victory in the individual. It can be assumed that he demands that this individual be capable of formulating the necessary existential decisions to be able to accurately understand freedom within the technological society.

Kierkegaard Again

This paper is less of a rigorous exegesis. It is more of my personal attempt to work through Postscripts and come to some final conclusions regarding the significance of Kierkegaard. My essay loosely follows a paragraph from this term—although not chronologically, as a reference point to my overall discussion of Kierkegaard’s larger project.

As soon as it is remembered that philosophizing is not speaking fantastically to fantastical beings but speaking to existing individuals, consequently that a decision about whether a continued striving is somewhat inferior to systematic conclusiveness is not to be made fantastically in abstracto, but that the question is what existing beings have to be satisfied with insofar as they are existing—then the continued striving will be unique in not involving illusion. Even if a person has achieved the highest, the repetition by which he must indeed fill out his existence, if he is not to go backward (or become a fantastical being), will again be a continued striving, because here in turn the conclusiveness is moved ahead and postponed. This is just like the Platonic conception of love; it is a want, and not only does that person feel a want who craves something he does not have but also that person who desires the continued possession of what he has. In the system and in the fifth act of the drama, one has a positive conclusiveness speculatively-fantastically and esthetically-fantastically, but such a conclusiveness is only for fantastical beings. [K. 121 ]


It took me a long time to understand why I find Kierkegaard so profound. In the beginning I thought this profundity lay in his uncanny ability to decipher and communicate the Biblical worldview. However, this (not to diminish its insightful importance) was not the cause of my awe. In the end, the reason for my deep respect for Kierkegaard (and the further thesis of this little paper) was due to his valiant and successful attempt to correctly diagnose the most essential human problem.
I chose a paragraph from Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific Postscripts to Philosophical Fragments that highlights his diagnosis.
This chosen paragraph is concerned with the issue of “continued striving” versus “systematic conclusiveness”. However, amidst the central concern, this paragraph also states “...but that the question is what existing beings have to be satisfied with insofar as they are existing...”, which seems to be the issue at the heart of most of Kierkegaard’s vast issues and themes.
I will loosely exegete this paragraph and then discuss the issue of “human satisfaction”.
For Kierkegaard, the Hegelian dominated intellectual environment in Denmark was concerned with a “finished system of thought”. This held true for Christian systems of thought to the extent that Truth became an abstract conclusion that was reached by abstract philosophizing. Somewhere in the mix, Kierkegaard witnessed the systematizers finding personal completion in their philosophical systems. The real rub for Kierkegaard was the psychology of this personal completion. He was not simply watching the spiritually harmless yet nonetheless arrogant rants of intellectual types. He was witnessing individual human beings find a replacement for faith.
The system had replaced Faith. The desire for philosophic elegance (completion) had bled into the very core of the philosophers themselves. In Kierkegaard’s eyes, these men had forgotten how to exist. They were no longer satisfied with the longing for eternity that leaves a person with nothing other than longing itself. They wanted to find that end here and now.
The systematizer has let one foot over the edge of the swimming pool and found the water a bit cold. He built himself a sauna and sat snug in a cedar corner. In the morning, the systematizer told his children and wife that he had a riveting swim the previous day—and he believed it himself.
It is important to recognize the way in which Kierkegaard is using the tool of philosophy. Unlike his Hegelian counterparts, Kierkegaard has appealed to philosophy as a tool to communicate truths to “existing” people. This results in Kierkegaard’s noticeable divergence from abstract or metaphysical speculation. His philosophy is a constant dialectic attempt to remind his readership of ethical responsibility; to describe what should satisfy a Christian.

This problem of “satisfaction” is perhaps the most profound and foundational issue in Kierkegaard. It is the thing that Kierkegaard sees standing between an individual person and the choice of faith. Earthly satisfaction is especially dangerous because it works like a surrogate for the continued striving towards eternal satisfaction. This proxy lies at the heart of most of Kierkegaard’s problems.
The man who is dissatisfied with the longing for eternal ends turns to the solid and worldly completed systems. He turns to historicity. He turns to dogma. If his true existence is to seek and long after a world that is only a death away, then this man ceases to exist. Kierkegaard’s project was to wake the man from his sleep. If this sleepiness was a mark, it is the mark of my society and my person.
My Christian life is a constant struggle to keep myself awake—to keep myself from devoting myself to a mimic of Truth, an illusion of God or a puppet-Jesus. This is the human problem that Kierkegaard has keenly diagnosed. Kierkegaard has rightly defined a problem that exists outside of his own time.
His answer to the dissatisfied man is a type of contentment with dissatisfaction that manifests itself in the form of longing.
He describes a type of chaotic contentment that is the mark of a believer. This contentment is on the one hand a quiet spirit, though constantly churning and seeking and longing. It is not a sleepy contentment—this “sleep” is reserved for the systematizer.
The Christian longs for eternal satisfaction and is content with the incompleteness of this temporal life. But the Christian has the slightest taste of that eternity here in the temporal. This is the great paradox for Kierkegaard. How does man live in the incomplete with the knowledge and desire for the complete? Kierkegaard promotes walking that line carefully, never allowing oneself to get tired of the longing and find surrogate feelings of completeness here in the temporal. This surrogate is, in essence, what Kierkegaard means by Objective; whereas the Subjective, is the turning inward towards the paradox, recognizing that existence is a paradox and living amidst these two opposite forces with diligence.
The only way for a man to comprehend this paradox is to turn inward and find that little, tiny piece of the eternal in his stomach. When a man finds this tidbit and tastes it, he realizes that he is a half-man; half temporal and half eternal; a creature designed for an eternal place but stuck in a temporal holding facility. This realization can cause the man to pretend that the holding facility is really the end in and of itself, or, he can exist in longing. He can choose to exist in longing. He can leap out of one category of existence and into another. Though he may still walk the same streets as a thousand other men, he is no longer exists in the same category. He has left the aesthetic and entered the ethical. He has realized that there is no bridge between the aesthetic and ethical. They are infinitely separated from one another. They are qualitatively different. The man realizes that he has not slid or walked or thought or argued or been argued into this strange new category; he has leaped there.
Then the man realizes that this new category is not new at all. It is actually very old. It is more real. This type of existence if the foundation itself; it is existence.