The Sacred and The Fun

Recently I took part in a discussion with some fellow Putty Club members on one of the member's PhD dissertation, David Thompson, which was on, in simplistic terms, on what makes a place fun. He explained to us that fun is essentially a mechanism by which we deal with uncertainties. He also elaborated on play being "the is that isn't an is," or "the bite that isn't a bite." Put another way, by example, play is like a toy gun, which is a gun that isn't a gun. This was over a month ago, so I have had some time to contemplate these ideas. So let me try and simplify these, and hopefully do Dr. David's dissertation some justice, and work these ideas into some stuff I have been working on.

Fun as a mechanism against uncertainty: We live in uncertain times, that's for sure. Most people I know who have recently graduated from college are not working in their fields of study. A fashion design major working as a social worker; an architecture major working as a pizza chef; an electrical engineer working security; a nutritional scientist working as a bartender - these are all real examples of people I know. And it's not just the job market, it's the economy, housing, the future of internet, whether the US will swing socialist or fascist, et cetera. And how do we deal with these things? By various mechanisms that allow us to escape or cope with these uncertain times. These mechanisms may be drugs, nihilism, reborn Christian, protesting, or just straight-up fun.

David illustrated to us that the Arab Springs, OWS, the Tea Party, and Zombie Walks are all the same thing, the same movement. They are expressions of discontent with the current status quo, and Zombie Walks are a fun expression of discontent with uncertainties.

The is that isn't an is: If something is what it isn't, isn't that a metaphor? I've discussed play and fun with another fellow of Putty Club, Scott Sworts, and we both agree that play is a metaphor. Because John Doe runs fast, John is the wind. John Doe clearly isn't the wind, but he is the is that isn't the is. That's what metaphors are. Metaphors are expressions of complex ideas that have no concrete foundation for the idea in reality, and these abstract concepts are expressed in concrete notions that do exist, but they are what they are not. Lakoff discusses metaphors as such. To use a Lakoff example, love is a complex concept that is difficult to express, so it is expressed in concrete terms. We treat love as a container that we can be in and out of. "I am in love," "She has fallen out of love with Jim," et cetera. We also express love as physical chemistry: "They have chemistry," "He sparked when he met her," "There is friction between them," you get the point. It is the is that isn't an is. Zombie Walks are the dead that aren't dead. In a way, zombies are the dead that aren't dead.

These concepts parallel to what I have been working with: the sacred. I have yet to actual expel upon what I mean by the "sacred" in previous posts, so I will try to detail it here (apologies for previous vagueness). The sacred can be defined as an idea of authenticity, which is invoked due to a desire for authenticity. Why is the sacred concerned with authenticity? Because profane reality, profane time and space, is inauthentic; it is just copies of copies of copies of... To use a quasi-fallacious example, take a signature, which is supposed to be a demarcation of authenticity. How do we know a signature is authentic? We compare to other signatures. The signature is little more than a copy of a copy of a copy...

While that example may be considered a straw-man fallacy out of context, I will use Thomas Mann to clarify. In Joseph and His Brothers, Mann begins the tome with "Deep is the well of the past, should we not call it bottomless?" We can never be certain about the truth of the past. Ancient history might as well be considered speculative conjectures outside of written accounts. Even with written accounts we can never be certain of whether or not these accounts are given truthfully; is not history written by the victors? And is not ancient history written mythically as legends? So everything, even history, is uncertain and lacking objective authenticity.

When the sacred is invoked, usually in rituals and ceremonies (i.e. prayer, Mass, magic, pageants) are various forms of retelling or recreating the beginning; the beginning of time and creation. This is the most authentic point in reality, according to Eliade, as creation is fresh and uncorrupted. Creation is the point of origin, and the origin is the point from which all other things emanate; like the center of a circle, whereby the circumference may be drawn. Even in contemporary science we are confronted with myths on creation: equations, computer simulations, quantum probabilities, and theories that tell us how it all went down at the beginning. Our scientific knowledge of the beginning is just as inauthentic as Genesis when the face of God moved across the waters. This is why the sacred is invoked, so that the desire for the authentic might be expressed, thus created a break from profane, unauthentic reality.

By recreating or retelling myths of creation in some form or another we invoke the sacred. The opening of Masonic lodges is a recreation of the the beginning, as is Catholic Mass, or the preparation for an alchemical operation, or a baptism. These are all done with metaphors and as metaphors, because all a myth is, according to Roland Barthes, is a meta-language of truths that overlay the falsities of the spoken word. A myth is the falsehood that isn't false. On a very literal level the myth may be contradictory or flat-out false, but metaphorically they express truths, truths that are ideas of authenticity.

Myths are filled with ideologies, because ideologies are always something that tries to expel uncertainties. But, as Amparo in Foucault's Pendulum says, "It's an ideal principle, which can be verified only under ideal conditions. Which means never. But it's still true." Ideologies are just inauthentic as anything else, as are myths, and the sacred. What differentiates them is that they are a desire for something authentic.

But why is the sacred so special that it claims authenticity? How is religious institution any different from profane, cultural institution? Religion is a cultural institution, but it lays claim to unquestionable truths and authentic perceptions (this doesn't mean it is any more authentic than conspiracy theories, which is why it is a desire for the authentic, without actually being authentic). You can challenge and question the US Constitution because it is a profane cultural myth. You cannot question the Bible, a religious myth. It is possible to be a homosexual American. It isn't (supposed) to be possible to be a homosexual Christian. This is because you aren't supposed to change the Bible, but you can change the US law. Culture is simply a safeguard against whimsical changes that threaten customs, norms, and traditions.

Why is the invoking of the sacred a mechanism for dealing with reality? Well, just look at America after 9-11. Americans turned to God and church for consolation. Who turned to fun after 9-11? Were zombies the primary form of coping with uncertain times of terrorist threats? No. We sought the authentic by turning to God, Church, and mix it Country.

What ultimately differentiates the mechanism of invoking the sacred from the mechanism of fun is the sacred is an expression of authenticity against profane reality, while fun is an expression of dealing with uncertainties.  Fun and play challenge and express discontent toward uncertainties. The sacred expresses an idea of authenticity. They're not the same thing, but they parallel as mechanisms for coping with reality.