It Is What It Is

This morning I was thinking about the contemporary mantra "It Is What It Is," and I revisited my previous post about it.

As logically ridiculous as this expression is, I find myself using it from time to time. It usually comes cascading out of my mouth after I have worked myself into a near-frenzy while emphatically and conclusively demonstrating that somehow what is, isn't. Or what is, isn't really, though maybe sometimes.

It's as if I try to convince myself to not trust reality. Rather, I must shift reality somehow. The thing about trying to shift reality is that it never works. But I keep doing it. It must be entertaining.

The theological equivalent of the statement "it is what it is" is "is is." We should be able to say just "is." But we need to somehow fortify or clarify, and so we say "is is" or "God is." There is no blank to fill in after "God is." At least not logically. We do say things like "God is love" to help explain what God is like. But theologically, there is no word after "God is."

This why I say "I believe in God," rather than "I believe in a God" or "I believe in the God." God is not a being. God is being.

Dualism, Monism

Quote of the day:
“So few members of the public show up to speak on agenda items that decisions often pass on consent...and are never discussed.”
--Reporter Alison St. John, talking about San Diego County Board of Supervisors meetings, at kpbs.org

The first place I started thinking about dualism was in graduate school. It’s too bad it came that late. I think this ought to be taught to kids in elementary school.

Two reasons. First, it’s a simple idea to grasp. Second, this idea underlies how we are usually taught to see the world, so being aware of it is essential to the development of critical thinking and a full spiritual life.

Dualism means the world is divided in two, as in yes/no, up/down, right/left, right/wrong, here/there, good/evil, man/woman, light/dark, alive/dead, fast/slow, begin/end, winner/loser, rich/poor, body/spirit, dude/nondude and so on.

We don’t see dualism. Yet it is implicit and embedded in virtually every culture and family.

It underlies every disagreement, conflict and war. It also underlies continuing and profound ignorance. All we need to do is divide things into the proper categories, and then we don’t have to think anymore.

We think dualistically because it is easy, and because it seems logical. After all, there is either being or nothingness. Right? And some things are right, while others are wrong. Right?

RIGHT?? HELLO! RIGHT???

No, wrong.

Just kidding.

Philosophically speaking, nothingness is inherent in being and vice-versa. That is, there is no being unless there is simultaneous and co-located nothingness. One cannot exist without its self-contained opposite, at the same instant and in the same place.

Same for right and wrong. It doesn’t mean that right and wrong don’t exist. Rather it is about how they exist.

A strong case can be made that the power of what Jesus taught came from his insight into this. Later, Paul may have been the one to “dualize,” especially dividing flesh and spirit and heaven and hell.

All this came up for me because of an article I read that was written by an atheist. Unlike most such articles (and those of fervent or fundamentalist believers), it is not simply an exercise in ridiculing or belittling.

With evangelical religion being so present in the political life of our nation and the world over the last several years, it’s natural that an equally dualistic backlash develops.  It is rare to come across a thoughtful response.

I encourage you to read this for some interesting thoughts on why dualistic, rules-based religion has been so important to so many in our culture.

2001: A Space Odyssey

Quote of the day:
“Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.”
--Andre Gide

Today is the 40th anniversary of the release of “2001: A Space Odyssey,” one of the most influential, important and controversial movies of all time.

When it came out, there was a huge buzz about the film, and people flocked to it. Many of those people came out of theatres shaking their heads and saying “huh?”

Stanley Kubrick’s “2001” is rightly celebrated for its groundbreaking special effects. But its plot and narrative style are highly unconventional and will always leave a lot of people baffled or bored.

There’s been a ton written on the movie’s possible symbolism and meaning, including in this very long but entertaining exchange. In other places, critics and viewers, while admiring the special effects, have been skeptical about the film itself. It’s been dismissed as ponderous, pretentious and opaque.

I saw “2001” shortly after it was released. I was amazed by the visuals, and blown away by the music. But I had no idea what it was about.

In the 1980s Merrie and I rented the VHS and watched it on our 19-inch RCA TV. We were bored out of our skulls--we turned it off before it was over. We realized much later than the film depends on both the immensity and subtlety of its visuals and its soundtrack. Thus it is impossible to grasp on a small grainy screen with a tinny-sounding speaker.

In truth, “2001” is a great work of art. Think about it. All great works of art are both highly affecting and subject to ongoing interpretation. Rarely do artists explain what their work means, once and for all.

I think it’s clear that the film does contain allusions to both Nietzsche’s “Thus Spake Zarathustra” and Homer’s “Odyssey.” Kubrick points to the former by using Richard Strauss’ “Also Sprach Zarathustra” as the movie’s theme. As for Homer, “Odyssey” is part of the movie’s title, so that’s not exactly a stretch.

A key to the film is that the dialogue is sparse and banal. That’s because the movie is not about our relationships with each other.

What is “2001” about? I’m not sure anyone can say definitively. Sure, it’s about our relationship with technology. But it’s also about our relationship with everything else.

To me, it is about the scope of human life and development in the context of an incomprehensibly vast universe--a universe so vast that it contains other lives beyond our imaginings.

It’s the hugest theme possible for a movie.

It Is What It Is

Quote of the day:
“Put your hands up.”
--Benny Benassi and the Biz

There was one cliche listed by the LA TImes on January 1st that I disagree with. I’m not sure it’s possible to disagree with a cliche. But what the heck.

“It is what it is” may be overused to the extent it can be called a cliche, but there is a very good reason it’s used so much.

Ontologically, the phrase is redundant. Saying just “it is” is all that’s necessary. “It is what it is” is just saying “it is” twice.

The LA Times said, “We defy anyone to explain how this phrase contributes anything to logic or language.” They are 100% correct. But it’s still not exactly a cliche.

It’s not a cliche because it is a necessary statement to some of us at different times in our lives. Why would a redundant, seemingly senseless statement be necessary?

It is necessary because, at times, we literally forget that something “is.” It may be deliberate, it may be unconscious, but we behave sometimes as if “it isn’t” or “it is, maybe.”

As a result, we need the redundant reminder that “it is what it is.” Or, the reverse, “it isn’t what it isn’t.”

What is not true, or at least illogical, is “it is what it isn’t.” Or “it isn’t what it is.” Both of these statements say simply “it isn’t,” which we know is not true because “it is.”

Or, if that goes over our heads, “it is what it is.”