ryand, are you a Nihilist without an ethos, Dude? I couldn't post this over at the main essay at the Cafe, so this is mainly in response to Sam Schmitt's commentary there: As far as peanuts and crackerjack, have you been to whatever they're now calling the SF Giant's stadium. Sushi, fajitas, crabcakes, other haute cuisines and fine wines "enhance" the social as well as culinary faire there and many other stadia. I'm sure you could do the rest of your litany. And, the corrolary works with Kathleen's schema quite nicely; she has a right to be grumpy about this. Moneyball is much more than a baseball business mode/strategy and a good film. And that goes further back than the Black Sox scandal in the early twentieth c. Modernity again, you either buy all the way in, or get shut out (pardon the pun.) Or you play the game in intramural civic style leagues, avoid enrolling your kids into the system of Little Leagues, and choose to watch them play pickup games at the nearest sandlot. And avoid cultivating athletes who glorify the temples of their bodies by enhanced adornment to their physiologies (building better bodies thru chemistry.) Horse is already out of the barn and has been running the span of the globe for well over half a century. Kathleen's treatise is well put and a sincere, true exhortation to the purity of Casey at the Bat. That said, we managers of music in the scrub, below minor league enterprises, do need to insist upon the virtues of both tradition and integrity of the game as we call it. But the cheaters, the owners, the unions and the fickle public almost ensure that finding the "real game" of baseball or liturgical music will occur in the margins and outlands, the little muni-stadiums that dot the small towns. I'll be interested to know how the very labyrinthine philsophical structures of nominalism can be reconciled to the economy of the modern game.
It's weird, you know. Some days you wake up capable of writing.
Some days I am capable of waking up. It's weird.
-------
This is a spot-on commentary on one of my biggest pet peeves with conventional "liberalism/progressivism" (so-called): absolutist relativism. I recently heard a sermon preached about (in favor of) situational ethics. In a more brash period of life, I would have gotten up and walked out.
Not to get too off track, but in practice absolute relativists are as rare as absolute realists. For example, if you asked your sermonize to illustrate the situational ethics of, say, rape, I think you'd get a very interesting dance.
There is what I might call formal relativism at a shallow rhetorical level: people using it tactically to avoid getting sucked into thorny engagement on a difficult issue when talking with people they don't know well. This can be cowardice, but it also can be prudence in certain situations, such as when one is talking to people who don't share assumptions about epistemology and metaphysics. Substantive relativism is not nearly as pervasive, from what I can tell. Distinguishing these things requires, sad to say, some level of metaconversation....
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.