Jesus Elusive

Jesus Elusive

The Copenhagen Interpretation

Robert Hughes

I am here to set earth afire.

– Jesus [Luke 12:49]

copyright 2018 © Robert Hughes

email: pogonipmyn@outlook.com

Makete House Publishing

www.bodywisdom.press

ISBN 978-1-9995208-2-3

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, or otherwise, without prior permission in writing of the Author.

Other books by Robert Hughes

1/f2 Noiz

TT

The unConsciousness Manifesto

Faces

The Unified Theory of Awareness

Cord-Reading: A Bodying Practice

Satchel

––––––––

find his works at www.bodywisdom.press

How to Read this Book

Parts I and IV present the argument; however, Part I is whimsical and tongue-in-cheek, whereas Part IV is involved. If you dislike whimsy, and are ready for some theoretical abstraction, go straight to Part IV. Part II is plain textual analysis serving as a relief after Part I. Part III outlines the modern reductionist and demystifying argument that this author considers incomplete.

Contents

How to Read this Book

Part I

Preface

The Claim

A Garbled Intro to a Semicoherent

Miracles

Possibility

Being & Idolatry

Real Presence

Concerning an Heuristic Point of View Jesus

Spirit

Sin

Mortality

Authority

Notes on Concerning an Heuristic Point of View Jesus

Part II

Forty Years After: A Rant

TEXTUAL JESUS

intro

Jesus Markan

Jesus Matthean

A Smug Gratuitous Hubristic Chapter

Jesus Lukan

Old & New – Intermezzo

Speculations

Part III

ACADEMIC JESUS

section A - Perceptions

Jesus Particular (or Jesus Historical)

Jesus Johannine (or Jesus Undulatory)

Form and Content

Tariki and Jiriki

Real Presence

section B - Freedom

Judaism

Rant # 2 Obedience

Sacraments

Religious

Holiness

Part IV

ACTUAL JESUS

Fundamentals – an Introduction

Ontology

Humanism (The Faith)

Digging

The Perfections of Jesus

The Religious (Again)

Grace

Preface

This book began as a piece of whimsy (and retains its share of quirkiness) but by Part II it took on a life of its own, on the one hand as serious Catholic apologia (against mechanistic-based secular scepticism), and on the other hand as Catholic theological reform (against outdated theological concepts and religious superstition).

I understand no more of the Copenhagen Interpretation of physics than the average underinformed non-scientist; however, I do know more of religious theory than the average underinformed layman (which doesn’t say much for me). Combining my relative ignorance in the two fields together has produced this volume.

It should be needless to say that the alleged participation in this project, Jesus Elusive: the Copenhagen Interpretation by intellectual giants in their respective fields of physics, biology, media studies, classical music, and religion, is a joke. It is probably needful to state that the theology outlined here is not intended as a joke (though perhaps the reader, after reading it, will consider it such). In any case, not all the content is meant to be taken seriously, but it is left up to the reader to decide which parts to ponder and which to chuckle at and ignore.

In a nutshell, Jesus Elusive: the Copenhagen Interpretation attempts to outline a theology that is intellectually accessible (rather than laughable or repugnant) to modern 21st-century educated and scientific mən (for more on the word ‘mən’, see Notes on Concerning an Heuristic Point of View Jesus, #1). It presents neither a palatable arianism (i.e. ‘Jesus is a wise man’) nor a rationalized ‘spirituality’ (i.e. ‘feel-good practices’). Rather, it presents informed ignorance. (It also, by the way, if sincerely considered, makes Catholicism dangerous again.)

The commentary upon the actual gospels in Part II is as accurate as this author could ascertain (i.e. ‘not a joke’) and can be relied upon, even though it is cheek-by-jowl with the imagined personnages (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) who allegedly wrote them. It should be understood that the sketches of the personnages and their households is intended to be representative of the tenor of the writings. More interesting (to this author) are the twinned outlines of Jesus Historical and Jesus Johannine, the former emphasizing the facts of Jesus insofar as they can be ascertained, the latter dwelling upon the impression derived by a sensory apprehension of Jesus. A dialectic is established: on one side there is fact / particle / content / history / abstract knowledge, and on the other, impression / wave / form / art / sensed truth.

The tongue-in-cheek bombasticism of parts of this volume is not entirely indefensible as Jesus himself was a radical comedian who poked fun at the ‘truths’ received from antiquity [thus the ‘radical’, striking at roots]. Unfortunately, his humour is situational, and the situations in which it occurred have been lost to us (for we today cannot feel the ubiquitous superstitiousness of those times). As a result, we often ascribe an unwonted solemnity to his utterances which is misplaced. Nevertheless, being aware of the potential for comedy, we can be cautious regarding our own sombre responses to his words.

McLuhan:

Language is organized stutter.

John Lennon:

... stuttering is right. Because we can’t say it. However we say it, it’s never how you want it.

Yoko Ono:

We are still living in a primitive age. Even though you do say about this Total Communication, you’re not communicating with us on a Be-All level, you’re still communicating with us on a language level. I believe in Total Communication as touch.

–– Mississauga, December 19, 1969

The Claim

Circa 1975 or earlier, a serendipitous encounter occurred in the cafeteria of the University of Tübingen in Württemburg. It involved such notables as Heisenberg and Dirac, McLuhan and Dawkins, Lemche and Thompson and Cage. Their impromptu discussion over the period of a couple of hours explored whether religion has any remaining relevance in our modern times, whether religion offers any worthwhile knowledge to contemporary humanity. The conversation would have been lost to history were it not for the reminiscences of staff and students who happened to be present at this felicitous crossing of paths; however, their varying and inconsistent reports have resulted in controversy, denials, accusations, and internet wars. The account rendered here in this book pretends to offer the most generally accepted version of events. 

––––––––

A Disclaimer, Worded Obscurely

As for if, rumours disagree while the personnages haven’t involved the misconstructions. Feynman didn’t admit the reports hadn’t suggested he detected what he calls ‘cargo cult science’, only, I was not present. Where’s that leave things?

Who says T.T. and Niels Peter Lemche’s 1990 meeting precludes earlier contact? other than them?

It also doesn’t fly without mention the lack of a published report, or nothing more than a fortuitous encounter in the refectory of crossed paths. Howsomever, the elements underlying the generally accepted are outlined as follows without prejudice.

I

A Garbled Intro to a Semicoherent

The standing points at an impromptu gathering of notables complementary in their fields of research, sometime early or mid 1970s, probably in the Morgenstelle refectory of the University of Tübingen Württemburg, north of the Neckar River. Though they’ve had to be guessed, certain names are particularly associated with the purported event, Heisenberg’s, Lemche’s and Thompson’s lending The Copenhagen Interpretation as an epithet to its conclusions.

Is it possible?

As for when and where, the Tübingen location accords with Thomas L. Thompson’s work, and the Morgenstelle cafeteria with Heisenburg’s travels given that he’d recently received the Guardini Prize in Frankfurt. The caf had been rebuilt by then.

Even if a European tour of Changing Steps by the Merce Cunningham Dance Company hasn’t been recorded, such tours were constant and could account for John Cage.

Beyond that, Paul Dirac’s attributions are copacetic, McLuhan entangled, and Dawkins on the cusp of publishing The Selfish Gene.

––––––––

A Procedural Note

In order to avoid casting a too fictive aura over events, the compiler of the following fragments has chosen not to connect them with an invented narrative. The resulting relics while broken and to a degree incoherent at least thereby preserve whatever dubious authenticity the ostensible ‘originals’ claim for themselves. The attributions remain unverified, and in uncertain cases, are so marked.

The grouping of fragments under headings is an arbitrary proceeding by the compiler and has no authoritative standing.

––––––––

Miracles

McLuhan

Miracles are quiet, seemingly inadvertent occurrences, always witnessed after the fact, that by their very nature effect uncertainty and wonder in participants (i.e. ‘Did that really happen?’). They are not as displayed in Hollywood films: unmistakable intrusions into human affairs, with special effects in full technicolor panorama & Dolby stereo; on the contrary, they are not unmistakable at all, and so must always produce dubiety tinged with awe (dread) – or in reaction, skeptical derision. Miracle (Latin: wonder-filled) by its very nature provokes disbelief, not belief. One cannot believe a miracle. A miracle is therefore unreasonable. On the part of the observer, it is to doubtfully wonder whether the unreasonable can be actual that is reasonable.

Heisenberg

Its fundamental properties are (a) hiddenness, (b) uncertainty, (c) non-attribution. ‘Something’ may have happened (always in the past tense), [but I am not sure].

Cage

To repeat, a miracle is not ‘displayed before’ observers. It does not ‘stand out’. Miracles are never witnessed as they occur.

Compiler’s Note: The implication is that certain so-called miracles might have occurred, such as Jesus slipping unobtrusively away from the angry crowd, a person feeling unburdened from a psychosomatic condition, or even discovering in retrospect that an unusual amount of food remained after a gathering of people had eaten. Other miracles witnessed in progress, however, such as Jesus walking on water, lack credibility and point to myth-making.

Lemche

One is never obliged to believe in a miracle. On the contrary, one is almost obliged to not believe. Too ready a belief is evidence of credulity and so, unreliability, on the part of the believer. Therefore, like prayer itself, miracle is private (Latin set apart, separate, one’s own); its private effect is to render oneself ‘surprisable’, not too certain; it is not to undermine certainty, but over-certainty. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy is not Hamlet’s way of counselling Horatio to abjure philosophy, but rather to complete reasoning mind with surprisable mind. It is a correction to automatic skepticism.

Dirac

Planck refused to believe in the phenomenal reality indicated by his own theory of quanta. Einstein refused to accept the uncertainty principle as an actual behavior of phenomena. A private, quiet miracle might have rendered each more flexible without nullifying their reason. Phenomena, Totality, Being Herself can surprise, and cannot be taken for granted as known. Reason is a tool, not a rule to apply to phenomena or to Being.

To hum-and-haw, prevaricate, diminish the possibility of miracle – that is, of the wondrously inexplicable – is to dismiss it; itself a reasonable response following a superstitious era; just as an overly deterministic era such as the 19th century provokes early 20th century interests in theosophy and spiritualistic séances, or later in the century, New Age and wicca, or in the sciences, probability as opposed to determinism. Miracle, however, has nothing to do with either spiritualism or superstition. There is no need for consulting oracles, manipulating crystals, or smudging in regards to miracle, for the only ‘other side’ is your own unconscious,