Screen Salvation

September 26, 2024

Some are living with the apocalypse right in front of them. Others seem to be able to put it in their peripheral vision. 

For the latter group, the apocalypse is something to be reminded of, as a caution, while they go about their lives, which have organizing principles and purposes that propel them and carry them along. These are the people who are raising children, doing essential jobs, basically, keeping the world on track amidst the hubbub of things. The former group, though, have been immobilized by the apocalypse. All has been lost, already, always already, and nothing is possible.

I put myself in the first group, because, I suppose, I feel I have experienced a loss so absolute that there’s no recovery from it, no way of pushing it to the side, no way of restarting and hitting my stride. That loss, of course, is Angelo. But death is something every human has to deal with; what I’ve experienced, everyone has, or will, in some version. Of course, everyone will experience it in a very personal, immediate way in their own death, if not through the loss of a child.

The apocalypse of a single death is as absolute, as devastating, for each individual as any other apocalypse, be it the Holocaust, a nuclear war, or end of the world through climate change or an asteroid strike. It’s weird to say that everyone will experience a loss equally as devastating as world-wide annihilation. But the stakes are high for each of us; rather, the stakes are beyond high; they are “all in,” always and everywhere. How does one function facing such an extremity? Clearly, we must learn to focus on other things.

This week I edited my screen saver. For some time, I had had only the Julie London quote about her singing: “It’s only a thimbleful of a voice, and I have to use it close to the microphone. But it is a kind of over-smoked voice, and it automatically sounds intimate.” Julie’s words were a friendly reminder to me, on a daily basis, of something I tried to describe some months back in my blog: “Such confidence, expressed with awareness and humility and precision. Not to mention, a good dose of sensuality, along with the promise of being together through it. The woes of the world would be lessened, I’m convinced, if we all just listened to, and spent time with, Julie London.” I would smile each time her words appeared on my screen. 

I found myself this week needing, however, other reminders—or at least some glimpses of a non-apocalyptic lifestyle. I happened to come across St. Paul’s words, and it occurred to me that I needed to see them more often. I needed these words as an incantation, as an invocation to a better life than the one I had been living. Could this be my equipment for living, my distraction from the apocalypse? So I put them on my screen saver.

Then, with St. Paul and Julie London sitting there alone, I felt a need for some kind of connector—some statement that might round out the wisdom. These thoughts brought me to Kenneth Burke, and all the influence he has had on my life. That influence can’t be reduced to a single quotation, but his description of the “comic frame” in Attitudes Toward History does seem to partake of the Holy Spirit, on the one hand, and the humility of Julie London’s celebration of her voice on the other.

So, here’s my screen saver in its current iteration:

Saint Paul, on letting God in: “Brothers and sisters: Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with which you were sealed on the day of redemption. All bitterness, fury, anger, shouting, and reviling must be removed from you, along with all malice. And be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another as God has forgiven you in Christ. So be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, as Christ loved us and handed himself over for us as a sacrificial offering to God for a fragrant aroma.” Ephesians 4:30-5:2

 Julie London, on her voice: “It’s only a thimbleful of a voice, and I have to use it close to the microphone. But it is a kind of over-smoked voice, and it automatically sounds intimate.”

Kenneth Burke, on comic forgiveness: “The progress of humane enlightenment can go no further than in picturing people not as vicious, but as mistaken. When you add that people are necessarily mistaken, that all people are exposed to situations in which they must act as fools, that every insight contains its own special kind of blindness, you complete the comic circle, returning again to the lesson of humility that underlies great tragedy.” Attitudes Toward History, p. 41
Angelo’s Screen Saver

I now notice that my introductory characterization of two of the quotations could be debated. For instance, was Burke really speaking about “forgiveness”? Or was that a reading I had imposed? Was I progressing a step beyond “enlightenment” to forgiveness, possibly as a natural effect of understanding/misunderstanding, and contextualization, and the necessity of error for all? I want there to be forgiveness. Also: Was St. Paul talking about “letting God in”? Or was this my wish—the wish that I might be able to abide by Paul’s request not to “grieve the Holy Spirit”? Paul talks of the seal of God, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the fragrant aroma of Christ’s sacrifice in which we are all suffused and made beneficiaries (I do notice he imports the holocaust of Christ’s sacrifice in this otherwise upbeat message). To me, he implies that we are somehow resisting it all; I know I have resisted giving up my grievances. Are they not keeping God out?

I hope these words, my companions on my screen, can keep on casting a spell on me. I need to look away from the ultimate devastation at my feet and in my sight. Kindness, love, humility—and intimacy too—I hope the reminders keep me upbeat and moving forward. I hope I can learn to push the apocalypse to the side, at least for part of the day, for part of my days that remain.

Punch Buggy Hammurabi

Of the many joys Margaret Atwood brings in her unique approach to analysis, commentary, and Explanation of How to Look Wryly and Appreciatively and Quizzically at All Things Human in This Phase of Our Evolution, we get her random set pieces where, in a tour de force, she merges realities of parenting, the Code of Hammurabi, theories of debt, magic, law, fungibility, reciprocity, and more, in a voice that instructs, guides gently, and makes one smile with profound gratitude for this fellow traveler helping us register it all. This one comes from “Ancient Balances” in Burning Questions, her collections of essays from 2004-2021:

…[I]n the 1980s there was a strange ritual among nine-year-old children that went like this: during car rides, you stared out the window until you spotted a Volkswagen Beetle. Then you hit your child companion on the arm, shouting, “Punch-buggy, no punch-backs!” Seeing the Volkswagen Beetle first meant that you had the right to punch the other child, and adding a codicil—“No punch-backs!”—meant that he or she had been done out of the right to punch you in return. If, however, the other child managed to shout “Punch-backs!” before you could yell out your protective charm, then a retaliatory punch was in order. Money was not a factor here: you couldn’t buy your way out of being punched. What was at issue was the principle of reciprocity: one punch deserved another, and would certainly get it unless an Out clause was inserted with the speed of lightning. 

Those who fail to discern in the Punch-buggy ritual the essential lex talionis form of the almost four-thousand-year-old Code of Hammurabi—reformulated as the Biblical eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth law—are blind indeed. Lex talionis means, roughly, “the law of retribution in kind or suitability.” Under the Punch-buggy rules, punches cancel each other out unless you can whip your magical protection into place first. This kind of protection can be found throughout the world of contracts and legal documents, in clauses that begin with phrases such as “Notwithstanding any of the foregoing.”

Atwood, Margaret. Burning Questions (pp. 113-114). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

The Delicate Balance

Much of what Charles Dickens wrote deserves to be quoted here, but all I’ll offer for now is a snippet from David Copperfield, Mr. Micawber’s reflection/advice to David on economic matters:

"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

See also:

This NPR Story, “A Tale Of Two Economies,” from Morning Edition, November 4, 2008.

Just Puns



Untitled Document

Just a neat collection of puns. My favorite is Number 12:

There was a man who entered a local paper’s pun contest. He sent in ten different
puns, in the hope at least one of the puns would win. Unfortunately, no pun
in ten did.

A pun on the word "pun." Can anything higher, or more worthy, be
achieved by the language using animal?

http://bertc.com/puns.htm

Be sure also to look at Bert Christensen’s page of H. L. Mencken quotes:

http://bertc.com/mencken.htm


On New Year’s Day, Catching Up on the Last Millennium







Words of the Century

While
conducting my vacation computer maintenance—reformatting, backing up,
upgrading, etc.—I found this list of 100 words, the "words of the
[20th] century" that someone or other sent me at millennium time:

 

The words of the century

 

Two members of the American Dialect Society, David K.
Barnhart and Allan A. Metcalf, have selected a word or phrase per year for
the 20th Century, matching the word with the year when it came into its own.
The list appears in their book "America in So Many Words" (Houghton
Mifflin 1997 & 1999)

 

1900: phony

1901: grass roots

1902: goo

1903: highbrow

1904: cut the mustard

1905: jellybean

1906: muckraker/teddy bear

1907: melting pot

1908: asleep at the switch

1909: pork barrel

1910: barbershop

1911: blues

1912: movies

1913: jazz

1914: backpack

1915: flapper

1916: IQ

1917: GI

1918: D Day

1919: Tshirt

 

1920: normalcy

1921: media

1922: cold turkey

1923: hijack

1924: brainstorm

1925: motel

1926: Bible Belt

1927: macho

1928: athlete’s foot

1929: jalopy

1930: bulldozer

1931: Skid Row

1932: hopefully

1933: supermarket

1934: whistlestop

1935: boondoggle

1936: streamline

1937: groovy

1938: teenager

1939: juke box

1940: jeep

1941: multicultural

1942: gizmo

1943: acronym

1944: snafu

1945: showbiz

1946: Iron Curtain/Cold War

1947: babysit

1948: cybernetics

1949: coo!

1950: DJ

1951: rock and roll

1952: Ms.

1953: UFO

1954: fast food

1955: hotline

1956: brinkmanship

1957: role model

1958: Murphy’s Law

1959: software

1960: sit‑in

1961: biodegradable

1962: car pool

1963: duh

1964: swing voter

1965: affirmative action

1966: credibility gap

1967: ripoff                                  
~:

1968: aerobics

1969: sexism and ageism

1970: bottom line

1971: workaholic

1972: Watergate

1973: sound bite

1974: streak

1975: substance

1976: couch potato

1977: loony tunes

1978: geek

1979: stealth

1980: gridlock

1981: wannabe

1982: like

1983: greenmail

1984: yuppie

1985: rocket scientist

1986: dis

1987: codependency

1988: push the envelope

1989: virtual reality

1990: PC

1991: about

1992: Not!

1993: newbie

1994: go postal

1995: Newt/World Wide Web

1996: soccer mom

1997: Ebonics

1998: millennium bug

1999: Y2K