10.30.2004
Life of Pi
I've been readin Yann Martel's book and had the following thoughts which I posted to the Postliberal Theology group.
In the first part of the book we have an almost prosaic biography of Piscene Molitor Patel who names himself Pi Patel while in school to keep from being called “Pissing Patel” by his fellow school boys. The fact that pi is an irrational number (by mathematical definition) is prescient with regard to the young Indian boy. It doesn’t’ mean is his non-rational but that he defies limits. I could wax poetic on this concept for a while but for the sake of brevity (as if I’ve ever been guilty of THAT) we’ll move on. He tells us how he was raised Hindu by agnostic parents who run a zoo, converts to Christianity and Islam over time and sees no contradiction in holding all three faiths simultaneously. Once again, irrational in the sense that he is unbounded, not unreasonable.
In the second part of the book he ends up a castaway on a lifeboat and tells a story that is amazing and heroic and while one listens to it (I had the book on CD so I got to hear the Indian accent in the telling of the story. I would recommend books on CD for many tales that are better told in the oral tradition than in print but that’s just me.) sounds very plausible in spite of pushing the boundaries of credibility. This is an agonizing tale of harrowing survival among the most awful of settings – a life boat floating in the midst of the pacific ocean in the company of a Bengal tiger.
In the third part of the book the shipping company sends two representatives to get Pi’s testimony as part of the investigation on why the ship went down. He tells them the story related above. However, they refuse to accept it because it sounds so incredible. They can’t believe that a teen-age boy can survive that long in the company of a Bengal tiger with no other help. He tries vainly to convince them of the story but they remain skeptical. So he tells them alternate story that to their thinking is more plausible and easier to understand but is actually more horrifying in its implications. This they seem to accept with mixed portions of equanimity and disgust.
Pi engages them in a discussion at this point that for the purposes of ascertaining the cause of the ship sinking, what difference did it make which story they were going to believe, the first or the last. They admitted that the stories had no bearing on their investigation. Then Pi asked them why they believed one and not the other since it made no difference in their final disposition or outcome? Why choose to believe one story over another since the both account for all the facts, to the degree that they could, and both were unprovable by the available evidence? Yet choose they did. The next challenge is to ask which story is more satisfying to the heart and they admitted that the first story is more satisfying. So why not choose that one in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Pi wonders. In fact, why choose at all? Why can’t, in a Schrödinger reality, both be true simultaneously and without contradiction? Like two melodies superimposed upon each other, each individually distinguishable but each contributing to the piece so that the whole is greater than the easily discernible sum of its parts.
OK, there’s the dots. Would anyone like to connect them?
This to me is so rich that I am just in awe of its implications. I’m not about to jump to the universalist conclusion that all religions are valued and the only thing that matters is the story we choose or even that we choose to hold multiple, seemingly contradictory stories simultaneously. But since I just read Brian McLaren’s chapter on the seven Jesuses that he has met along his journey, it seemed to resonate between the two. Moderns draw dichotomies, Post-pomos look for integration. (There are two kinds of people in the world – those who put everything into two categories and those who don’t.) This book provides a launching point for discussions on a variety of topics.
1. Why do people, with no real evidence for making their decision, choose to dis-believe in Jesus? (Or six day creation, or miracles, or….etc.)
2. Why do people choose a story that is more plausible (to their way of thinking) but in its implications is more horrible than the one they reject?
3. What is the virtue in refusing to believe the “nicer” story and accepting the more horrible one? What is gained? Who is helped?
This is so closely related to the tree of knowledge of good and evil temptation I’m nearly overwhelmed by its power. Skepticism, incredulity, agnosticism, dis-belief all offer the promise of Knowledge but at what cost? The loss of innocence, purity, openness, and yes, love and communion with God. Have any of you read the stories of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever by Stephen R. Donaldson. These are some of the most powerful books in existence about the dangerous effects to the heart and mind of living the life of a dis-believer and enjoying the selfish rapture of being one’s own answer to all the great questions of the universe.
I took the kids to see Spiderman 2 at the cheapie theater last night and was astounded to see this played out on the big screen in a parable about the Christian life. I told the kids I found this Spiderman movie to be too sappy but that is because it does more preaching than comic book action. Peter Parker finds his life complicated in unfortunate ways because he is Spiderman so he quits and goes into being just Peter Parker. He enjoys some short-term ease to his problems but finds his conscience too harsh a task master to live with. In other words, the idyllic life he hoped for was easier in some ways but tougher in others – and for him the ways that mattered the most. So he goes back to being Spiderman at great personal cost, only to find that the price is easier to pay this time because now he realizes he has a choice among alternatives and he is making it with his eyes open. Just like the Christian life which is really no easier than the non-Christian one, and in some ways is tougher, but is ultimately more satisfying in part because we have made the choice rather than having it thrust upon us. This life comes at great cost but one we are willing to pay because the benefits in this life outstrip the pain and make it worth it.
In the first part of the book we have an almost prosaic biography of Piscene Molitor Patel who names himself Pi Patel while in school to keep from being called “Pissing Patel” by his fellow school boys. The fact that pi is an irrational number (by mathematical definition) is prescient with regard to the young Indian boy. It doesn’t’ mean is his non-rational but that he defies limits. I could wax poetic on this concept for a while but for the sake of brevity (as if I’ve ever been guilty of THAT) we’ll move on. He tells us how he was raised Hindu by agnostic parents who run a zoo, converts to Christianity and Islam over time and sees no contradiction in holding all three faiths simultaneously. Once again, irrational in the sense that he is unbounded, not unreasonable.
In the second part of the book he ends up a castaway on a lifeboat and tells a story that is amazing and heroic and while one listens to it (I had the book on CD so I got to hear the Indian accent in the telling of the story. I would recommend books on CD for many tales that are better told in the oral tradition than in print but that’s just me.) sounds very plausible in spite of pushing the boundaries of credibility. This is an agonizing tale of harrowing survival among the most awful of settings – a life boat floating in the midst of the pacific ocean in the company of a Bengal tiger.
In the third part of the book the shipping company sends two representatives to get Pi’s testimony as part of the investigation on why the ship went down. He tells them the story related above. However, they refuse to accept it because it sounds so incredible. They can’t believe that a teen-age boy can survive that long in the company of a Bengal tiger with no other help. He tries vainly to convince them of the story but they remain skeptical. So he tells them alternate story that to their thinking is more plausible and easier to understand but is actually more horrifying in its implications. This they seem to accept with mixed portions of equanimity and disgust.
Pi engages them in a discussion at this point that for the purposes of ascertaining the cause of the ship sinking, what difference did it make which story they were going to believe, the first or the last. They admitted that the stories had no bearing on their investigation. Then Pi asked them why they believed one and not the other since it made no difference in their final disposition or outcome? Why choose to believe one story over another since the both account for all the facts, to the degree that they could, and both were unprovable by the available evidence? Yet choose they did. The next challenge is to ask which story is more satisfying to the heart and they admitted that the first story is more satisfying. So why not choose that one in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Pi wonders. In fact, why choose at all? Why can’t, in a Schrödinger reality, both be true simultaneously and without contradiction? Like two melodies superimposed upon each other, each individually distinguishable but each contributing to the piece so that the whole is greater than the easily discernible sum of its parts.
OK, there’s the dots. Would anyone like to connect them?
This to me is so rich that I am just in awe of its implications. I’m not about to jump to the universalist conclusion that all religions are valued and the only thing that matters is the story we choose or even that we choose to hold multiple, seemingly contradictory stories simultaneously. But since I just read Brian McLaren’s chapter on the seven Jesuses that he has met along his journey, it seemed to resonate between the two. Moderns draw dichotomies, Post-pomos look for integration. (There are two kinds of people in the world – those who put everything into two categories and those who don’t.) This book provides a launching point for discussions on a variety of topics.
1. Why do people, with no real evidence for making their decision, choose to dis-believe in Jesus? (Or six day creation, or miracles, or….etc.)
2. Why do people choose a story that is more plausible (to their way of thinking) but in its implications is more horrible than the one they reject?
3. What is the virtue in refusing to believe the “nicer” story and accepting the more horrible one? What is gained? Who is helped?
This is so closely related to the tree of knowledge of good and evil temptation I’m nearly overwhelmed by its power. Skepticism, incredulity, agnosticism, dis-belief all offer the promise of Knowledge but at what cost? The loss of innocence, purity, openness, and yes, love and communion with God. Have any of you read the stories of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever by Stephen R. Donaldson. These are some of the most powerful books in existence about the dangerous effects to the heart and mind of living the life of a dis-believer and enjoying the selfish rapture of being one’s own answer to all the great questions of the universe.
I took the kids to see Spiderman 2 at the cheapie theater last night and was astounded to see this played out on the big screen in a parable about the Christian life. I told the kids I found this Spiderman movie to be too sappy but that is because it does more preaching than comic book action. Peter Parker finds his life complicated in unfortunate ways because he is Spiderman so he quits and goes into being just Peter Parker. He enjoys some short-term ease to his problems but finds his conscience too harsh a task master to live with. In other words, the idyllic life he hoped for was easier in some ways but tougher in others – and for him the ways that mattered the most. So he goes back to being Spiderman at great personal cost, only to find that the price is easier to pay this time because now he realizes he has a choice among alternatives and he is making it with his eyes open. Just like the Christian life which is really no easier than the non-Christian one, and in some ways is tougher, but is ultimately more satisfying in part because we have made the choice rather than having it thrust upon us. This life comes at great cost but one we are willing to pay because the benefits in this life outstrip the pain and make it worth it.
