New Jerusalem: The Interrogation of Baruch de Spinoza

Baruch de Spinoza.

Now I really feel the weight of the name. This man is truly a saint-like figure in the history of philosophy, the Middle Age equivalent of Aristotle/Plato. Well, Plato creates his theory from almost nothing, but Spinoza creates his philosophy from the darkest period of human intellectual development in Europe. I find it equally hard to build a house on the Sahara Desert and to build one after Hurricane Katrina, so…

First of all, I would like to point out a definition trap in the program brochure.

Upon answering the question “Why does this philosophy sound so familiar to modern ears?” The brochure states that Spinoza’s philosophy is “very close” to the modern concept of secular humanism. And it goes on showing everything about the secular humanism and at last traces back to Spinoza’s philosophy as the possible origin of the modern humanism. For an audience member who doesn’t know about Spinoza or humanism, he/she can be easily misguided by such inducing answer.

While it is worth noticing that the word “secular” in the term carries a negative connotation to the modern humanists as it is named by the religious fundamentalists in a hostile manner, secular humanism and Spinoza’s philosophy, despite their similarity, I reckon, are two rather different sets of ideas.

Secular humanism is indeed, as pointed out by the brochure, a philosophy that celebrates reason, ethics and justice as the basis of morality and decision-making, while rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism and superstition.

However, Spinoza’s philosophy is much less “secular” than the modern humanism. One line in the brochure summarizes Spinoza’s stand between state and religion very well: “In short, Spinoza does not so much subtract God from the world, but subtracts the divinity from God.”

Indeed, the influence of Judaism on Spinoza is evident in his philosophy. Even though it is clear to him that the entire universe is a manifestation of the essence of God, he does not equate nature with God.

It is tempting for us the audience members to understand Spinoza’s philosophy to be the equivalence of God and nature. This is because the dramatization in the play creates an antagonism between Spinoza and the Jewish/Christian community so strong that Spinoza’s philosophy almost appears ‘secular’, or too scientific/rationalistic.

In fact, in a letter to Henry Oldenburg Spinoza states that: “as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken.” Upon extra research, I realize that Spinoza is regarding the nature as a subset of God. To Spinoza, nature is what we understand through thoughts and extensions (the things we sense and the thoughts that come about). However, Spinoza recognizes human’s shallow capability to discern the world and claims that God has much more ability beyond human understanding. (Only two attributes of God’s transcendence are known to humans – thoughts and extensions)

Spinoza’s acknowledgement of God’s superiority (not in terms of divinity but capability/attributes) is also revealed by the determinism of his philosophy. He claims that as the nature is the manifestation of the essence of God, then all things, including human thoughts and behaviors are determined and happen the way that they do. This is rather different from humanism which greatly treasures human reasons and wills. In fact, in Spinoza’s deterministic philosophy, our free will cannot REALLY affect our behaviors, but it can help us to understand better our behaviors and turn ourselves more active/free, thus “become more like God”, as said by Spinoza in the play.

Hence, Spinoza’s philosophy is quite different from humanism, in fact, it is more acceptable to regard it as an amalgamation of philosophies/ideas/beliefs of Descartes, Jewish tradition and medieval scholasticism. This is evident from the play too. During his debate with Mortera, Valkenburgh, Ben Israel and Clara, his approach was never extremely confrontational or aggressive. Despite that the rest of the people blamed his ideas as radical, Spinoza’s attitudes were loving, affectionate, kind, witty, agitated at times but not annoyed. His ideas too, were inclusive, virtuous and truthful.

In my opinion, Spinoza shows an effort of reconciling the gaps between his philosophy and and the religions throughout the play. If he has no intent for such reconciliation at all, he could have gone ahead and commit in all sorts of activist activities to promote his ideas. If he does that, he would probably end up like Nicholas Copernicus. His love of the Jewish tradition, Amsterdam, the community, Clara and God never cease. Spinoza left his community not because of his loathe against the religious dogma or theism, but because of his loyalty to his own faiths and beliefs.

Thus, even though the title of the play is “the interrogation of Baruch de Spinoza”, from my perspective, what Spinoza went through in the play was a catalytic process that helps him to amalgamate the essence of the Cartesian, Jewish and Catholic ideas with his brewing philosophy and to generate a complete system of new ideas of his own.

The most beneficial part of this play to me is that it really makes me think. I once also had the idea that God is in every object and behind all processes and the nature is governed by only one set of unifying laws. However, I never put more thoughts on it. Spinoza did, and it was amazing to see four completely different sets of philosophy/beliefs bombarding and colliding with one another on stage. (Cartesian, Judaism, Catholicism, Spinoza’s Philosophy) Actively involvement of the audience was a plus. It really kept the audience as a member of the judgement process, thus gave us power to judge and pushed our minds to reflect and think more critically.

My most favorite part of the show?

[After Spinoza kisses Clara]

Ben: Shame on you! Shame, Baruch — in this place!

Spinoza: Blame the laws of Nature. Blame gravity. Blame God.

…

ME: Oh I love the laws of Nature.

The Kinsey Sicks for President!

Electile Dysfunction. As I type the phrase down, the spelling check is already suggesting a typo error.

Indeed, when I first heard about the show a few weeks ago, I was so overwhelmed by the title that I misheard the letter “l” to be “r”…  On one hand, it reflects the satire of the show, which was perfected by the actors’ tour de force performance. On the other hand, it shows the formalism/mundanity that has parasitized my mind and deprived my imagination.

To further cover myself with shame, I would admit that I had no idea that it was a drag musical. I thought it as a fancy political satire and comedy after realizing the political element in the title “Electivle Dysfunction”. Hence, the appearance of The Kinsey Sicks simply blew me away.

Not only they master the drag queen’s swagger, but also they possess outstanding voice as an a capella. The blocking was meticulously done without impeding the actors’ witty and naughty improvisations and audience interactions. Overall, the musical explores a variety of current political issues and attempts to break the multiple moral/political bottom lines in the audience. Even though language used in this performance can set the audience to huge discomfort, the twists and jokes in the form of songs successfully played a comforting role throughout the session.

Personally, I think  “Electile Dysfunction” has all the elements that a good political satire comedy should have. Yet, I must reckon again that a great musical stands out from the good ones because of its lasting impact on the audience. Even though The Kinsey Sicks has done a great job in bringing the audience exhilarating moments and greatly discomforting the audience with the sensitive issues, how long an emotional or intellectual impact it would have on the audience is still doubtful. Personally, I was thrilled, amazed, and exhilarated throughout the show. My blood was still racing, my ears still red, my voice still coarse during the talk-back session. However, the overwhelming comedy and satire threw me to such an emotional peak that I remembered nothing specifically touching/thought-provoking besides the overall flashy image of the Kinsey Sicks and the associated excitements which was draining away.

Perhaps there were just too much information. Perhaps it didn’t set out to drag the audience into endless days of mental struggles. Perhaps the actors themselves are pursuing after the magical efflorescence on stage instead of the fruitless endeavor like the flapping of a butterfly at the National Zoo, which has nothing to do with the tornado in Japan.

In any case, The Kinsey Sicks has brought me a night of great relief after days of stressful work, so it definitely deserves my compliment.

Necessary Sacrifices

Having heard nothing about the material of the ‘Necessary Sacrifices’, and knew little about the story of Lincoln and Douglas, I was surprised by the essentially two-men show.I was also surprised by the prolong ‘script reading’ and the alien voice from ‘Lincoln’. The comedic element in the play is nicely used, blending a sense of lightness to a show with little movements, scene changes and characters. David Selby certainly plays out plenty of the physical characteristics and humor of Abraham Lincoln. However, his high-pitch voice comes as a shock that takes me quite a while to recognize the character he is playing. While Abraham Lincoln may or may not have a similar voice, the incident really forces me to rethink about my stereotype of the man on the US 5-dollar bill. All I knew before was, as what Director Jennifer Nelson states in her notes: won the civil war, ended slavery, humble roots, >6 feet tall, lots of facial hair… and possibly a deep and firm voice. Indeed, the reincarnation of Lincoln on David Selby really splatters my ignorant and stubborn mental image of the president.

Mostly through dialogues, the two actors present their ideologies and political stands to the audience. It is through the dialogues that one can really see the physical, emotional and mental experience both great men were going through. Also, it walks the audience through a clear but meander path that leads to the most important decision made in US history. Even though the show in a certain extent deglorifies the image of Lincoln, it presents to the audience a strong sense of truth and brings the legendary hero back into a human form.

Unfortunately, the unprecedented change in actor and the resulting ‘script reading’ have more or less impacted an authentic and comfortable delivery of the material. Even though Craig Wallace strove so hard to add on colors for the character, reading off the script during the dialogues has audially, visually and emotionally wounded the beauty and integrity of the show. As the blocking is still quite not there, the stillness of the dialogues carries the power to hypnotize audiences who have sat still and stared in one direction in their cubicles for a whole day.

Yet, as the second half unfolds, the dialogues become more thought-provoking. The materials in this show seems to share a surprising number of similarities with the current state of being in US. Whether it is electoral politics, partisanship, re-election, human right activism.. all these issues which are playing such an important role this year and in the past in America seem to be another reenactment of issues occurred more than 15 decades ago. Whether such points are created intentionally is a myth, but for a play that recounts events such a long time ago, ‘Necessary Sacrifices’ has proven its powerful relevance to the contemporary politics in this nation.

 

The Prostate Dialogues

It was only through watching the Prostate Dialogue do I truly understand the power of empathy in a play.

Despite the dolls (which have not quite shown their roles/functions clearly yet) and the crude stage settings, the reading presents itself as a real play. It is truly amazing how I find myself so related to the materials even though I have not experience the terrible trauma or decades of living like Jon Spelman. Personally, I find a few things that really draws me into the reading.

First, the material itself is very informative yet made easy to comprehend. From the unhealthy lifestyle to the mutation of tumor suppressing gene to metastasis, to chemotherapy, to recovery process.. every single part of them is narrated in such a beautiful but heavy way that the images slowly but easily form in ones mind and sentiments creeps and sinks into the body. It makes one really uncomfortable but yet not quite over the top, taking the audience through the up-and-downs of the story.

Second, the materials is very personal but inclusive. It explores a common fatal health problem that concerns almost everybody. Even though it is about the prostate, the part about the cancer itself certainly can be related to by many audience members. More than that, Jon ventured on to various other themes such as therapy, post-traumatic experience, which can also be found many places in our life.

Third, the delivery of the materials is very powerful. Even though this is not a scored play, the material itself helps to bring about the playwright’s memory and emotions. The content itself, despite the humors, builds on a rather heavy topic and as Jon brought us through his experience, he himself is opening the deep corners of himself to the audience, presenting a vulnerability that greatly instigates a sense of empathy from audience members, whom can relate/appreciate the material.

The playwright uses series of stories and information to allure the audience to stand in his shoes and then touch us through the emotional, imagery impacts from his experience. Once we begin to take Jon’s experience as ours and allows the portrayed sentiments to contact us, we immediately begin to empathize with him. Once that relationship sets up, true acting begins. However, to be fair, ‘we’ only refers to those who can relate to/appreciate Jon’s experience and stories.

Still, Jon presents to us so clearly and moving a world that forces us to reflect on our lifestyle, our relationships and our identity. Going from the direction of prostate cancer is an eye-opener and is simply brilliant.

By the way, the ‘dialogues’ with the puppets were not exactly very convincing/real. Perhaps, just like the Vagina Monologues, we will be witnessing the world premiere of a Prostate Monologue instead.

About the Married Sex

As I was reading through the posts, I see how the perspective of one on a play varies so greatly from that of the other. Married Sex and Prostate Dialogue is a really interesting combination that makes the variations happens.

Through and after I watched the Married Sex, I regarded it as an unfinished work and tried my best to ‘do the reading’. Several peers commented on the prolonged length of the work and the yet clearly defined theme of each individual scene. These certainly would tend to hypnotize some of us whom were tired after a day of work and are new to the local reading scene.

Yet, as I sat through the Prostate Monologue, I really began to see the reason why the PM is so much more appealing to me than the Married Sex. There are two reasons:

One, there is a difference between how the two playwrights deliver their respective materials. Laura performed it and Jon acted it. While performing may sounds more appealing than acting, it is not entirely true when it is presented to audience whom have not quite garner the background/patience/professionalism to appreciate it. Throughout the Married Sex, Laura tried very hard to perform and entertain, dramatically changing her tones, her characters and her body languages. Yet, that is a performance. A rock concert may make all the rock fans jumping up and down but not a tired worker from countryside after 8 hours of fatiguing work, he may simply fall asleep. A performance can only be appealing to the group of people who can appreciate and relate to it, but not necessary the rest, which leads to the second point.

It is easier for ladies, or people who have gone through similar experience to relate to the materials in the Married Sex. Also, it comes more natural to dramaturges or critics who are accustomed to readings like this. Therefore, it is difficult for me to find myself resonating/fully appreciate Laura’s experience. Nevertheless, I am certain that as the preparation process proceeds further, the Married Sex will grow into a much more appealing, exciting and thoughtful work.

Some thoughts about The Religion Thing

The debate of the controversies in religions has not occurred to me for a long time.

It is interesting to see that the title contains ‘religion’ instead of ‘sexual orientation’ even though both topics are explored in the play equally. Or perhaps not?

Two couples, two confrontations.One between homosexuality and alcoholism and one on Catholicism versus Judaism. The fate of the two conflicts is clear, the first one is resolved, or at least, fall into silence, and the second one intensify to a breaking point and hence a permanent split.

It is debatable how much the audience can learn from the discussion mainly because the opinions tend to go in one direction, at least fall into the same theme. The theme of the discussion where I attended turns out to be on therapy…

Which leave me with little time to ask the following question:’Does the break up between Patti and her husband signify the playwright’s subconscious/conscious belief that the co-existence of Judaism and Catholicism within a relationship will inevitably leads to its doom?’

It is especially interesting when the play was shown in a Jewish theater. I really wonder what Mr. Ari Roth think about the conflict. It is also interesting to know that Ms Renee Calarco, the playwright, grows up in a family of both Jewish and Catholic influence. I wonder what leads to her choice of making the religion conflict irreconcilable.

While listening to the comments during the discussion where many audience members comment on what they saw, I was wondering what leads to ‘what they saw’. Ms Calarco asked the audience whether they find the play weighing towards any side, the answers were all positive. I don’t necessarily agree with that. First, as mentioned above, an apparent bias occurs when there is an incongruousness  between the two religion belief but none between the two sexual orientation beliefs. Second, when the playwright asked the question, it in a certain extent reflects her own doubt towards a perfect neutrality in the play. Thirdly, it is natural for audience members to raise their opinions in concurrence with that of others’  during a public discussion and it is much more difficult otherwise. Be nice and not be nasty, a golden rule in social interaction.

Perhaps it is better to exert a little more control when opinions lean to one side, or on the theme of the discussion to generate more diversity in opinions? Or perhaps not.

But in any case, the play itself is a wonderful and mesmerizing work. Meticulous and powerful choreography, applauds to the costume and stage design. The script is simply great. So much laughs in the theater.

What a great night.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. After you read this, you should delete and write your own post, with a new title above. Or hit Add New on the left (of the admin dashboard) to start a fresh post.

Here are some suggestions for your first post.

1. You can find new ideas for what to blog about by reading the Daily Post.
2. Add PressThis to your browser. It creates a new blog post for you about any interesting  page you read on the web.
3. Make some changes to this page, and then hit preview on the right. You can always preview any post or edit it before you share it to the world.