The Avant-Garde Protestant

In 1517 Martin Luther published his 95 Theses in defiance of the corruption of the Catholic Church.  John Calvin first published Institutes of the Christian Religion in 1536.  Reformist thinkers such as these encouraged a rejection of the Church's current laws.  Among the most important were the denial of the authority of the Pope, a rejection of the unregulated capitalism within the structure of organized Christianity (the buying/selling of indulgences and clerical offices), and the questioning of the devotion to Mary, opting for a more personal relationship with God/Jesus.  Renaissance Humanism influenced reformist church thinkers, which in turn influenced the development of Secular Humanism as we can see through the recapitulation of the Reformation by the Avant-garde artistic movements of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

First, with reference to the denial of the authority of the Pope, we find the Modernist/Avant-Gardist Oedipal relationship to predecessors.  In both cases, we find the precursor (the Pope or any existing artistic movement) as something to be 'murdered'/removed for its prohibition of a deeper relationship with the origin.  The Pope stands as a pre-existing husband to Christ, barring the Christian from an intimate relationship with Christ.  [The Bridal Theology is reversed here in order to hold the Oedipal arrangement - perhaps it would be more accurate to utilize the Electra Complex.]  In the same way, the Avant-garde artist sees pre-existing art as a barrier to his/her intimate experience with truth, authenticity and originality, thus as a rule prior movements must be rejected.

Second, with reference to the rejection of the buying and selling of indulgences and clerical offices, these acts of commerce were seen as belittling the meaning of receiving forgiveness and corrupting the purity of the officers of the church.  For the Protestant, the hierarchy, if any, should correlate to the piety of the official.  Similarly, throughout the history of Modernism, we see a continual denial of Bourgeoisie society/culture by various Avant-garde movements, each one rejecting capitalism as a barrier to reality in its own way, from the Dadaist to the Minimalist, Performance Artist to Street Artist. (Of course there is always the re-perversion of ideals, think Jim/Tammy Faye Bakker or Jeff Koons.)

Finally, and probably most importantly, as it feeds into the logic of the previous examples, the Protestant insists on a more personal relationship to Christ.   The increase in literacy paired with a growing distrust of Church officials lead many to desire and demand that the individual be given a direct connection to God/Jesus through the scriptures and prayers.  No longer did the patron feel a need to go to Mary for intercession, but instead could go straight to the source of salvation, Jesus.  In art, this is most clearly seen in Post-modernism.  Although earlier versions of the Modernist Avant-garde placed a premium on individuality, never had it been so personalized as with the rise of pluralism (of interpretation) -the infinite possibilities for individual-based meaning - and the mark of post-modernism, relative realities.  With this new freedom, the cultural critic (artist) is freed from the pressures of adhering to a meta-narrative in the pursuit of his/her endeavors.

The (un)Real Consequence of Fiction

Lord Byron: Truth is always strange; stranger than fiction.
Mark Twain : Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities, truth isn't.

Tom Clancy: The difference between reality and fiction? Fiction has to make sense.

Fiction is a synthative writing style that combines scenarios that could  happen into a narrative that expresses the way that things do happen.  I use the word could loosely, and in a way that is possibly in line with Wittgenstein.  Many times in fiction, especially in fantasy, the events/characters described only could happen/exist because there is a language available to describe them.  For example, it is quite easy to describe verbally and pictorially the Cheshire Cat from "Alice in Wonderland".  We have the words/images for cat, talking and appear/disappear, all we have to do is put them together in a logical/functional manner (as far as the specific language requires), and our minds can imagine the being to exist.

But the being or scenario in fiction must have a reason for existing (in the narrative.)  In fiction, every character, scene, and action is aimed towards the goal of the narrative, whatever that goal may be.  In fiction, everything has a purpose.

The question to be asked is whether or not our minds actually know the difference between fictional sensibility and real sensibility?  I argue that we cannot fully differentiate.

[Obviously, what is to follow could use some kind of validation, scientific or otherwise, but bear with me.]

I think that we have evolved as pattern recognizing beings.  It is to our advantage to take note of patterns, and use them to predict the most likely future scenarios.  For example, this process makes finding food easier, esp. when you think of agriculture as a capitalization on a recognizable pattern.  Recognizing and capitalizing on pattern is the process of finding/creating order.

In general, this pattern recognition is the basis for what we commonly call logic.  If this, then that.  It leads to the (often fallible) belief that there is a cause and effect relationship between time ordered events.  When one event repeatedly follows another event, we assume there is causality (of course there is really only correlation, but it works for the most part.)  By and large, those things that do not stick to this understanding are either rejected as anomalies or heralded as miracles.  In both cases, those who do not witness such outlying data personally often remain skeptical.

Where things regularly follow a pattern, we often create a dualistic pairing, and give the latter event as the meaning of its predecessor.  This is often the source of the meaning of words.  For example, death always follows life, so death is defined as what happens after one has lived.  (No one ever says they were dead before they were born.) Further, the reason or purpose of death is given in terms of life.  In fictional accounts (myths), there is another life achieved through death.

Back to making a point (thus proving this writing is fictional.)  In lived experience for normal functioning people, what follows does not always make logical sense to what precedes.  Where it makes perfect logical sense to plant during the spring in order to harvest in the fall, it does not make sense that one be clothed on a beautiful 78 degree day.  Of course, we can begin a series of "why/because" explanations for illogical happenings, but we often find ourselves at aporias or absurdities. 

Our ability to recognize pattern essentially forces us to create fictions where there is a lack of apparent order.  Simultaneously, the clockwork functioning of fiction [yes, I am implying that clockwork as analogy of time is a fiction] reinforces our inherent desire for order/causality.  Normal people, on some level, partially accept this paradox, although it causes us to struggle with our purpose, with what to do next and why.  We feel decentered and fractured in our search for meaning.  We accept, knowingly or not, that we create fictions as an evolutionary coping mechanism required for survival. When this mechanisms goes awry, or gets out of hand, it is called schizophrenia.  In it's essence, schizophrenia is a psychological disorder where everything makes sense, but only to the one for whom the sense is made - the (internal) narrative is completely fictionalized.

But perhaps schizophrenia is a unifying structure.  Perhaps, to one who is engulfed in fiction, there is nothing that does not make sense, and the purpose is clear.  Perhaps it is an Enlightening experience. For the rest of us, whose majority forms the 'real' reality, the schizophrenic's experience seems to be one of torment, and his/her understood purpose is often tragic.

In the end, we must question who (or what institutions) seek schizophrenia. Religion? Science? Mathematics? Art?