NOTES ON TRIBUNAL

Tribunal was (and still is) a project that I continually had the fear of being misunderstood. Most of those fears went back to thinking people would think I am saying, emotions and logic are not suitable tools for finding reality. What the first two parts (floating perceptions, and words to define words) assume, is that emotions or logic are the dominant (or exclusive tool) for understanding reality and making decisions. With those assumptions made, where would that lead.

Also even though the whole piece leads to a conclusion and resolution of committing to faith commitments, this does not mean faith commitments are always good. They have the most power for good, but also for evil and should not be entered into with out a lot of scrutiny, and even reinforced by emotions and logic it self.

Working on this project also started giving me an interesting perspective on things I encountered, I started evaluating where things fell on the emotions/logic spectrum with out even trying. Books I read, people I talked, even to the point of categorizing the music I listened to. Here are some of those thoughts about music.

Bach-logic

His counterpoint (melody on melody) is extremely detailed, architectural and thought out. So much so that over 250 years later his scores and still studied and emulated.

Ornette Coleman-emotion

If you read any thing where he is talking about music, feelings come up over and over. This I think is a helpful lens for listening to his music which can be a bit jaring and feel unorganized. Its like emotions which keep changing. Its almost like you can here him laughing and crying though his saxophone.

Max Richter-emotion

In his description of his music he said something like being “not being afraid to appeal directly to the emotions”, and I think thats a pretty apt description. If you opened up the hood (looked at the score) of his compostions you would see there is not a whole lot going on, but yet his works can be deeply moving. I am especially drawn the the redacted version of his album sleep (I must confess I have not listed to the eight hour version nor do I have any plans to)

Love Supreme John Coltrane-emotions/logic/faith

This is the only musical example for me, that I feel deeply incapsulates all three. Obviously the theme of the whole album is spiritual as he says in the liner notes that the project is an offering to God. The work is deeply emotionally stiring, especially the tumultuous climax of part 3 leading the the calm and resolution of part 4. And there is the logical unity that connects the whole album (which is very unusual for a jazz album). The bass part at the begging of part 1 becomes the chant at the end of the song, that motive is systematically taken through all 12 keys, he even quotes the theme from a different part in the work doing one of his improvised solos.

TRIBUNAL RESEARCH PART 2

In addition to books I read in preparation for tribunal (see tribunal research part 1) I also conducted interviews. I ask participants a series of questions regarding the themes of emotions/logic/faith. The answers I received were vulnerable, insightful, and had a large impact on how I thought about these topics, thus effected the lyrics that became tribunal. Here are some selected excerpts from those interviews.

Is your commitment to faith (or worldview) more a logical or emotional decision. Please explain?

I am an emotional person, so I am going to say it is more emotional, BUT I also think it is in line with logic. It makes no logical sense to me that the world with all its complexity and intricate details came into being from something randomly exploding and logically it makes no sense to me that throwing millions of years into a mix would in any way help make intricate detailed things. Order produces order. Chaos does not produce order. 

However, I was raised religious and by people with a strong faith and so I do realize my faith was installed mostly through emotion (or heart and soul). 

I tend to feel things very strongly which would be emotion, but intertwines with faith. Faith does not mean anything to me without emotions though, I guess. Like, I could still logically believe and have faith, but without feeling you cannot really have hope. 

When your faith (or worldview) feels tested, does the testing come from a logical or emotional place? How do you respond to this?

When it is challenged from a logical perspective it tends not to bother me much because I assume the answer will become later on because the faith part of me knows the answer will align properly later on.

When it is challenged emotionally, then it is harder because even though I logically can still think the same the emotion can cloud my mind or feel overwhelming. The arguments that would most affect me would be emotional ones. (why God allows children to be molested or brutally murdered would affect me more then some new scientific find or discovery). However, I do feel like I am a tiny any bug with a minuscule brain and there is no possible way for me to comprehend or reason anything out properly from an all powerful God. So, I assume that when things don't make as much sense or feel confusing to me that it is because my logic is inferior and then I use faith to trust God and that He knows all the things I am incapable of knowing. 

Have you had an experience where all of these elements where in harmony? Please explain?

In general I feel like logic, emotions and faith fit perfectly together and that that is how they were intended. I think maybe the faith part is strongest and can pull the other things on line better. Also, you must take into consideration that I am on antidepressants and have been for probably fifteen years off and on? Mostly on. And that when I am not on them my emotion part is too overwhelming and messes with the other things too much and that I cannot see and think logically good without them. So that is going to affect things. Also, when I am on too high a dose of antidepressants then the logic part becomes too muffled or something in the other direction. So, it is a delicate balance and when I am not on them I do not feel like 'me' or normal. I feel very extreme with wildly crashing emotions and although my faith may still be intact the logic part is not intact hardly at all unless I am on these meds. 

 But, the way things are currently, I usually feel all three elements are working together and are harmonious. I do realize that some things emotional (death and other things like that) feel as if they don't fit in properly but the faith part covers and fixes that for me. 

Thoughts on Faith

Faith or worldviews are the chosen beliefs or theories one has about the world that extend beyond one's own certainty and knowing. If one has "faith" one is also acknowledging there is uncertainty and have chosen a response to that uncertainty with a decision of faith.

One cannot be in full certainty. Life is uncertain. Everyone exercises levels of faith to handle the inherent discomfort of a human experience of uncertainty in their own way. What they have faith "in" changes. Some have faith in others, themselves, God, ideas. Some try to deny their attempts to create certainty in the face of uncertainty, trying to embrace uncertainty completely...yet, by doing so, are still driven in the desire to create certainty even in that. Others also dive into complete meaningless and attempt to live with that - often at the cost of hope, purpose and meaning. 

Is your commitment to faith (or worldview) more a logical or emotional decision. Please explain? 

Any attempt to answer this is trying to conceptualize something that is deeper than concept. All decisions are both logical and emotional, and ideas that either can be measured or controlled are self delusion. For example, in one circumstance if one were to say "logical" as an answer, one could be fashioning an idea as a reaction to the concept that emotion is a threat to one's survival. They may believe themselves to be unemotional to be safe. Because to their mind/ego, emotionality would be death. But that FEAR of emotion, and the death they believe emotion brings to the ego/mind, is itself emotion. And is, itself, the biggest driver of this person's self concept of identity. Their fear is doing them. They are not doing their fear. The ones who claim logic are often the most emotional of us all - however stoic they seem on the surface. Because they do not know how to relate or feel their emotions - yet carry around the weight of the pressure of these emotions constantly and try to diffuse it with their mind.

Is your commitment to faith (or worldview) more a logical or emotional decision. Please explain?

Somewhere in-between. If you asked a devout religious person they’d probably tell you I’m logical. If you asked a committed atheist they’d probably tell you I’m more emotional. I thought I was very logical for a long time, most surprisingly enough when i was religious. I really wanted to back up my presupposition that there was a god. As of right now, with where science and religion are, I don’t think there’s anyway to really prove definitively where we came from, or what happens after we die. So I think most people base their ideas on a presupposition. And I think in a lot of ways those ideas are based on emotions. 

Can you talk about a time in your life where these elements were out of balance in your life? 

Yeah losing my faith was extremely scary, I didn’t feel like christianity was moral but i felt really guilty about that, I didn’t know what i believed in. So for a while i was a zombie follower not being super happy about it but feeling like i just needed to be more faithful or trusting, but feeling really bad about it. it was very destabilizing when i decided i felt more ethical deciding not to be christian, cause my whole worldview was anchored in it since birth.

Is your commitment to faith (or worldview) more a logical or emotional decision. Please explain?

Both. Logically you can't look at the intricacy of the natural world and think that it was random. Logically because every other religion requires some kind of good works to make to heaven and Christ offers himself as a free gift. Emotionally because I've experienced the presence of God and there is nothing better.

When your faith (or worldview) feels tested, does the testing come from a logical or emotional place? How do you respond to this?

Emotional first. It usually comes when your exhausted or life's circumstances aren't going the way you want. Then its easy to make a logical argument against faith.

Can you talk about a time in your life where these elements were out of balance in your life?

There have been times that God felt distant usually from an emotional standpoint. Faith is what holds it together. I know in my personal history that God has met me and no amount of negative emotional or logical argument can change that fact.

TRIBUNAL RESEARCH PART 1

Here are some of the books I read in preparation for writing tribunal and some of my thoughts on them

The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins - This book clearly advocates a rationality/logical approach to creating our beliefs about the world. I was surprised how clear the author was in making the point that emotions and faith should not be apart of answering these type of questions. At one point in the book he makes the statement that he believes that every thing that there is to know, can and with enough time, will be knowable. Which makes sense as a prerequisite for a logic only built belief system. If not it means there would be things you would never have access to and would need a different kind of tool to get there. Reading this made me happy. I felt like a lawyer who had just found all the evidence I need.

Also reading this book with an emotional/logic/faith lens made for a very interesting experience. Every argument some one makes in a book can be put in one of these categories. I was shocked how much of what he was saying came from an emotional argument, not logical.

Making sense of God, The reason for God by Tim Keller - Tim Keller is a person of faith (he is a pastor) but most of his content comes from a logical perspective. You hear a lot of repackaged C. S. Lewis in his writings. One concept that really stood out to me was him talking about what the post modern belief system means. This idea rejects any meta narrative, any all encompassing story that explains everything (Albert Einstein was not a post modernist) The irony is the rejection of a meta narrative becomes the new meta narrative. This influenced part 2 “there is a new story there is a new mono explanation”

The Abolition of Man, Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis - Lewis is another person of faith commitments, who mostly talks and writes in the realm of logic. In reading his books I sense Lewis perceives logic as a purer substance than I personally do. What ever is most logical is the truth kind of idea. I see logic as more fluid and even subjective. All that said, I love his books. The first half of Mere Christianity is this amazing point my point, if a is true, then b must also be then you get to c ect. In part two there is a section of axioms being built on one another in like manner. “number one I exist, number two I am myself, number three I know what I feel….

Fear and Trembling by Søren Kierkegaard - To be honest I did not finish this book. I don’t know if I had a wonky translation or it is just hard to follow. Probably some of both. The one bit I remember is it talked about Abrahams faith transcending ethical reasoning. Which to be honest, feels really uncomfortable.