Mr. Wilson, what's your take on this? Catholics propose St. Isidore as patron saint of internet users. (That's Saint Isidore of Seville Sanctus Isidorus Hispalensis, of course.) Surely we can do better than that?
Oh, Jim. I like the levity. Too much dour conversation on the site. These are serious times and we need a thing like this to raise our sights. But to make Mr. Wilson responsible is unbecomming. First: internet users do not need a patron St. unlike the poor fishermen who brave the seas. Do you want a long list of others who have and don't need patron saints? Second: internet users do so at their own risk of information, disinfomation, propoganda and quality of reasearch and , I think, urgerncy. The sense of immediate impact is a grave disservice. Even a Saint can not protect against all that onslaught of information. Saints are only dead well-meaning people. Only a good dose of Prozac will keep us calm and I don't think Saints dispense drugs. All of us have to chill out and not read, listen, watch and analyze so much. On the other hand, if it is St. Isidore, I may pray to him as well as others. Who knows for sure. We do what we have to.
Mr. Wilson will respond far more beautifully than I. And will probably disagree with my now passive and prayerful position.
Izzy, or is he ain't, our saint?
Not be patronizing, but I posted this two years ago, though without commentary, and the source has lapsed. Still no final decision. Like UN diplomacy, the glacial pace of the Church keeps too much from happening too fast, which is sometimes a good thing…
In this case it seems to be the Spanish who're hot for Isidore, but there are other candidates.
I'm not even sure that official sanction is necessary; in the old days patronage was established from the ground up. In fact, patron saints were a way for the Church to make up for the lost benefits of paganism. It's interesting how, as soon as monotheism is established, it starts to fracture. I take this as evidence for the Gnostic interpretation of creation, but however you look at it, one god just isn't enough. At least He needs henchmen, and the heavens must be full of personalities. If there is only one divine voice you tend to keep getting the same message, which overwhelms the individual. So we got Jesus, who is much nicer to deal with than his Father, but still pretty narrowly focused. The pagans had all sorts of gods, with minor divinities to fill in the cracks; you always had someone specific to address your concerns. The saints now play that role. They respond to prayer and are able to intercede between us and god. That is to say they can stand up to god, or argue with him, in a way that you and I can't, thus providing a (mediated) form of self-expression, which we in the West value above total submission.
At this point we're trying to metaphorize the old timers; ideally we need someone actually involved with computers or the net, but things get sticky when it comes to living people. Maybe in a hundred years someone like Bill Gates will get the job (yech), but first he's got to work some miracles, like getting rid of spam or popups. If you want to look for candidates among the current ranks, go for it.
I was surprised to see the Angel Gabriel nominated, ostensibly as a communicator. I guess that makes sense, but shouldn't he just be for e-mail? The internet is such a manifold phenomena that it's hard to pin it to one identity, but if we're allowing angels, how about Metatron, the biggest angel of them all? No so much because he started out as a human scribe, or because he seems to be involved in every sort of activity, or because he might occasionally be female, but the name just sounds so high-tech…
metatron and the archangels on akashic records, i loved their last album DemiUrgency....and gates might save more lives in africa dispensing aids drugs than mother teresa did in india...i think amassing a net worth of 100 billion (at one time) sounds pretty miraculous...how much does a sainthood cost these days?
|
- jim 3-26-2003 9:49 pm
Oh, Jim. I like the levity. Too much dour conversation on the site. These are serious times and we need a thing like this to raise our sights. But to make Mr. Wilson responsible is unbecomming. First: internet users do not need a patron St. unlike the poor fishermen who brave the seas. Do you want a long list of others who have and don't need patron saints? Second: internet users do so at their own risk of information, disinfomation, propoganda and quality of reasearch and , I think, urgerncy. The sense of immediate impact is a grave disservice. Even a Saint can not protect against all that onslaught of information. Saints are only dead well-meaning people. Only a good dose of Prozac will keep us calm and I don't think Saints dispense drugs. All of us have to chill out and not read, listen, watch and analyze so much. On the other hand, if it is St. Isidore, I may pray to him as well as others. Who knows for sure. We do what we have to.
Mr. Wilson will respond far more beautifully than I. And will probably disagree with my now passive and prayerful position.
- jeanne 3-26-2003 11:40 pm [add a comment]
Jeanne, thank you for your passive & prayerful position; we should all take our cue pursuant thereto. If only we could exclaim: Moms Rule ! & have it be so. Oh Auntie Em.
- frank 3-27-2003 12:42 am [add a comment]
Izzy, or is he ain't, our saint?
Not be patronizing, but I posted this two years ago, though without commentary, and the source has lapsed. Still no final decision. Like UN diplomacy, the glacial pace of the Church keeps too much from happening too fast, which is sometimes a good thing…
In this case it seems to be the Spanish who're hot for Isidore, but there are other candidates.
I'm not even sure that official sanction is necessary; in the old days patronage was established from the ground up. In fact, patron saints were a way for the Church to make up for the lost benefits of paganism. It's interesting how, as soon as monotheism is established, it starts to fracture. I take this as evidence for the Gnostic interpretation of creation, but however you look at it, one god just isn't enough. At least He needs henchmen, and the heavens must be full of personalities. If there is only one divine voice you tend to keep getting the same message, which overwhelms the individual. So we got Jesus, who is much nicer to deal with than his Father, but still pretty narrowly focused. The pagans had all sorts of gods, with minor divinities to fill in the cracks; you always had someone specific to address your concerns. The saints now play that role. They respond to prayer and are able to intercede between us and god. That is to say they can stand up to god, or argue with him, in a way that you and I can't, thus providing a (mediated) form of self-expression, which we in the West value above total submission.
At this point we're trying to metaphorize the old timers; ideally we need someone actually involved with computers or the net, but things get sticky when it comes to living people. Maybe in a hundred years someone like Bill Gates will get the job (yech), but first he's got to work some miracles, like getting rid of spam or popups. If you want to look for candidates among the current ranks, go for it.
I was surprised to see the Angel Gabriel nominated, ostensibly as a communicator. I guess that makes sense, but shouldn't he just be for e-mail? The internet is such a manifold phenomena that it's hard to pin it to one identity, but if we're allowing angels, how about Metatron, the biggest angel of them all? No so much because he started out as a human scribe, or because he seems to be involved in every sort of activity, or because he might occasionally be female, but the name just sounds so high-tech…
- alex 3-27-2003 9:49 pm [add a comment]
metatron and the archangels on akashic records, i loved their last album DemiUrgency....and gates might save more lives in africa dispensing aids drugs than mother teresa did in india...i think amassing a net worth of 100 billion (at one time) sounds pretty miraculous...how much does a sainthood cost these days?
- dave 3-27-2003 10:10 pm [add a comment]