About Funky Dung
Who is Funky Dung?
29-year-old grad student in Intelligent Systems (A.I.) at the University of Pittsburgh. I consider myself to be politically moderate and independent and somewhere between a traditional and neo-traditional Catholic.
I was raised Lutheran, spent a number of years as an agnostic, and joined the Catholic Church at the 2000 Easter Vigil.
Why Funky Dung?
I haven't been asked this question nearly as many times as you or I might expect. Funky Dung is a reference to an obscure Pink Floyd song. On the album Atom Heart Mother, there is a track called Atom Heart Mother Suite. It's broken up into movements, like a symphony, and one of the movements is called Funky Dung. I picked that nickname a long time ago (while I was still in high school I think), shortly after getting an internet connection for the first time. To me it means "cool/neat/groovy/spiffy stuff/crap/shiznit", as in "That's some cool stuff, dude!"
Whence Ales Rarus?
I used to enjoy making people guess what this means, but I've decided to relent and make it known to all. Ales Rarus is a Latin play on words. "Avis rarus" means "a rare bird" and carries similar meaning to "an odd fellow". "Ales" is another Latin word for bird that carries connotations of omens, signs of the times, and/or augery. If you want to get technical, both "avis" and "ales" are feminine (requiring "rara", but they can be made masculine in poetry (which tends to breaks lots of rules). I decided I'd rather have a masculine name in Latin. ;) Yeah, I'm a nerd. So what? :-P
Wherefore blog?
It is my intention to "teach in order to lead others to faith" by being always "on the lookout for occasions of announcing Christ by word, either to unbelievers . . . or to the faithful" through the "use of the communications media". I also act knowing that I "have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors [my] opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and [I] have a right to make [my] opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward [my and their] pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons." (adapted from CCC 904-907)
Statement of Faith
I have been baptized and confirmed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I, therefore, renounce Satan; I renounce all his works; I renounce all his allurements.
I hold and profess all that is contained in the Apostles' Creed, the Niceno- Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.
Having been buried with Christ unto death and raised up with him unto a new life, I promise to live no longer for myself or for that world which is the enemy of God but for him who died for me and rose again, serving God, my heavenly Father, faithfully and unto death in the holy Catholic Church.
I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. That is, I promote and defend authentic Catholic Teaching and Faith in union with Christ and His Church and in union with the Holy Father, the Bishop of Rome, the Successor of St. Peter.
Thanks be unto Thee, O my God, for all Thy infinite goodness, and, especially, for the love Thou hast shown unto me at my Confirmation. I Give Thee thanks that Thou didst then send down Thy Holy Spirit unto my soul with all His gifts and graces.
May He take full possession of me for ever.
May His divine unction cause my face to shine.
May His heavenly wisdom reign in my heart.
May His understanding enlighten my darkness.
May His counsel guide me.
May His knowledge instruct me.
May His piety make me fervent.
May His divine fear keep me from all evil.
Drive from my soul, O Lord, all that may defile it.
Give me grace to be Thy faithful soldier, that having fought the good fight of faith, I may be brought to the crown of everlasting life, through the merits of Thy dearly beloved Son, our Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.
Behind the Curtain: an Interview With Funky Dung (Thursday, March 03, 2005)
I try to avoid most memes that make their way 'round the blogosphere (We really do need a better name, don't
we?), but some are worth participating in. Take for instance the "interview game" that's the talk o'
the 'sphere. I think it's a great way to get to know the people in neighborhood. Who are the people in your
neighborhood? In your neighborhod? In your neigh-bor-hoo-ood...*smack* Sorry, Sesame Street flashback.
Anyhow, I saw Jeff "Curt Jester"
Miller's answers and figured since he's a regular reader of mine he'd be a good interviewer. Without
further ado, here are my answers to his questions.
1. Being that your pseudonym Funky Dung was chosen from a Pink Floyd track on Atom Heart Mother, what is you
favorite Pink Floyd song and why?
Wow. That's a tuffy. It's hard to pick out a single favorite. Pink Floyd isn't really a band known for
singles. They mostly did album rock and my appreciation of them is mostly of a gestalt nature. If I had to
pick one, though, it'd be "Comfortably Numb". I get chills up my spine every time I hear it and if
it's been long enough since the last time, I get midty-eyed. I really don't know why. That's a rather
unsatisfying answer for an interview, so here are the lyrics to a Rush song. It's not their best piece of music,
but the lyrics describe me pretty well.
New World Man
He's a rebel and a runner
He's a signal turning green
He's a restless young romantic
Wants to run the big machine
He's got a problem with his poisons
But you know he'll find a cure
He's cleaning up his systems
To keep his nature pure
Learning to match the beat of the old world man
Learning to catch the heat of the third world man
He's got to make his own mistakes
And learn to mend the mess he makes
He's old enough to know what's right
But young enough not to choose it
He's noble enough to win the world
But weak enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
He's a radio receiver
Tuned to factories and farms
He's a writer and arranger
And a young boy bearing arms
He's got a problem with his power
With weapons on patrol
He's got to walk a fine line
And keep his self-control
Trying to save the day for the old world man
Trying to pave the way for the third world man
He's not concerned with yesterday
He knows constant change is here today
He's noble enough to know what's right
But weak enough not to choose it
He's wise enough to win the world
But fool enough to lose it ---
He's a new world man...
2. What do you consider your most important turning point from agnosticism to the Catholic Church.
At some point in '99, I started attending RCIA at the Pittsburgh Oratory. I mostly went to ask a lot of
obnoxious Protestant questions. Or at least that's what I told myself. I think deep down I wanted desperately
to have faith again. At that point I think I'd decided that if any variety of Christianity had the Truth, the
Catholic Church did. Protestantism's wholesale rejection of 1500 years of tradition didn't sit well with me,
even as a former Lutheran.
During class one week, Sister Bernadette Young (who runs the program) passed out thin booklet called "
Handbook for Today's Catholic". One paragraph
in that book spoke to me and I nearly cried as I read it.
"A person who is seeking deeper insight into reality may sometimes have doubts, even about God himself.
Such doubts do not necessarily indicate lack of faith. They may be just the opposite - a sign of growing faith.
Faith is alive and dynamic. It seeks, through grace, to penetrate into the very mystery of God. If a
particular doctrine of faith no longer 'makes sense' to a person, the person should go right on seeking. To
know what a doctrine says is one thing. To gain insight into its meaning through the gift of understanding is
something else. When in doubt, 'Seek and you will find.' The person who seeks y reading, discussing,
thinking, or praying eventually sees the light. The person who talks to God even when God is 'not there' is
alive with faith."
At the end of class I told Sr. Bernadette that I wanted to enter the Church at the next Easter vigil.
3. If you were a tree what kind of, oh sorry about that .. what is the PODest thing you have ever
done?
I set up
WikiIndex, a clearinghouse for reviews
of theological books, good, bad, and ugly. It has a long way to go, but it'll be cool when it's finished. :)
4. What is your favorite quote from Venerable John Henry Newman?
"Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."
5. If you could ban one hymn from existence, what would it be?
That's a tough one. As a member of
the Society for a Moratorium on the Music of
Marty Haugen and David Haas, there are obviously a lot of songs that grate on my nerves. If I had to pick
one, though, I'd probably pick
"Sing
of the Lord's Goodness" by Ernie Sands.
And, as I’ve said before, you can’t meaningfully ask “When does (human) life begin?” unless you have satisfactorily defined both “human” and “life,” and within the span of gestation there is not a broad enough consensus on those definitions to move forward. Unfortunately, while scientific knowledge is excellent for quantifying the constituent elements of life and of the human person, the concepts of “human” and “life” remain abstract, subjective, culturally conditioned, and not quantifiable.
But abortion, or even “pro-life” ideology, can’t be taken as a single issue. These things are embedded in a much larger, more complicated social fabric. So a libertarian, a pagan, a vegan, a Catholic, or a Protestant might find abortion unacceptable, but none of them can agree on the greater social context in which that unacceptability is nested, so we don’t have a common context in which abortion is universally understood as unacceptable.
In other words, the libertarian might argue that libertarianism does not accept abortion, the vegan might argue that veganism does not accept abortion, the Catholic might argue that Catholicism does not accept abortion, but at the same time there are plenty of libertarians, vegans, Catholics and others who do find abortion acceptable, because the overall cultural context in which those various points of view are competing does not actually include the tenet that abortion is unacceptable. I.e., while diverse people oppose abortion, their opposition does not seem to come from the ground of human existence, but from the grounds of diverse ideologies.
So although a person from any given ideological group may believe that his or her views necessitate a particular position on the issue of abortion, and that may be a perfectly valid conclusion to draw, the fact remains that we live in an ideologically diverse society, and we like it that way. Libertarians, pagans, vegans, Catholics, Protestants, etc., do not want to be told what to think by people from any other ideological perspective, so each perspective simultaneously gives up its claim to be the underlying ideological core of our culture and engages in a battle to become the underlying ideological core of our culture, with the tacit understanding between all competing groups that if any of them ever succeeds, it will be the harbinger of our social, cultural, and civilizational failure.
What is our underlying context? So far as I can tell, it is that we eschew underlying contexts. That bare, Zen-like paradox is what keeps us going.
Does it matter that diverse people oppose abortion? Sure. In a society driven by popular opinion, having more people in agreement increases the potential of their effecting a policy change. But it’s important also to note that diverse people do not oppose abortion, too. In my opinion, that indicates a fundamentally controversial issue, and not just a surface-level ideological power struggle. Which means that whenever one side has the upper hand in policy making, the other side will be scheming a regime change.
A better approach might be to put aside the ideological attachments with abortion, pro or con, and examine the basic social context in which we live to ask ourselves why abortion is a fundamental controversy to begin with, and whether that can be changed.
(If you’re wondering what I mean by “fundamental controversy,” consider some of our fundamental non-controversies. For example, no one seriously questions that all people should be able to think, worship, and speak freely. We may disagree about definitions for the terms, or the degree to which those freedoms are protected, but we do not question their basic existence. Perhaps even deeper, no one questions the right of property, or that theft requires some kind of reparation. The abortion issue does not have the same kind of rootedness; it is questionable from all sides.)
g
was that mallory crawford of earth mother enterprises? if so, she, along with serrin foster of fems4life, definately inspired me to see pro-life in a whole different light: a VERY good light. 🙂
gbm3 said:
I wrote after listening to a hippie who was prolife
so i asked him if the pro life hippie who spoke was mallory crawford. she is the only hippie i can think of who came and spoke at pro life saturdays or meetings. this may have been before you got involved.
It was Mallory Crawford.
And theomorph:
It’s simpler than you think; It goes back to the discussion we had earlier (at which I’m still looking):
When does life begin (or end in the other discussion)?
“Cultural context” has nothing to do with the conclusion to the above question.
The conclusion does have to do with knowledge which is often attached differently to various cultures (Ex: US vs. Kenya): knowledge of DNA, ultrasounds, and their own human offspring (whatever that may be).
—
It’ll be there next time I publish. 🙂
Let’s take these example groups:
1. Vegans think animals are to be preserved. All humans are at least an animal.
Humans should be preserved.
2. Many pagans think all is sacred. All that is sacred is to be preserved. Every human is part of all.
Humans should be preserved.
3. Libertarians believe all humans are to be left to their own (They define human life scientifically; philosophical definitions of the human person are essentially irrelevant). Zygotes are human.
Zygotes are to be left alone.
There are some in these groups that deviate. I think they do it for their convenience.
(Have a good weekend. To one and to all human.)
—
My eyebrows are not raised. I never understood how a libertarian, pagan, or vegan could find abortion acceptable.
I remember writing an article for the opinions section (not “perspectives” section) of The Pitt News back in the late ’90’s on it (“The Liberal Pro-life Perspective”, I believe). I wrote after listening to a hippie who was prolife: abortion is not progressive, inclusive, nor does it give due human rights (US Declaration of Independence).
—
Unless you are a Vegan, and most people aren’t, then assenting to the Vegan proposition without ceasing your consumption of foods derived from animals and your use of medicines or other materials derived from animals makes you a hypocrite.
Unless you treat everything as sacred, not just the stuff you feel like treating sacred today (e.g., embryos, etc.), then assenting to the Pagan proposition makes you a hypocrite.
Your Libertarian example is a non sequitur. You say Libertarians “define life scientifically,” but then simply assert “Zygotes are human.” Except “life” is not the same as “human,” and both the humanity and the “life” of zygotes could be debated, even by scientists, who, by definition, operate “scientifically.”
Was what who? Where’d that name come from?
What I was doing was laying out some thoughts about why these *specific* groups believe the way they do in regard to abortion (if they are not “a hypocrite” to their beliefs).
Further, the Libertarian example was not fully explained in a drawn out manner since http://l4l.org/ explains it. You may want to specifically read: http://l4l.org/library/mythfact.html (if you’re interested).
—
Would you like to add Pharmacists for Life International? 🙂
http://www.pfli.org/