Deus ex Machinus

[donsnow]

Hi, all -

I’ve been thinking about this one, for a couple of days. Just wondered if any of you would like to discuss the implications or inferences of today’s technology, in the light of the early Industrial Age quip, “Deus ex Machinus”.
Also, we could discuss the inferences and implications for the early Industrial Age, of that quip.

 

[revert_jen]

Hi, all -

I’ve been thinking about this one, for a couple of days. Just wondered if any of you would like to discuss the implications or inferences of today’s technology, in the light of the early Industrial Age quip, “Deus ex Machinus”.
Also, we could discuss the inferences and implications for the early Industrial Age, of that quip.

Sorry, probably I should leave this thread alone as over my head, but it sounds interesting. However, the only thing I have heard about that remotely relates to this is the ancient theatrical plot device known as “deus ex machina” which is clearly not what you are talking about. Could you perhaps provide more context?

–Jen

 

[donsnow]

Sorry, probably I should leave this thread alone as over my head, but it sounds interesting. However, the only thing I have heard about that remotely relates to this is the ancient theatrical plot device known as “deus ex machina” which is clearly not what you are talking about. Could you perhaps provide more context?

–Jen

Hi, revert -

Thanks for your response. No, I may have started a thread over my head. Because I hadn’t heard of the classical ‘Deus ex Machinus’, until you mentioned it.

Ok, more context.

Before the Industrial Age, people were linked closer to nature than we are. Ships moved by the wind on sails; livestock pulled the plows; people sowed seeds and reaped the harvest; people sewed clothes with thread and cloth they had made themselves, on spinning wheels and looms. Factories were powered by people or animals. etc. People lived by the Biblical ‘sweat of their brows’. The cotton gin, the jinny and other early machines freed some people from field labor and hand looms for cloth. By the time railroads and steamships came along, somebody quipped, ‘Deus ex Machinus’.

Now, what you wrote has put a new light or deeper meaning to the phrase when it was coined, instead of what I originally knew.

Could you tell me some about that classical plot?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think the original meaning referred to Greek plays where one of their gods flew in at the end to solve all the problems. The machine refers to the classical machines-- levers, pulleys, etc which were used to make the actor fly.

It came to mean any artificial solution used by an author to conclude his work after he had written himself into a corner. See Wikipedia Deus ex Machina ]

 

[Detales]

I did a paper on the industrial revolution and its consequences some time ago, and never happened upon the phrase you mention, DS. On the other hand, having many friends over time who were either in literature or theater, I have often heard the phrase used to mean exactly what JK says. It is also an element in one of my my favorite cartoons: A group of scientists is looking at a large chalk board filled with terms and equations. Right before the = sign at the end of all that, in parentheses is the well known escape clause (and then a miracle happens).

 

[donsnow]

I think the original meaning referred to Greek plays where one of their gods flew in at the end to solve all the problems. The machine refers to the classical machines-- levers, pulleys, etc which were used to make the actor fly.

It came to mean any artificial solution used by an author to conclude his work after he had written himself into a corner. See Wikipedia Deus ex Machina ]

Good morning, Joe -

Thanks, now I can try to see how that changes the context of the OP.

Don

 

[donsnow]

I did a paper on the industrial revolution and its consequences some time ago, and never happened upon the phrase you mention, DS. On the other hand, having many friends over time who were either in literature or theater, I have often heard the phrase used to mean exactly what JK says. It is also an element in one of my my favorite cartoons: A group of scientists is looking at a large chalk board filled with terms and equations. Right before the = sign at the end of all that, in parentheses is the well known escape clause (and then a miracle happens).

Hi, Detales -

Unfortunately, I can’t remember where I came across it, but I do have the impression that it had to do with the Industrial Revolution. I guess I just read different books than you do

Well, what JK and you say, does add to my impression of the quip in its classical context, applied to the Industrial Revolution.

Ahhh…those pesky miracles, they pop up at the darndest times

OK, the original thought I had, was that the quip referred to replacing God with machines. Because of the ‘Revolution’ in the phrase, Industrial Revolution. However, when seen in context, then that adds the thought of raising man to the position of a god. Which is a whole different ball of wax.

Have any of you seen that?

Don

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . . It is also an element in one of my my favorite cartoons: A group of scientists is looking at a large chalk board filled with terms and equations. Right before the = sign at the end of all that, in parentheses is the well known escape clause (and then a miracle happens).

I recall the cartoon. In the version I say it was a flow diagram. Buried in the middle was step 23: Then a miracle happens. In the punch line someone was asking: “Could you expand a bit on step 23.” “That looks like step 23.” became a favorite line at work when some got over ambitious in his planning.

 

[Detales]

Cool, JK.

To the best of my recollection, DonSnow, the “revolution” in that phrase has two aspects. One is the change of energy source moving from hay burning in animals to coal burning in steam engines. The second is that some people benefited from this not only economically, but in terms of leisure, which allowed time for reflection. So all of the ramifications of that caused a turning of events, or revolution, in priorities, ways, and means. Surely some of financial beneficiaries who became magnates of industrial empires may have had delusions of divinity, but for the most part, the people who originally supported the “revolution,” namely factory workers, may very well have thought themselves to have landed in hell. This might be similar to what you may find in the very short presentation at www.storyofstuff.com

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Some 40 years ago my wife and I bought a season of Operas by Sarah Caldwell in in Boston. [It took her three years to get them all on and I think she broke the bank; but they were great operas.] One was a classic Greek tale, Hippolyte I think. At the end there was a Deus ex Machina episode with Placido Domingo as the flier. [He was just starting out at the time.] I think they underestimated his weight . It took a couple of bounces to get him off the ground each time.

 

[Detales]

 

[donsnow]

Cool, JK.

To the best of my recollection, DonSnow, the “revolution” in that phrase has two aspects. One is the change of energy source moving from hay burning in animals to coal burning in steam engines. The second is that some people benefited from this not only economically, but in terms of leisure, which allowed time for reflection. So all of the ramifications of that caused a turning of events, or revolution, in priorities, ways, and means. Surely some of financial beneficiaries who became magnates of industrial empires may have had delusions of divinity, but for the most part, the people who originally supported the “revolution,” namely factory workers, may very well have thought themselves to have landed in hell. This might be similar to what you may find in the very short presentation at www.storyofstuff.com

Hi, Detales -

Thank you, for your response.

Would you care to cite the priorities which were turned around?

I’ll check out the link, now. If it’s a video, I’ll have to pass, because my computer takes an hour to display a 15min video.

 

[Detales]

Primarily they were agrarian priorities as work opportunities opened in industrialized areas. So what changed was mostly what work was done and how. Eventually even agriculture became mechanized. But much changed as collaterals of mechanization, from health to demographics. New economic policies came about, mostly adversarial, the effects of which we are reaping even today after our own form of “revolution.” No doubt, as part of this turmoil, people’s faith was tested, as it always is by circumstance and by Nature. Perhaps a few actually woke up, as is fairly evenly the case over time.

 

[donsnow]

Primarily they were agrarian priorities as work opportunities opened in industrialized areas. So what changed was mostly what work was done and how. Eventually even agriculture became mechanized. But much changed as collaterals of mechanization, from health to demographics. New economic policies came about, mostly adversarial, the effects of which we are reaping even today after our own form of “revolution.” No doubt, as part of this turmoil, people’s faith was tested, as it always is by circumstance and by Nature. Perhaps a few actually woke up, as is fairly evenly the case over time.

Thank you.

What I’m wondering really goes in another forum; but it’s safe to say that the economical changes started by the Industrial Revolution also changed politics, around the world.

Well, by bed time is 10:00PM. I’ve enjoyed it. Be back tomorrow.

Don

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Hi, all -

I’ve been thinking about this one, for a couple of days. Just wondered if any of you would like to discuss the implications or inferences of today’s technology, in the light of the early Industrial Age quip, “Deus ex Machinus”.
Also, we could discuss the inferences and implications for the early Industrial Age, of that quip.

To get off the topic somewhat, Dietrich Bonhoeffer used the term in one of his writings, in “Texts - Letters from Prison”, when he wrote …

“Religious people speak of God when human knowledge (perhaps simply because they are too lazy to think) has come to an end, or when human resources fail - in fact it is always the deus ex machina that they bring on the scene, either for the apparent solution of insoluble problems, or as strength in human failure - always, that is to say, exploring human weakness or human boundaries. Of necessity, that can only go on only till people by their own strength push these boundaries somewhat further out, so that God becomes superfluous as a deus ex machina. I’ve come to be doubtful of talking about any human boundaries (is even death, which people now hardly fear [my comment - Bonhoeffer was writing towards the end of the war, and death was a common spectacle in Germany at that time], and is sin, which they now hardly understand, still a genuine boundary today?)”

What the technological revolution has done is to remove “God” as the anwer to more and more questions and problems. Medicine has almost doubled Western life expectancy since the time of Bismarck for example. We fly from continent to continent in hours, have landed on the moon, psychiatry explains more and more about mental illness, and so on.

That doesn’t mean we know all the answers. But ancient man looked at lightning and thought it the sign of Thor. Modern man looks at it as an electrical discharge. What Bonhoeffer was thinking about was that Christianity was becoming in a sense, “religionless”, as God as a “deus ex machina” was being pushed further and further out of the scene. He himself was in prison, charged with being in involved in a conspiracy to kill Hitler, and as it turned out was executed not long before the end of the war. God did not intervene in the form of a “deus ex machina” to prevent his execution either.

Or as he put it somewhere else, God allowed his creature, Man, to “push Him out of the world on a cross”.

Of course Bonhoeffer was Protestant, and could not therefore simply identify with the Church, as Catholics tend to do. But he definitely had something to say.

What technology is doing, more and more, is to remove God from the theatrical prop, but at the same time makes Man more and more accountable for his own ethical, or non ethical behaviour.

 

[Detales]

I guess that is a way of thinking about it. Nevertheless, the dynamic of God/Man has never changed. What may seem to have changed is the contents that is mentally manipulable. The context is ever Man and Source. And as for technology, while much of it can tempt some of us from developing our gifts in terms of skills and talents, the expansion of the human sphere and scope of understanding is yet as well that much more occasion for wonder, adoration, and gratitude.

For my part it has always seemed that those elements of “spirituality” have always occurred independently of religious affiliation, or lack of it, to the point that I have postulated that goodness and religion are two independent factors and only appear at times to intersect. I would go so far, with good reason, to say that that intersection is mostly conjecture. And for sure it seems to me that while religion is inevitably about God, it being an expression of Man’s encounter with a need for explanation of and relationship with the Unknown and Invisible, God per se has little or nothing to do with religion. This remains true even while many envelop their perceptions in conjectures about God as a comfort, but these are most often anthropomorphisms that serve until a deeper meaning is discovered, again usually despite religiosity, even if terms associated with faith are used in the explication of a genuine experience. What else can one do but use the language they have to say what they mean? I couldn’t express my soul propensities neither in Swedish nor in Shintoist terms, eg, but certainly people of different languages and different religious thought yet encounter the Source of their Being and must speak of it. Think, for instance, of Augustine’s not uncommon desire to burn his work after his realization. There is good reason for this, as is known from others who have had similar wishes.

So to me the grandultimate “Deus ex Machina” is the faith assumptions and presumptions people make in their albeit genuine attempts at worship. The machineries of the mind will concoct any stringing of dots that will assuage the seeking for the feeling of connection and the security of benevolent relationship with the Great Unknown which is God. But one day, as happened to me, even the most sincere, devout, pious, and convinced mental constructions about God can be pulled out from under one, and the gift of having absolute uncertainty about person coupled with absolute certainty of Deity may precipitate into one’s “lap.”

That is not a “religious” experience, though what other language might one use if nothing else is at hand? All I can say is that I agree with Paul that now we see as through a glass darkly. That is faith. But physical death is not a requirement for heaven, either. And herein lies the great misunderstanding both of the Jesus story and of Eastern Teachings. It is possible to see out from the star as well as up to it. And that, to those who do not know it, is a mystery cloaked in religiosity. To some who either do the work or are inadvertently blessed with an unexpected discovery of Grace, it is a living Fact. God does not come “out of” the Machine except in ignorance. And I would not name the actual dynamic here, as it takes another perspective even to think reasonably about it. But I tell you this: a greater blessing than you ever thought or imagined or dreamed of, or ever had faith about, is in store for you closer than the nose on your face, if you could but see, or wanted to.

 

[donsnow]

To get off the topic somewhat, Dietrich Bonhoeffer used the term in one of his writings, in “Texts - Letters from Prison”, when he wrote …

“Religious people speak of God when human knowledge (perhaps simply because they are too lazy to think) has come to an end, or when human resources fail - in fact it is always the deus ex machina that they bring on the scene, either for the apparent solution of insoluble problems, or as strength in human failure - always, that is to say, exploring human weakness or human boundaries. Of necessity, that can only go on only till people by their own strength push these boundaries somewhat further out, so that God becomes superfluous as a deus ex machina. I’ve come to be doubtful of talking about any human boundaries (is even death, which people now hardly fear [my comment - Bonhoeffer was writing towards the end of the war, and death was a common spectacle in Germany at that time], and is sin, which they now hardly understand, still a genuine boundary today?)”

What the technological revolution has done is to remove “God” as the anwer to more and more questions and problems. Medicine has almost doubled Western life expectancy since the time of Bismarck for example. We fly from continent to continent in hours, have landed on the moon, psychiatry explains more and more about mental illness, and so on.

That doesn’t mean we know all the answers. But ancient man looked at lightning and thought it the sign of Thor. Modern man looks at it as an electrical discharge. What Bonhoeffer was thinking about was that Christianity was becoming in a sense, “religionless”, as God as a “deus ex machina” was being pushed further and further out of the scene. He himself was in prison, charged with being in involved in a conspiracy to kill Hitler, and as it turned out was executed not long before the end of the war. God did not intervene in the form of a “deus ex machina” to prevent his execution either.

Or as he put it somewhere else, God allowed his creature, Man, to “push Him out of the world on a cross”.

Of course Bonhoeffer was Protestant, and could not therefore simply identify with the Church, as Catholics tend to do. But he definitely had something to say.

What technology is doing, more and more, is to remove God from the theatrical prop, but at the same time makes Man more and more accountable for his own ethical, or non ethical behaviour.

Hi, Bob -

I found your reply very much on topic, thanks for responding.

I find Dietrich Bonhoeffler’s comments on the demise of Nazi Germany still germane in regard to our USofA, today. The thing is, Bonhoefller’s comment did not dwell on the military fall of Germany, but on her spiritual fall as a civilization. And, I see the same thing in America, sadly, today.
However, unlike Bonhoeffler, I do not see the Church (in our case, Catholic church) as a ‘deus ex machinus’. I do see mankind ever exalting himself since the '60’s with drugs, technology after new technology and in godless education classes around the nation. So, ‘deus ex machinus’ I do definitely see in our technology raising mankind’s powers to a god-like level.
The thing is, civilizations rise and fall, so the entire contemporary global civilization of high-tech is only temporary. What follows, I could not say.

Thanks again, for your reply.
Don

 

[donsnow]

I guess that is a way of thinking about it. Nevertheless, the dynamic of God/Man has never changed. What may seem to have changed is the contents that is mentally manipulable. The context is ever Man and Source. And as for technology, while much of it can tempt some of us from developing our gifts in terms of skills and talents, the expansion of the human sphere and scope of understanding is yet as well that much more occasion for wonder, adoration, and gratitude.

For my part it has always seemed that those elements of “spirituality” have always occurred independently of religious affiliation, or lack of it, to the point that I have postulated that goodness and religion are two independent factors and only appear at times to intersect. I would go so far, with good reason, to say that that intersection is mostly conjecture. And for sure it seems to me that while religion is inevitably about God, it being an expression of Man’s encounter with a need for explanation of and relationship with the Unknown and Invisible, God per se has little or nothing to do with religion. This remains true even while many envelop their perceptions in conjectures about God as a comfort, but these are most often anthropomorphisms that serve until a deeper meaning is discovered, again usually despite religiosity, even if terms associated with faith are used in the explication of a genuine experience. What else can one do but use the language they have to say what they mean? I couldn’t express my soul propensities neither in Swedish nor in Shintoist terms, eg, but certainly people of different languages and different religious thought yet encounter the Source of their Being and must speak of it. Think, for instance, of Augustine’s not uncommon desire to burn his work after his realization. There is good reason for this, as is known from others who have had similar wishes.

So to me the grandultimate “Deus ex Machina” is the faith assumptions and presumptions people make in their albeit genuine attempts at worship. The machineries of the mind will concoct any stringing of dots that will assuage the seeking for the feeling of connection and the security of benevolent relationship with the Great Unknown which is God. But one day, as happened to me, even the most sincere, devout, pious, and convinced mental constructions about God can be pulled out from under one, and the gift of having absolute uncertainty about person coupled with absolute certainty of Deity may precipitate into one’s “lap.”

That is not a “religious” experience, though what other language might one use if nothing else is at hand? All I can say is that I agree with Paul that now we see as through a glass darkly. That is faith. But physical death is not a requirement for heaven, either. And herein lies the great misunderstanding both of the Jesus story and of Eastern Teachings. It is possible to see out from the star as well as up to it. And that, to those who do not know it, is a mystery cloaked in religiosity. To some who either do the work or are inadvertently blessed with an unexpected discovery of Grace, it is a living Fact. God does not come “out of” the Machine except in ignorance. And I would not name the actual dynamic here, as it takes another perspective even to think reasonably about it. But I tell you this: a greater blessing than you ever thought or imagined or dreamed of, or ever had faith about, is in store for you closer than the nose on your face, if you could but see, or wanted to.

Good afternoon, Detales -

Well, I see where, during the millenia of rising and falling civilizations, the dynamic of God/Man has changed. First people walked with God. Then, they went their way. Some people tried to leave that migration and seek God. God reached down to them. So, dynamic changed 1. from walking with God to 2. Going away from God to 3. God reaching to the people through His people Israel. Jesus Christ’s incarnation is part of that third change. The Catholic Church is now God’s avenue of reaching to the people, imho.
However, the God/Man dynamic of man trying to deify himself has not changed, so on that one, you are right.
I see your point, of the human mind being made by people a ‘deus ex machinus’.
Humankind should wonder about; adore; and have gratitude for: God, not themselves, imho. Part of our civilizations’ problems are people getting all wrapped up in themselves, becoming their own physical ‘deus ex machinus’, tied in to all the technology.

At age 21, I saw where: God created people; people created religion; and sometimes the three coincide; but only by the grace of God.

In '70, I experienced all I thought, believed and had for property being yanked out from under me. Including my own personal, “I am”. I have come up from that clinging to Christ crucified, and enjoyed several religious experiences along the way. I have discovered the unexpected gift of grace. I am humbled. God is real. His kingdom is within me. That’s good enough for me.

May you be at peace in what you find.

Don