Eva Monkey on Otaku Generation

Important site and forum news, announcements, and feedback goes here.

Moderator: Board Staff

The Eva Monkey
IT'S OVER 9000!!!
IT'S OVER 9000!!!
User avatar
Posts: 9109
Joined: Jun 14, 2004
Location: The Evanets.
Gender: Male
Contact:

Eva Monkey on Otaku Generation

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby The Eva Monkey » Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:40 pm

This week, I was a guest on the Otaku Generation weekly podcast. It was an enjoyable experience. Among other things, we discussed my own involvement in the Evangelion fan scene, as well as some of the usual fare of Evangelion discussion. For many of you, you've heard much of this from me in the past, but it's still interesting to listen to. I've been giving their podcasts a listen since I was initially approached to appear on the program, and I have to say that they have a pretty good program going on, and they were even the lead in for a recent NewType USA article about the podcasting scene. Give them a listen, and tell them Monkey sent you.

Carl Horn
Israfel
Israfel
Posts: 498
Joined: Sep 10, 2004

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Carl Horn » Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:34 pm

Dear Aaron,

I heard the Otaku Generation broadcast. I didn't know quite what to expect. With its morning-zoo-hey-these-are-your-krazy-drive-time-DJs format, I would have expected the conversation to circle around who actually has the larger breasts, Asuka or Rei. Discussing aspects like religion and the impact of the show, I would have expected something more NPR. But maybe it's good to mix it up a little on occasion. I was also intrigued to see them talk about their cocaine use in an otaku context. I thought I was the only one who did that.

At this point, I've sort of collected seven "observations" about the issue of religion and EVANGELION. Please let me know what you think:

1.) In the course of this discussion, a lot of fans have come to realize (if they didn't already know) just how vast and vague the word "religion" is, even if you just limit it to Judaism and Christianity. It's not only what the pastor or rabbi preached about last week; it's thousands of years' worth of debates, heresies, sects, esoterica, and folk belief. EVA has encouraged many Western fans to learn things they didn't know about their own culture, in the process of trying to "decode" this product of another one. But if real-life Christians and Jews don't agree, and Jews and Christians both fight among themselves as to which beliefs are "true," or "correct," then even if the religious elements in EVA are accepted as really being present, that doesn't mean you can then figure out their "correct" interpretation in the sense of "what Christians/Jews believe," because—well, which Christians? Which Jews? In what sect and in what part of history? This would be true even if 4.) below were not correct. You can, however, describe the specific belief, what it meant to its followers, and why you think it fits what seems to be going on in EVA. This is in line with observations 5 through 7.

2.) It makes some fans nervous to even talk about it because they are either themselves believers, or because religion is something they're trying to back away from (because of their upbringing, etc.). It seems unreasonable to tell a Jewish or Christian fan of anime that it's okay for them, as non-Japanese to get into anime—but only the parts of them that don't feel any differently from the Japanese. What the the Japanese creators themselves meant is one thing; how it ends up resonating with gaijin fans is another. Even if the creators didn't share it, you can't simply tell someone to leave their own spirituality behind when they watch anime, any more than you could their ideas about life, relationships, etc.

3.) However, many fans, whether they're believers or not, like to pursue the idea that EVA's puzzle can be "solved" through interpreting the religious messages or motifs there, or that they believe to be there (you could call this the DA VINCI CODE or FOUCAULT'S PENDULUM impulse). This second type of fan is possibly one which had less of a religious upbringing or belief, and is therefore more comfortable with it as a "game."

4.) None of EVA's principal creators are themselves believers in Judaism or Christianity; neither do they have a involved personal background in it, as, say Mamoru Oshii does. EVA's creators did not intend the show to support a literal religious belief.

5.) However, EVA and material closely associated with it contains a great deal of symbolism and motifs found somewhere sometime within these two religions, from pure visuals to abstract concepts. EVA's creators did intend to use some of these elements to illustrate human psychology. These elements are aesthetic, in the sense they are there both because they sound cool or mysterious, and because in many cases, the ideas genuinely intrigued them and found a use in the story, which leads to...

6.) The EVA characters themselves, especially those "in the know," almost always act like they believe that there is some kind of divine power in the universe that they can access or exploit. They willingly use religious terms to explain what they are doing with their science and technology; we never hear them say something like "these so-called Angels are probably just powerful aliens." As a matter of fact, it's the humans in EVA who constantly push the religious labels; it's not like the Angels go around proclaiming, "I AM THE MIGHTY ANGEL ZERUEL! REPENT O FALLEN MAN, LEST I PUNK YOU OUT AND MAKE YOU MY BITCH! ESPECIALLY YOU DOWN THERE ON THE PLATFORM! THE ONE I'M STARING AT, WITH THE RED JACKET AND THE LUSCIOUS CANS!" Until episode 24, it's NERV and SEELE that does all the proclaiming about Angels, holy names, prophecies, etc., not the "other side." If they didn't yammer about it so much, for much of the series you might in fact assume they were just weird monsters or aliens. Obviously EVA's humans are not humble or obedient believers, as they try constantly to manipulate events. You would expect ordinary believers to, I dunno, kneel and pray—rather than build and deploy a paramillitary research organiation—that's why I say NERV has more of the religious extremist or terrorist mentality. But they are believers. In today's terms, they believe in something more like intelligent design, over simple evolution with no spiritual component. Note EVA is not a hard-SF show ^_^ But it can be seen, in its narrative, to show in literal form the idea that the so-called "divine" is largely a projection of humans' beliefs about themselves. This would explain why there is no apparent "God" in EVA, but rather an above and a below that are mutable images of the other.

7.) Finally, the "internal" belief displayed within the show leads, perhaps ironically, to THE END OF EVANGELION being one of the greatest films ever made about an apocalypse—that is, an end-of-the-world movie where the end comes about more in a religious and supernatural fashion, rather than from a meteor, a plague, a nuclear war, etc. The strange and fantastic imagery of THE END has more in common with The Book of Revelation than it does with a DEEP IMPACT, or even an AKIRA.

The Eva Monkey
IT'S OVER 9000!!!
IT'S OVER 9000!!!
User avatar
Posts: 9109
Joined: Jun 14, 2004
Location: The Evanets.
Gender: Male
Contact:

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby The Eva Monkey » Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:38 pm

Carl Horn wrote:I was also intrigued to see them talk about their cocaine use in an otaku context. I thought I was the only one who did that.

Yeah, that was a bad joke that didn't make a whole lot of sense. I'm not sure if they were talking about real snow, or the artificial sprayable kind...

As for the rest, that seems to be a lot to chew on. I'll have to give it some thought before replying.

Mr. Tines
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar
Age: 66
Posts: 21373
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
Location: This sceptered isle.
Gender: Male
Contact:

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Mr. Tines » Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:28 am

Great post, Carl.

On point #7 - as an end of the world that is also controlled in its details by human intent through human creations, it is not just an Apocalypse with a Rapture and all the quasi-religious trimmings, but one that is at its core technologically induced - a Techno-Rapture, to use a pre-existing piece of terminology. And as such a salutory reminder than even a benign Transcension would be a terrifying thing to experience.
Reminder: Play nicely <<>> My vanity publishing:- NGE|blog|Photos|retro-blog|Fanfics &c.|MAL|𝕏|🐸|🦣
Avatar: art deco Asuka

Carl Horn
Israfel
Israfel
Posts: 498
Joined: Sep 10, 2004

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Carl Horn » Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:46 pm

Mr. Tines wrote:Great post, Carl.

On point #7 - as an end of the world that is also controlled in its details by human intent through human creations, it is not just an Apocalypse with a Rapture and all the quasi-religious trimmings, but one that is at its core technologically induced - a Techno-Rapture, to use a pre-existing piece of terminology. And as such a salutory reminder than even a benign Transcension would be a terrifying thing to experience.


At Pomona College, they perform hideous experiments on the freshmen—namely, you are required to take a writing-intensive class your first semester. Those who in high school dreaded having to do a five-page paper by the end of the term find in this class they are expected to produce that each week. The professors teaching it are allowed to pick any subject they want for the purpose.

Mine was "The Apocalypse of Nationalism," about the modern history of end-times or "utopian" violence in the service of religion. One thing I had been surprised to learn is that the Israeli security forces have had to watch out for years not only for Muslim terrorists, but the occasional Christian and Jewish ones who want to blow up the Mosque of Omar and the Dome of the Rock, clearing the ground (they believe) for a rebuilding of Solomon's Temple to fulfill (as they see it) prophecy. This particular bit of symbolism is never employed in EVA, but it would be an interesting conceit to regard NERV HQ as the secret "true" Temple, complete with a sanctum sanctorum and Roman troops storming it in the end...

("Yui answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up...But she spake of the temple of her body.")

In some ways NERV and SEELE are a revival not of medievalism, but of that pecuilar late Renaissance blend of science and mysticism exhibited by your fellow alumni (or does one use the term only of those who attended the same college?) John Dee and Issac Newton (compare to my school, which boasts of Richard Chamberlain and Kris Kristofferson)—it is as if they were correct about the universe having a divine mechanism, whose controls could be seized by those who used "science" to understand it.

—C.

ObsessiveMathsFreak
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
User avatar
Posts: 2855
Joined: Mar 23, 2005
Location: Working on the Commentary

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby ObsessiveMathsFreak » Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:10 pm

There is this blend of science and religion in Eva. A kid of "Scientific Religiiousness" if you will. No God or dogma is mentioned, but there does seem to be a kind of fatalistic calm over the likes of Gendou and Fuyutsuki, as they seem secure in the hard scientific knowladge that in effect; The Great Kami Sama Is Come To Smote Us All In His Fury, or portents to that effect.
[Became an administrator on or before October 4th, 2007.]
May The Maths Be With You.

Shwiggie
Lilith
User avatar
Posts: 101
Joined: Feb 10, 2005

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Shwiggie » Mon Dec 12, 2005 4:13 pm

And yet, some of the nomenclature seems to be based around an Eastern mentality...and by this I mean those of a relational nature. "Angel" makes sense both from a Judeo/Christian perspective, but by the same token it doesn't because they don't really seem to adhere to the usual depiction (sort of stepping on the toes of the Shito/Angel discrepancy debate). Yet, otherworldly creatures who attack in such a precise and predicted manner would make calling them such a natural name indicative of their relationship to man...as opposed to ETIs, there's a tie there that is more internal than readily apparent.

And given that there is an accepted prophecy within the fictitious Dead Sea Scrolls (the actual scrolls essentially being reprints of OT-era texts rather than specially revealed apocrypha), it makes sense. Then you consider the symbolism of SEELE, Gehirn, and NERV themselves...they're using terms which evoke a familiarity to illustrate their "real-world" functions.

Being a Christian (and a rather fundamental one at that), the references and symbology were probably my biggest draw to this series in the first place. And as such, it really reinforced a single reality concerning matters of faith...that simple faith has to be sufficient, else there's no chance but the extreme few who really "get it" :P But the way so many disparate notions are woven together--from Kabbalism to Gnosticism to modern psychology--in order to provide a framework on which to base a commentary on human existance is exceedingly unique and worth researching just for the sake of widening one's horizons. And that will always be a hallmark of Anno's creativity in this project: it accomplished his goal of inducing fans to put their minds to it, think, and, in doing so, find a new appreciation for the work itself in the years following its initial viewing. I mean, people aren't discussing the psychological ramifications or theological implications of Gundam Wing, for instance....

Carl Horn wrote:"I AM THE MIGHTY ANGEL ZERUEL! REPENT O FALLEN MAN, LEST I PUNK YOU OUT AND MAKE YOU MY BITCH! ESPECIALLY YOU DOWN THERE ON THE PLATFORM! THE ONE I'M STARING AT, WITH THE RED JACKET AND THE LUSCIOUS CANS!"

By the way, I am SO quoting this Image

Carl Horn
Israfel
Israfel
Posts: 498
Joined: Sep 10, 2004

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Carl Horn » Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:50 pm

Shwiggie wrote: Being a Christian (and a rather fundamental one at that), the references and symbology were probably my biggest draw to this series in the first place. And as such, it really reinforced a single reality concerning matters of faith...that simple faith has to be sufficient, else there's no chance but the extreme few who really "get it" :P But the way so many disparate notions are woven together--from Kabbalism to Gnosticism to modern psychology--in order to provide a framework on which to base a commentary on human existance is exceedingly unique and worth researching just for the sake of widening one's horizons. And that will always be a hallmark of Anno's creativity in this project: it accomplished his goal of inducing fans to put their minds to it, think, and, in doing so, find a new appreciation for the work itself in the years following its initial viewing. I mean, people aren't discussing the psychological ramifications or theological implications of Gundam Wing, for instance....


I think it is revealing that Christianity has often asserted that pride is the worst of all sins, in light of what it is not sinful for a Christian to believe—that he was created in the image of God, that God incarnated into this world through being born to a human woman, and that when God walked this earth as told in the Gospels, he was simultaneously both God and a human being. This is all basic, Shito's Creed stuff, without even getting into any wacky heresies.

A Muslim, by contrast, believes the God of Abraham is merciful and provident towards those who keep the divine commandments, but that God and man are very, very, very different things, and man must never forget that. This is why Muslims are forbidden to portray the image of God, as a reminder that while they should know what God wants of them through his laws, his own "personal" nature is beyond any human's understanding. Obviously then Muslims can't believe they were created in God's image; the Koran describes it as a sort of test-tube affair. The Koran even says explicitly that man needs God, and not the other way around; and that if God wanted to, he could destroy everything and start over. A Muslim, comparing all these points, would say that it is Islam that shows the truly humble attitude towards God.

Judaism shares with Islam a bewilderment towards the idea of the Incarnation; to the Jewish and Muslim way of thinking, God may create man, God may command men, God may communicate with men, God may reach towards men and save them, but to say, as Christianity does, that God could literally be a man and remain God not only crosses the line, it crosses the line out. A Jew or Muslim would say there is a big difference between God and man being connected, and God and man the same, in the figure of Jesus. As you know, this was also the argument of many early Christian heretical movements, most importantly the Arians. They didn't have any fancy-pants Gnostic beliefs; they just said, hey, wait, hold on here a minute, cowboy.

Judaism, however, is, like Christianity, a more "humanistic" religion than Islam. Of the three great monotheistic religions, it is in fact the one that ascribes the most importance to creation per se, in contrast to Islam's view of man and the world existing on probation, and Christianity's view that the world is at best a distraction and often an active threat to men's salvation—a person born into flesh in this world must be born again, must crucify that flesh, and must die to self. The Jewish point of view is that, certainly, man has become separate from God (the Fall is a Jewish story, after all), but to say then that creation was thereby made into nothing but a narrow diving board to heaven or to hell doesn't follow at all. Tainted is one thing; spoiled is another. Instead, the job of man is to try and do a better job than Adam did with tending creation, bearing witness to God in this world through obeying his commandments, and, as rabbinical Judaism developed, through the exercise of ethical behavior.

Muslims also believe in those last two things, but not so much to bear witness to God, as again, even that is seem as too presumptuous. Christians likewise believe that their lives should be a testimony, but in order to convince people that the world can be transcended, not that it can be mended. Only God could do that; people no longer can. The Kabbalah is an expression of the Jewish idea that if man broke the unity of creation, redemption comes through doing one's best to fix it, not by running away from the pieces. The line near the end of SCHINDLER'S LIST, "He who saves one life, in time, saves the world" reflects the idea that the world is worth saving, that it is a good thing in of itself to born.

Many condemn the chastity of priests in Catholic doctrine as something unnatural, somehow unrelated to the fundamentals of Christianity. But St. Paul advocated chastity not just for those called to preach, but for Christians in general. Marriage to him was not ideal for a Christian—marriage was second-best, acceptable. It is an attitude consistent with the belief that the continuance of the world only makes the salvation of men a harder job. To Paul, if you really wanted to be dead to the world, you preferably should not then bring new life into it, a child who would then have to be saved, just as you (this is not a pro-abortion argument; the chaste never have to face that choice, after all). Instead you should use your life to try and save the people already here, which is a hard enough task. What happened, of course, is at some point early Christians looked at their watches (no doubt those FLINSTONES sundial types), and Theophilus said to Miriam, "Well, I guess Lord Jesus isn't coming as quickly as we thought. I think when Paul said 'better than to burn,' he of course meant, 'holy sacrament.'" This is why Origen was such an embarrassment to everyone.

Of course, in the case of all three religions, I'm discussing what might be called "core" beliefs. In the last few years there's been a lot of pointing to Koranic verses in the media as if it was an exact set of subroutines that automatically program every Muslim on earth. Most Christians, even those who call themselves fundamentalists, would likewise roll their eyes at a Muslim who pointed to this verse, or that verse, in the Bible to upbraid them. Believing something is true and of God doesn't mean believing it's supposed to apply to you in this situation. Human beings in all religions tend to treat divine law as they treat worldly law; that is, as something which allows them a lawyer. Of course, killing is against the law, but, you see, God, it didn't really fit the legal definition of killing. There were mitigating circumstances. I argue that the Beatitudes fail the "reasonable man" test, Lord Jesus. Perhaps community service through 200 hours of novenas? May it please the court.

drinian
Admin Emeritus
Admin Emeritus
User avatar
Posts: 2712
Joined: Apr 03, 2005
Location: In transit
Gender: Male
Contact:

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby drinian » Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:16 pm

As usual, impressive post. I thought I would take issue with a few points.
Carl Horn wrote:I think it is revealing that Christianity has often asserted that pride is the worst of all sins, in light of what it is not sinful for a Christian to believe—that he was created in the image of God, that God incarnated into this world through being born to a human woman, and that when God walked this earth as told in the Gospels, he was simultaneously both God and a human being.

I would argue that it is more prideful to consider the Muslim standpoint outlined below -- that man is something separate from God. After all, if He is Creator, how can things be separated from Him?

The Koran even says explicitly that man needs God, and not the other way around; and that if God wanted to, he could destroy everything and start over.

Certainly this is indicated by the story of Noah in both the Bible and Koran.

A Jew or Muslim would say there is a big difference between God and man being connected, and God and man the same, in the figure of Jesus.

And yet the power to do so must be conceded to an omnipotent God and it would be imprudent to think otherwise. Although this gets into whether such things are logical impossibilities, and then you have to start asking conversation-ending questions like, "Can God make 2+2=4?"

I'll skip the well-founded bits on religious humanism, save to say that there is certainly are things to be said in favor of the world-view (taken quite literally in some earlier epochs) that the heavens were almost literally above and part of this world: and as they are all one, the things done in each reflect in the other. This may be a more accurate generalization of Christianity if indeed one can be made.

I argue that the Beatitudes fail the "reasonable man" test, Lord Jesus. Perhaps community service through 200 hours of novenas? May it please the court.

Amusing image. May I buy you an indulgence?

Carl Horn
Israfel
Israfel
Posts: 498
Joined: Sep 10, 2004

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Carl Horn » Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:03 pm

drinian wrote:As usual, impressive post. I thought I would take issue with a few points.
Carl Horn wrote:I think it is revealing that Christianity has often asserted that pride is the worst of all sins, in light of what it is not sinful for a Christian to believe—that he was created in the image of God, that God incarnated into this world through being born to a human woman, and that when God walked this earth as told in the Gospels, he was simultaneously both God and a human being.

I would argue that it is more prideful to consider the Muslim standpoint outlined below -- that man is something separate from God. After all, if He is Creator, how can things be separated from Him?

The Koran even says explicitly that man needs God, and not the other way around; and that if God wanted to, he could destroy everything and start over.

Certainly this is indicated by the story of Noah in both the Bible and Koran.

A Jew or Muslim would say there is a big difference between God and man being connected, and God and man the same, in the figure of Jesus.

And yet the power to do so must be conceded to an omnipotent God and it would be imprudent to think otherwise. Although this gets into whether such things are logical impossibilities, and then you have to start asking conversation-ending questions like, "Can God make 2+2=4?"


When a Jew or Muslim says that man is separate from God, they mean that God is holy and sovereign. They believe God existed before man and created man, and that man cannot save himself but through God, so that all this suggests God and man are, you know, separate things. Not isolated or unconnected—they can accept that man is within God, a part of God's creation, but not that God and man are the same.

A Jew or Muslim might answer that it is not a question of God's power to do something or anything. Their argument would go something like this: Yes, God is omnipotent, but the fact he could choose to do anything does not imply he must have chosen to do a specific thing, so omnipotence by itself is not a proof of the Incarnation. To a Jew or Muslim, to say the Incarnation did not happen isn't a restriction of God. Rather, they believe the Incaranation is a misconception of men, who interpreted Jesus incorrectly.

To say that God is omnipotent does not imply God will in fact choose to do everything that he could possibly do. For example, if God is omnipotent, that presumably means he could commit evil acts as well, but most monotheists don't believe that God does evil.

Christians think of the Incarnation as good, of course, because it established the way through which they may be saved. So a Christian might answer, how can you deny that God would have done such a supremely good act? A Jew or Muslim would answer, of course God is good, but Christianity is founded on this elaborate Rube Goldberg theory of how God saved men, a theory in which men take a role of supreme false modesty, for they believe God saved them through becoming a man.

Arguments about the method being necessary because of the sin of Adam just dig the hole deeper from their perspective, as it seems to imply God's options were somehow limited. A Jew or Muslim would also say this: if the Incarnation was necessary for the salvation of men, and if God desires that men be saved, then why did it take so long to happen? Even the classic Creationist belief that the world was created in 4004 B.C. means that most of human history is pre-Jesus. Why didn't the Incarnation happen at the soonest opportunity, among the children of Adam? In the time of Noah? Of Abraham? Of Moses? Of David? Are Christians trying to suggest that God took a while to figure out this plan?

The Jew or Muslim whips out Occam's Razor at this point—not to shave, because classically they're big on beards. But to say instead that the Incarnation is a harder argument to support than what they simply believe—"Hear, O Israel, God is one;" "There is no God but God"—that God has saved men in all eras as he wills it, and that shows more faith in his omnipotence than believing he went through this elaborate process of incarnation and sacrifice of himself to himself in order to change a rule he made up himself.

superdoughboy4
Sandalphon
Sandalphon
User avatar
Posts: 538
Joined: Oct 13, 2005
Location: Teh Üb3r Chair
Contact:

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby superdoughboy4 » Mon Jan 09, 2006 5:45 pm

Carl Horn, are you Christian, or Athiest?
You seem to know what I've been taught through my Pastors.


Return to “EvaGeeks News and Feedback”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests