6 Meanings
Add Yours
Follow
Share
Q&A
Tertium Non Datur (née Repairing The Damaged Beard Lyrics
All the sucked thumbs and held skirts and blankets so secure that they block out the sweep of the floodlights that could free them from the darkness that surrounds them. From the demons that keep hounding them and gouge their eyes until all they can see are rigid dichotomies of the sacred and the profane. Of salvation or shame with fuck all in between. The human impulse to explain hijacked: a controlled flight into terrain to ensure no passenger ever makes any connection between the proscription of mystery and their malaise. Tidy pairings of inverse binaries. We all seek meaning in our lives, but when every shadow of doubt is denied the sanctification of hatred thrives on every sucked thumb and held skirt and blanket so secure that they block out the sweep of the floodlights that could free us from the darkness that surrounds us. The demons that keep hounding us. We put out our own eyes and reproach the blind.
Add your song meanings, interpretations, facts, memories & more to the community.
07-10-2009
Rated 0 "blankets so secure that they block out the sweep of the floodlights that could free them from the darkness that surrounds them. From the demons that keep hounding them and gouge their eyes"
With this part I get the feeling Propagandhi is trying to say that religion is creating its own fear in its followers. Unless you are a believer you don't have the sense of an EVIL trying to tempt you, take over your life and demons trying to gouge your eyes. They are saying that you are protecting yourself so securely behind your religion and feel it is a safe-haven from evil that some people never see that their mere faith is what creates all of these characters in the first place. If only they would let in some of the floodlights they would be rescued from these fantasy demons that their own religion has created for them to fear. This is why people who follow a doctrine so strong especially when tied into a promise of a paradise in the after-life (or punishment) will do pretty much anything in this life.
I was disappointed when I saw they recommended Hedges' book. I disagree with dv1989's interpretation that they want us to keep an "open mind." They're pretty anti-religion (see: Haillie Sellasse). I think the main reason they recommended "I Don't Believe in Atheists" was because they thought "God is not Great" was important to read, but did not want their readers to begin to agree with Hitchens' pro-Iraq War stance. I'm hoping thats why. It's just kind of depressing to see a band that is so uncompromising with their stance on other important issues, while remaining soft on religion. It further convinces me that almost every non-religious person on this planet has far too much respect for religion.
Actually, in recent video interviews (that can be found on YouTube), Chris Hannah was asked what one book he'd recommend someone above all others. He recommended a Hedges book (and then several more Hedges books), and said that he's a huge fan.
Actually, in recent video interviews (that can be found on YouTube), Chris Hannah was asked what one book he'd recommend someone above all others. He recommended a Hedges book (and then several more Hedges books), and said that he's a huge fan.
Also, I'm pretty sure Chris Hannah (along with the rest of the band) are Atheists, but I would never use a source of reference (Haillie Sallasse) that was written over 20 years ago. They were teenagers then, and have learned MUCH more about life and the world, and I guarantee have very different perspectives than they did back then.
Also, I'm pretty sure Chris Hannah (along with the rest of the band) are Atheists, but I would never use a source of reference (Haillie Sallasse) that was written over 20 years ago. They were teenagers then, and have learned MUCH more about life and the world, and I guarantee have very different perspectives than they did back then.
I'd absolutely hate somebody constantly using poetry I wrote in my angsty, awkward teenage days as a reference to how I feel now. Oh god, the thought of that would be unbearable, lol...
I'd absolutely hate somebody constantly using poetry I wrote in my angsty, awkward teenage days as a reference to how I feel now. Oh god, the thought of that would be unbearable, lol...
I have been thinking about this song for a few days, and I have read the 5 books that are listed in the gatefold for the album.
This song doesn't seem to be about religion really. It is about polarization and absolutism. Chris Hannah seems to be warning people not to become fundamentalist when challenging fundamentalism.
Tertium Non Datur refers to the "Law of the excluded middle". In this case, that excluded middle seems to be understanding that the complexity of the human condition is not something that can be explained in black and white from either side.
While he certainly refers to to the religious world view and rails on it, it is not a song advocating atheism per se. It is a song advocating an understanding where evil actually comes from, and that is a fundamentalist mind.
Some good interpretations here. It's obviously advising against defining things as 'black and white' (a neat tie-in to Dear Coach's Corner, perhaps), but I still don't see Dawkins or Hitchens as fundamentalists. What is it, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"?
Some good interpretations here. It's obviously advising against defining things as 'black and white' (a neat tie-in to Dear Coach's Corner, perhaps), but I still don't see Dawkins or Hitchens as fundamentalists. What is it, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"?
Certainly, the major religions that claim esoteric access to the truth cannot all be correct, to any greater likelihood than the usual parodies such as the FSM. And whether one accepts the possibility of a deistic god or one of a type we've not imagined, unless it presents itself in some observable...
Certainly, the major religions that claim esoteric access to the truth cannot all be correct, to any greater likelihood than the usual parodies such as the FSM. And whether one accepts the possibility of a deistic god or one of a type we've not imagined, unless it presents itself in some observable way, it may as well not exist--and we'd do well to act as if it doesn't, rather than using it for power, etc.
Personally, I'd put myself at 7 ("There is definitely no god") on Dawkins' scale, if that wouldn't make me sound like a self-assured fundie. So, as a fan of science, I guess I'll settle for being a 7-1/∞.
"blankets so secure that they block out the sweep of the floodlights that could free them from the darkness that surrounds them. From the demons that keep hounding them and gouge their eyes"
"blankets so secure that they block out the sweep of the floodlights that could free them from the darkness that surrounds them. From the demons that keep hounding them and gouge their eyes"
With this part I get the feeling Propagandhi is trying to say that religion is creating its own fear in its followers. Unless you are a believer you don't have the sense of an EVIL trying to tempt you, take over your life and demons trying to gouge your eyes. They are saying that you are protecting yourself so securely behind your...
With this part I get the feeling Propagandhi is trying to say that religion is creating its own fear in its followers. Unless you are a believer you don't have the sense of an EVIL trying to tempt you, take over your life and demons trying to gouge your eyes. They are saying that you are protecting yourself so securely behind your religion and feel it is a safe-haven from evil that some people never see that their mere faith is what creates all of these characters in the first place. If only they would let in some of the floodlights they would be rescued from these fantasy demons that their own religion has created for them to fear. This is why people who follow a doctrine so strong especially when tied into a promise of a paradise in the after-life (or punishment) will do pretty much anything in this life.
@tmtek I agree with almost everything you said, but then you used the word "evil", which would be a good example of one side of a "rigid dichotomy".
@tmtek I agree with almost everything you said, but then you used the word "evil", which would be a good example of one side of a "rigid dichotomy".
This is obviously about [religious] absolutism and its negative effects. Interestingly, the first book recommended under these lyrics in the booklet is Chris Hedges' I Don't Believe In Atheists--a book by a moderately religious writer, which criticises what he perceives to be the equally absolutist mindsets of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al. I know Propagandhi are atheists, so I was confused by this, especially when I then saw second and forth on the list are Dawkins' and Hitchens' books respectively! Presumably the band want the listener to keep an open mind. I would argue that atheists are in a better place to make arguments/claims, as they have empirical evidence (or the lack thereof) on their side, as opposed to religious fundamentalists, who have… really old books. If I'm not mistaken, the lesson is to not separate yourself from or write off people on the other side, as that only breeds animosity and conflict; instead, people need to focus on the real issues (compassion, science, etc.).
What I meant by "atheists are in a better place" is that I don't view the writers Hedges criticises as fundamentalists. Wouldn't they need scripture, and an ignorance (or even hatred) of science, for that to be the case? Instead they use logic and available evidence. Dawkins and Hitchens acknowledge that if the evidence rounded on them, they'd have to rethink their positions. That's the important difference.
What I meant by "atheists are in a better place" is that I don't view the writers Hedges criticises as fundamentalists. Wouldn't they need scripture, and an ignorance (or even hatred) of science, for that to be the case? Instead they use logic and available evidence. Dawkins and Hitchens acknowledge that if the evidence rounded on them, they'd have to rethink their positions. That's the important difference.
I don't believe they are going soft on religion with this song. In fact i think the complete opposite. What i believe they're trying to get at is that lately even atheism has become as militant as most main stream religions. And with it becoming so militant it would not take much for it to be manipulated and exploited like every other religion has been in the past. Therefore it would be used as a tool for hatred, when really secularism should be focusing of making this world a better place to live in while were still here.
I particularly enjoy the lines
"... until all they can see are rigid dichotomies of the sacred and the profane. Of salvation or shame with fuck all in between. The human impulse to explain hijacked: a controlled flight into terrain to ensure no passenger ever makes any connection between the proscription of mystery and their malaise."
What I take from this is that religion seeks to turn issues into black and white distinctions. Either something is sacred, and therefor favorable, or profane and heretical. The second part of the quote deals with how religion exploits the human need to seek answers, and instead of simply allowing people to be in awe of the cosmic mystery that is existence, it feeds them a bullshit story full of superstition and strict doctrine, which in turn is the cause of a lot of human suffering, and "malaise".