It's hard for me to decide a topic for my closing post. So, I will ramble about a few things I feel that I've picked up through the term in this class.
First and foremost, I've gained a better respect for other religions. Honestly, I used to critize Catholics more than any others. Even though I don't exactly agree with a good portion of what the Catholic Church stands for, I respect them, and I understand how and why it is the way it is.
Secondly, this class has awakened a religious inquisitiveness within me. For the remainder of my life I will be taking a much closer look at religions and my surroundings, and how they are affected by religion.
Third, I feel like I have a whole new angle to take history from. Granted, I knew of the obvious religious movements and some of the denominations before this class, but now I can look at every aspect of history and ask myself how religion played a part in it.
Well, I think I could go on listing things for awhile. I'm going go eat breakfast before class, though. It's been real, it's been fun, just not real fun. Hah.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Post 20
With little previous knowledge of Wallace Stevens, I decided to search for some background information on wikipedia. The results I found were quite interesting.
In his poems that we read for class he discussed how happiness can be found without religion. He used examples in nature and so forth to prove his point that there doesn't need to be a "big guy" in the sky for it to provide happiness. However, 5 days before his death, Wallace Stevens was baptized by the chaplain of the St. Francis Hospital. I found this to be very strange because Mr. Stevens is not exactly living out his own creed.
However, it is possible that since he had time to cope with his cancer he grew scared of life after death and had nowhere else to turn but religion. He clearly knew that he was going to die. It is just a question of when. It's quite difficult to say whether or not he was religious before he discovered that he had a terminal illness. But, it does lead to some further thought about his poems. It is my conclusion that possibly writing those poems helped him realize how wrong he was, because happiness cannot be found in death with a comforting vision of the afterlife.
In his poems that we read for class he discussed how happiness can be found without religion. He used examples in nature and so forth to prove his point that there doesn't need to be a "big guy" in the sky for it to provide happiness. However, 5 days before his death, Wallace Stevens was baptized by the chaplain of the St. Francis Hospital. I found this to be very strange because Mr. Stevens is not exactly living out his own creed.
However, it is possible that since he had time to cope with his cancer he grew scared of life after death and had nowhere else to turn but religion. He clearly knew that he was going to die. It is just a question of when. It's quite difficult to say whether or not he was religious before he discovered that he had a terminal illness. But, it does lead to some further thought about his poems. It is my conclusion that possibly writing those poems helped him realize how wrong he was, because happiness cannot be found in death with a comforting vision of the afterlife.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Post 19
This is a response to Cate Frazier's post titled "Response to Tammi", in which she agrees with her. So, I guess that would mean that this is actually a response in opposition to Tammi's post.
Cate states that she thinks the Hull House website is "set up in a way that allows a person to interpret the website as religious but I don't think Jane Addams' mission was religious...Addams was raised a Quaker and more nondenominational".
This statement seems odd to me. After all the discussion in class about what qualifies as religious and what is strictly spiritual I disagree with what Cate is saying. Granted, Addams may have been extremely tolerant to other religions and faiths, she clearly had a solid religion. Her religion was not a pronounced Christian or Jew or Hindu, it was humanitarian. She set up beliefs, morals, and guidelines to live by that gelled together and founded her religion based on public servitude, especially to women. Hull House could easily be defended in a rational argument as her house of worship. It became the sanctuary in which women were welcome and could live comfortably. Religion, to Addams, was bringing together humans in peace, and helping them to strengthen their lives. I don't think it can be said that the Hull House was not founded because of her religion. Though, it may not have been a strikingly direct effect, it was obviously a reflection of her beliefs and an indirect result of them.
Cate also wrote that Addams "was giving support to women rather then showing them a religious path." I can agree with this statement to an extent. She was giving these women support because of her religious path. And though she wasn't trying to convert them to a specific religious path, her service to them came out of her humanitarian religious beliefs. I would make the argument that this statement is true, but has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Hull House was religious.
Cate states that she thinks the Hull House website is "set up in a way that allows a person to interpret the website as religious but I don't think Jane Addams' mission was religious...Addams was raised a Quaker and more nondenominational".
This statement seems odd to me. After all the discussion in class about what qualifies as religious and what is strictly spiritual I disagree with what Cate is saying. Granted, Addams may have been extremely tolerant to other religions and faiths, she clearly had a solid religion. Her religion was not a pronounced Christian or Jew or Hindu, it was humanitarian. She set up beliefs, morals, and guidelines to live by that gelled together and founded her religion based on public servitude, especially to women. Hull House could easily be defended in a rational argument as her house of worship. It became the sanctuary in which women were welcome and could live comfortably. Religion, to Addams, was bringing together humans in peace, and helping them to strengthen their lives. I don't think it can be said that the Hull House was not founded because of her religion. Though, it may not have been a strikingly direct effect, it was obviously a reflection of her beliefs and an indirect result of them.
Cate also wrote that Addams "was giving support to women rather then showing them a religious path." I can agree with this statement to an extent. She was giving these women support because of her religious path. And though she wasn't trying to convert them to a specific religious path, her service to them came out of her humanitarian religious beliefs. I would make the argument that this statement is true, but has nothing to do with the question of whether or not Hull House was religious.
Post 18
I can't say that I was deeply moved by the Jackson Pollock paintings. However, I can see why he created the art that he did and where his inspiration came from. Obviously, interpretations vary, as we discovered in the class discussion. Albeit, I feel that his medium of expression is somewhat obvious no matter how unclear the exact details of his work are.
Even though most of Pollock's paintings could easily be mistaken for a child's finger painting, anyone who makes on honest attempt to interpet his work will come out of it with something. He was an educated man, and clearly didn't paint just for the sheer purpose of applying paint to canvas. No matter how you interpet his paintings, a new perspective, greater knowledge, or reenforcement of ideas will be the result. The titles of them provide a much greater depth to the viewer. With the title in mind, a mode of thought is provoked. Thus, it is of no concern to Pollock what is taken away after seeing a specific painting, he is successful in causing one to think about a topic in the context of what he has created. The viewer is immediately consumed by color choice, line variation, thickness and depth, and the balance and layout of the entire painting.
In class, some people saw soldiers in one painting, protecting "the secret". Others saw that same "secret" as a coffin where a man was lying, and some even saw two figures lying in a coffin. This proves my point perfectly. Every individual in class was caught by some facet of each painting. Whether they disagreed, agreed, or weren't sure if they had any opinion on what was being conveyed was irrelevant. The painting, in essence, produced a full pallet (no pun intended) of thought processes. Pollock's paintings were unlike any other artists of the time, and he knew that they would force people to think outside the box.
Even though most of Pollock's paintings could easily be mistaken for a child's finger painting, anyone who makes on honest attempt to interpet his work will come out of it with something. He was an educated man, and clearly didn't paint just for the sheer purpose of applying paint to canvas. No matter how you interpet his paintings, a new perspective, greater knowledge, or reenforcement of ideas will be the result. The titles of them provide a much greater depth to the viewer. With the title in mind, a mode of thought is provoked. Thus, it is of no concern to Pollock what is taken away after seeing a specific painting, he is successful in causing one to think about a topic in the context of what he has created. The viewer is immediately consumed by color choice, line variation, thickness and depth, and the balance and layout of the entire painting.
In class, some people saw soldiers in one painting, protecting "the secret". Others saw that same "secret" as a coffin where a man was lying, and some even saw two figures lying in a coffin. This proves my point perfectly. Every individual in class was caught by some facet of each painting. Whether they disagreed, agreed, or weren't sure if they had any opinion on what was being conveyed was irrelevant. The painting, in essence, produced a full pallet (no pun intended) of thought processes. Pollock's paintings were unlike any other artists of the time, and he knew that they would force people to think outside the box.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Post 17
Since I have yet to discuss the meditation in class I am going to formulate some idea of the purpose I think it serves. Previously to the meditation last Friday in class, I've meditated once. This meditation took place at a Theravada Buddhist Temple in Hinsdale, Illinois. I was roughly 14 or 15 on a "youth group" (protestant church group for youths) with a small number of kids my own age or slightly older. Sadly, I felt nothing during the meditation. However, as a result I did gain more respect for those who can honestly find spiritual contentment though it. Granted, I only seriously meditated once, so there is a chance I could learn.
The experience in class was similar. I felt nothing more than a severe lack of sleep and thankfulness for twenty minutes to freely close my eyes. It was odd. Like I'm sure every one else did once or twice, I looked around the room at my fellow peers to see what they were getting out of it. There were obviously some like me, some who were reading or listening to music, and some that actually felt something spiritual. I think that's how religion works. The Quakers feel that that's their most appropriate means for spirituality, and most Christians don't. But, I do think everyone can take something from meditation. At most church services I have been to, the minister or priest will call a time for "joys and concerns". Following the announcing of each joy or concern the church sits in silence to thank god or ask god for help. So I do think there is some universal acceptance of meditation, or silence, among most or all religions.
The experience in class was similar. I felt nothing more than a severe lack of sleep and thankfulness for twenty minutes to freely close my eyes. It was odd. Like I'm sure every one else did once or twice, I looked around the room at my fellow peers to see what they were getting out of it. There were obviously some like me, some who were reading or listening to music, and some that actually felt something spiritual. I think that's how religion works. The Quakers feel that that's their most appropriate means for spirituality, and most Christians don't. But, I do think everyone can take something from meditation. At most church services I have been to, the minister or priest will call a time for "joys and concerns". Following the announcing of each joy or concern the church sits in silence to thank god or ask god for help. So I do think there is some universal acceptance of meditation, or silence, among most or all religions.
Post 16
Towards the end of my "treasure hunt" on the Urban Experience in Chicago website, I finally found something substantial that clearly conveys Addams' religious views and how the Hull House is affected by religion. If you click on the "Historical Narrative" tab, then under "Beginnings of Settlement Life in Chicago" click "Henry Booth Settlement: An Ethical Culture Experiment", you can find the portion of the website I will be discussing.
I found it odd that discussion of religion and images involving religious practice or items are scarce to none. However, in this section of the website Jane Addams' apparently famous essay, titled "The Subjective Necessity for Social Settlements", covers her reasons for starting Hull House, and why other settlement houses should be created. Her first two reasons are clearly out of good nature and philanthropy, but with her third reason she explains that she has the "conviction to implement the moral precepts that came from religious faith." However, according to the website she goes on to say in her essay that these moral precepts can be based on "humanitarian rather than traditional Christian dogmatic teachings." So it is somewhat clear that Addam's was concerned with the basics of religion. It looks like she maintained strong religious tolerance as long as a person's actions were based on widely accepted ethics. So I guess in effect her philanthropist actions were, at their root, based on Addam's own religious precepts. The Ethical Culture Society was obviously thus a result of these humanitarian ethical beliefs.
I found it odd that discussion of religion and images involving religious practice or items are scarce to none. However, in this section of the website Jane Addams' apparently famous essay, titled "The Subjective Necessity for Social Settlements", covers her reasons for starting Hull House, and why other settlement houses should be created. Her first two reasons are clearly out of good nature and philanthropy, but with her third reason she explains that she has the "conviction to implement the moral precepts that came from religious faith." However, according to the website she goes on to say in her essay that these moral precepts can be based on "humanitarian rather than traditional Christian dogmatic teachings." So it is somewhat clear that Addam's was concerned with the basics of religion. It looks like she maintained strong religious tolerance as long as a person's actions were based on widely accepted ethics. So I guess in effect her philanthropist actions were, at their root, based on Addam's own religious precepts. The Ethical Culture Society was obviously thus a result of these humanitarian ethical beliefs.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Post 15
This post is in response to Oliver's post titled, "Religious Expression". I can understand where he is coming from and have felt the same sort of frustration. Though, I am not the son of a pastor, I have had very close relations with different pastors, churches, and the like. I have found that even today there is still little religious tolerance.
My family has never been overly religious. My parents are both well versed in religion, but don't profess any specific form of religion. Both of them were raised in very small towns with various Protestant beliefs. In recent years my dad has explored Buddhism. He has even spents weekends on retreats. My mom is less experimental and usually just sticks with taking what she wants from the Sunday church sermons. However, where my entire family found the most trouble with religion, and more exclusively Christianity, was in the tolerance of homosexuals.
In my opinion U.C.C. churchs and Unitarians are the most tolerant of Christian churches when it comes to progressive ideas. However, the lack of tolerance showed through when we were voting for a new minister. The most appropriate minister happened to be a gay female. Instantly, there was an uproar and people who claimed to accept those who are gay showed their weakness. Some church members even mentioned beastiality. Where does beastiality fit into homosexuality? Even so, a group of church members decided to start a new church, an "open and affirming" church. It was nice to see that some people are willing to break the religious norms and do things like that. I guess my purpose here was just to reassure Oliver and people like him that there are churches out there that don't believe they are "religiously superior".
My family has never been overly religious. My parents are both well versed in religion, but don't profess any specific form of religion. Both of them were raised in very small towns with various Protestant beliefs. In recent years my dad has explored Buddhism. He has even spents weekends on retreats. My mom is less experimental and usually just sticks with taking what she wants from the Sunday church sermons. However, where my entire family found the most trouble with religion, and more exclusively Christianity, was in the tolerance of homosexuals.
In my opinion U.C.C. churchs and Unitarians are the most tolerant of Christian churches when it comes to progressive ideas. However, the lack of tolerance showed through when we were voting for a new minister. The most appropriate minister happened to be a gay female. Instantly, there was an uproar and people who claimed to accept those who are gay showed their weakness. Some church members even mentioned beastiality. Where does beastiality fit into homosexuality? Even so, a group of church members decided to start a new church, an "open and affirming" church. It was nice to see that some people are willing to break the religious norms and do things like that. I guess my purpose here was just to reassure Oliver and people like him that there are churches out there that don't believe they are "religiously superior".
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Post 14
My own religious experiences with rituals vary. I have been a part of a "sweat" on an Indian Reservation in South Dakota on two occasions. Both experiences were amazing. However, I cannot say that I felt religiously affected by them. I think I was more interested in being a part of a completely different culture.
The experience was very peculiar to me. Traditionally you are supposed to fast all day, and any female who is mentruating cannot enter the sweat lodge. By only drinking water you are ridding yourself of impurities. The elders sit around a fire all day preparing these certain stones that have odd characteristics for rock and withhold heat amazingly well. Just before dusk everyone meets around the fire and passes the peace pipe while an old man hits a drum and mutters prayers. After the peace pipe activities conclude everyone enters a small dome-like shelter with a stone pit in the center that is covered with animal skins so that heat cannot escape. It is only about 4 or 5 feet at it's maximum height. Everyone sits "Indian style", no pun intended, and waits for the master of ceremonies to bring in the first 7 rocks. He then pours water on them, sings, says a prayer, everyone else is invited to sing, and opens the door for a few moments. He puts 7 more rocks on and continues in the same fashion for 3 more rounds. The idea is that as you sweat your sins are released and raised up to the gods. When you exit you have been cleansed. Now, I don't know any more details about it then that. I feel like some of the older traditions have been lost or changed over the years. All I can say is that everyone should experience it once. It was like a suana times 100!
The experience was very peculiar to me. Traditionally you are supposed to fast all day, and any female who is mentruating cannot enter the sweat lodge. By only drinking water you are ridding yourself of impurities. The elders sit around a fire all day preparing these certain stones that have odd characteristics for rock and withhold heat amazingly well. Just before dusk everyone meets around the fire and passes the peace pipe while an old man hits a drum and mutters prayers. After the peace pipe activities conclude everyone enters a small dome-like shelter with a stone pit in the center that is covered with animal skins so that heat cannot escape. It is only about 4 or 5 feet at it's maximum height. Everyone sits "Indian style", no pun intended, and waits for the master of ceremonies to bring in the first 7 rocks. He then pours water on them, sings, says a prayer, everyone else is invited to sing, and opens the door for a few moments. He puts 7 more rocks on and continues in the same fashion for 3 more rounds. The idea is that as you sweat your sins are released and raised up to the gods. When you exit you have been cleansed. Now, I don't know any more details about it then that. I feel like some of the older traditions have been lost or changed over the years. All I can say is that everyone should experience it once. It was like a suana times 100!
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Post 13
This post's purpose will basically just be to formulate my views on religion in regards to societal change. I think religion, and the realization of what it is and where it comes from, constantly reshapes societal norms and promotes change.
If we consider how life was in our parents' generation, we can see that life was much different. There were far more rules in school, there were few questions raised about God ingrained in school and government, and even the dress norms were far more limited. Granted, from the beginning of the U.S. "separation between church and state" was declared. However, "God" still appears in a lot of government officials speeches, government documents, and national songs. Fifty years ago people had few problems with it. Today, talking about the America in the sense that it is Christian is often times interpreted as offensive. So, in that sense the U.S. has been forced to steer away from the Christian citations. This could also be do in part to other growing relgions in the U.S. (Hebrews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.). Immigration may also play a part in it. As more and more religions become prevalent, the U.S. has to build more tolerance.
The way in which we interpet relgious writings such as the Bible, Koran, and Gita has changed as well. Religion propels societal change because people look at the relgious writings in a different light. Most people no longer faithfully believe that Adam and Eve were the beginning of human creation due to significant scientific evidence of evolution (however 5 of the 10 republican candidates for 08 don't believe in evolution). The religion is not lost, it's merely changed. Today, people see the morals that are inferred from the text and not the stories as historical happenings. So, as people interpret differently, society is then changed in the most beneficial intepretation. I'm not finding myself lost in my own discussion. I'm going to end this. I'm sure there will be some responses to this. Please, clear up what I'm trying to say!
If we consider how life was in our parents' generation, we can see that life was much different. There were far more rules in school, there were few questions raised about God ingrained in school and government, and even the dress norms were far more limited. Granted, from the beginning of the U.S. "separation between church and state" was declared. However, "God" still appears in a lot of government officials speeches, government documents, and national songs. Fifty years ago people had few problems with it. Today, talking about the America in the sense that it is Christian is often times interpreted as offensive. So, in that sense the U.S. has been forced to steer away from the Christian citations. This could also be do in part to other growing relgions in the U.S. (Hebrews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.). Immigration may also play a part in it. As more and more religions become prevalent, the U.S. has to build more tolerance.
The way in which we interpet relgious writings such as the Bible, Koran, and Gita has changed as well. Religion propels societal change because people look at the relgious writings in a different light. Most people no longer faithfully believe that Adam and Eve were the beginning of human creation due to significant scientific evidence of evolution (however 5 of the 10 republican candidates for 08 don't believe in evolution). The religion is not lost, it's merely changed. Today, people see the morals that are inferred from the text and not the stories as historical happenings. So, as people interpret differently, society is then changed in the most beneficial intepretation. I'm not finding myself lost in my own discussion. I'm going to end this. I'm sure there will be some responses to this. Please, clear up what I'm trying to say!
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Post 12
Bob Marley's song, "Exodus", clearly rings a bell in relation to the video we watched in our last class of the Jews of South Africa being taken to Israel. What makes this interesting is that Bob Marley is referring to is when the Hebrews fled to Egypt due to the famine. However, Bob Marley isn't Jewish and seems to be using it as a metaphor for societal change. I did a little background on Marley and found that he was Rastafarian, which is a combination of Christian and Jewish religions. Marley's music has been known to be very rebellious. This leads me to believe that this song was meant to preach to everyone that the "captives" need to be set free and the every one must "rule equality".
Exodus, the biblical passage, talks about Hebrews that were enslaved in Egypt. I think Marley's main purpose in this song is to protest against human rights that have been lost. Thus, the people he is talking about are "enslaved" in a sense. Though he may be religious, Marley isn't really talking directly about religion. He is using the religious passage to discuss problems that are happening from and social and political standpoint.
Obviously this is only one interpretation. However, lyrics like "come to break downpression" and "wipe away transgression" are applicable to the way certain peoples are treated. I'm not sure what the time frame was or what was happening globaly at the time this song was written, but Marley definitely had some sort of cause for writing this song.
Exodus, the biblical passage, talks about Hebrews that were enslaved in Egypt. I think Marley's main purpose in this song is to protest against human rights that have been lost. Thus, the people he is talking about are "enslaved" in a sense. Though he may be religious, Marley isn't really talking directly about religion. He is using the religious passage to discuss problems that are happening from and social and political standpoint.
Obviously this is only one interpretation. However, lyrics like "come to break downpression" and "wipe away transgression" are applicable to the way certain peoples are treated. I'm not sure what the time frame was or what was happening globaly at the time this song was written, but Marley definitely had some sort of cause for writing this song.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Post 11
My purpose in writing this post will merely be to discuss Ethiopian culture and how it differs from U.S. culture. This post will cover different topics than the previous response to Caro's post.
The colors and decor that the Ethiopians use is much different than the U.S. There is obviously a strong influence. If a Catholic church in the midwest was compared to a Protestant church in Ethiopia it can be seen that the colors and style alone are much different. There is obviously a strong African influence. I'm not sure where the bright colors and extensive art come from, but it is so much different than in the U.S.
Catholic and Protestant churches alike have a lot of art. However, the colors used are much more drab. The art work is more depressing, too. Again, I'm not sure what to accredit for the difference between these styles of art, but there is something there. It may just be based on happiness? I've often considered U.S. churches pessimistic, which makes me think Ethiopians would be much more optomistic. The colors alone offer very different emotions.
The colors and decor that the Ethiopians use is much different than the U.S. There is obviously a strong influence. If a Catholic church in the midwest was compared to a Protestant church in Ethiopia it can be seen that the colors and style alone are much different. There is obviously a strong African influence. I'm not sure where the bright colors and extensive art come from, but it is so much different than in the U.S.
Catholic and Protestant churches alike have a lot of art. However, the colors used are much more drab. The art work is more depressing, too. Again, I'm not sure what to accredit for the difference between these styles of art, but there is something there. It may just be based on happiness? I've often considered U.S. churches pessimistic, which makes me think Ethiopians would be much more optomistic. The colors alone offer very different emotions.
Post 10
This is a response to Caro Leach's post from April 26, 2007 titled "Ethiopia".
I would disagree with her statement that "In our culture, individuals go to great lengths to not be associated with their religious beliefs. In the United States, we are taught to keep our social life separated from our religious life."
Caro cites the tattoos on the womens' foreheads in Ethiopia as evidence that they wanted every one to know that they were Christians. I can agree with this statement. However, it's when she cited U.S. culture as the converse to Ethiopia's that I disagree.
Front doors of house across the country are littered with crosses, devout Christians where crosses on their necks, and the "WWJD" emblem is posted on countless car bumpers. It seems today that most Christians are trying to be evangelists, more or less, in converting non-believers into believers. There are orginizations like Young Life that bring in kids with games and sing-a-longs that are just there to serve the purpose of instilling Christian beliefs in today's youths.
I would also like to point out that God is often referred to in U.S. politics as well. President George Bush, a fervent Christian, uses prayer and God in many of his speeches regarding the war in Iraq. There are also songs like, "God Bless America" and the "Pledge of Allegiance" that references God. I just think America is different in that there is a broader range of religions, so it's harder to announce your religion without offending others.
I would disagree with her statement that "In our culture, individuals go to great lengths to not be associated with their religious beliefs. In the United States, we are taught to keep our social life separated from our religious life."
Caro cites the tattoos on the womens' foreheads in Ethiopia as evidence that they wanted every one to know that they were Christians. I can agree with this statement. However, it's when she cited U.S. culture as the converse to Ethiopia's that I disagree.
Front doors of house across the country are littered with crosses, devout Christians where crosses on their necks, and the "WWJD" emblem is posted on countless car bumpers. It seems today that most Christians are trying to be evangelists, more or less, in converting non-believers into believers. There are orginizations like Young Life that bring in kids with games and sing-a-longs that are just there to serve the purpose of instilling Christian beliefs in today's youths.
I would also like to point out that God is often referred to in U.S. politics as well. President George Bush, a fervent Christian, uses prayer and God in many of his speeches regarding the war in Iraq. There are also songs like, "God Bless America" and the "Pledge of Allegiance" that references God. I just think America is different in that there is a broader range of religions, so it's harder to announce your religion without offending others.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Post 9
This post is a combination of thoughts from the film "Metropolis" and the class discussion that followed.
In watching the film I it felt obvious to me that the purpose was to bring an idea to the masses. The idea, or purpose, conveyed can be summarized as the need for a "mediator". This mediator most closely resembles Jesus. There were references to Babel, the underworld, and heaven throughout the film. It is hard for me to believe that the director sought nothing more than to create a film that would intrigue and please its audience.
In class JB brought up an interesting point. He said something along the lines of the film being made only profit and entertainment. Furthermore, he said that the director would have written an essay rather than made a film if he was trying to convey some sort of political, cultural, or religious change to the masses. He also said that art, in general, is only created for an asthetic purpose.
My opposing view is that not all people can write well. I mean, there are artists, musicians, film makers, and a variety of other people that use different mediums to show their feelings and more exclusively their feelings about the state of the world. JB cited Dylan as one of the few that was looking for societal change in his music. I think the only reason that was the only musician he could come up with that did that is because his lyrics are easy to relate to and are very upfront, not to mention he is one of the most popular musicians of our time. Let me refer to another artist that we all know. John Lennon obviously had songs that were meant to invoke thought in the listeners' minds. The song "imagine", for example, discusses the state of the world and is sort of a pro-communism song. One of Lennon's previous bandmates, George Harrison, wrote the song "Woman is the Nigger of the World". I mean, the title alone is evidence enough that he was talking about a problem with the way women were treated. I think it's possible that JB was only trying to play "devil's advocate", if you will. However, I wanted to unfold my ideas on the matter.
In watching the film I it felt obvious to me that the purpose was to bring an idea to the masses. The idea, or purpose, conveyed can be summarized as the need for a "mediator". This mediator most closely resembles Jesus. There were references to Babel, the underworld, and heaven throughout the film. It is hard for me to believe that the director sought nothing more than to create a film that would intrigue and please its audience.
In class JB brought up an interesting point. He said something along the lines of the film being made only profit and entertainment. Furthermore, he said that the director would have written an essay rather than made a film if he was trying to convey some sort of political, cultural, or religious change to the masses. He also said that art, in general, is only created for an asthetic purpose.
My opposing view is that not all people can write well. I mean, there are artists, musicians, film makers, and a variety of other people that use different mediums to show their feelings and more exclusively their feelings about the state of the world. JB cited Dylan as one of the few that was looking for societal change in his music. I think the only reason that was the only musician he could come up with that did that is because his lyrics are easy to relate to and are very upfront, not to mention he is one of the most popular musicians of our time. Let me refer to another artist that we all know. John Lennon obviously had songs that were meant to invoke thought in the listeners' minds. The song "imagine", for example, discusses the state of the world and is sort of a pro-communism song. One of Lennon's previous bandmates, George Harrison, wrote the song "Woman is the Nigger of the World". I mean, the title alone is evidence enough that he was talking about a problem with the way women were treated. I think it's possible that JB was only trying to play "devil's advocate", if you will. However, I wanted to unfold my ideas on the matter.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Post 8
This post is in response to Sarah Justinger's post on "Grizzly Man". This is what was written in her fourth point regarding Treadwell's religious affiliation with bears:
"While browsing the Wikipedia article on Timothy Treadwell, I found evidence that confirmed my stipulations that his passion for bears really was functioning as religion in his life. The article claims, 'Treadwell attributed his recovery from drug and alcohol addictions entirely to his relationship with bears.' This confirms notions of his grizzly religion because it really is a statement of a superhuman controlling power in his life. He actually felt that the bears had power in his life in this way as well as how he made himself vulnerable to the bears."
I strongly disagree with both the arguments that Wikipedia and Sarah make. Sarah's other points are sound, and I have few conflictin views with them. However, can we really say that his religion (Treadwell's relationship with bears) was what caused him to recover from drug and alcohol addictions? Many people are confronted with the harsh reality of an addiction, but I don't what saves them is their religious plight. Addicts often need someone to talk to and something to keep their mind off of what their doing. But, that sure doesn't make a case for religion. Maybe the bears were just animals that he was happy being around. Or an even more plausible theory is that he was constantly scared shitless, so their was no opportunity for him to think about wanting drugs.
I could agree with Treadwell's recovery being spiritual. Obviously there are varying definitions of "spiritual" and "religion", so let me clarify what mine are. Spirituality, to me, involves self discovery and an outlook that involves an attitude that is based off the mind and intellect. Religion, though it may incorporate spirituality, is a set of beliefs and rules that cause the religious to find harmony in every thing they do. I guess it's just hard for me to believe that Treadwell formed his own religion from his experience from the bears and rose out of his addictions. I mean, after all, Treadwell still seemed pretty messed up to me.
"While browsing the Wikipedia article on Timothy Treadwell, I found evidence that confirmed my stipulations that his passion for bears really was functioning as religion in his life. The article claims, 'Treadwell attributed his recovery from drug and alcohol addictions entirely to his relationship with bears.' This confirms notions of his grizzly religion because it really is a statement of a superhuman controlling power in his life. He actually felt that the bears had power in his life in this way as well as how he made himself vulnerable to the bears."
I strongly disagree with both the arguments that Wikipedia and Sarah make. Sarah's other points are sound, and I have few conflictin views with them. However, can we really say that his religion (Treadwell's relationship with bears) was what caused him to recover from drug and alcohol addictions? Many people are confronted with the harsh reality of an addiction, but I don't what saves them is their religious plight. Addicts often need someone to talk to and something to keep their mind off of what their doing. But, that sure doesn't make a case for religion. Maybe the bears were just animals that he was happy being around. Or an even more plausible theory is that he was constantly scared shitless, so their was no opportunity for him to think about wanting drugs.
I could agree with Treadwell's recovery being spiritual. Obviously there are varying definitions of "spiritual" and "religion", so let me clarify what mine are. Spirituality, to me, involves self discovery and an outlook that involves an attitude that is based off the mind and intellect. Religion, though it may incorporate spirituality, is a set of beliefs and rules that cause the religious to find harmony in every thing they do. I guess it's just hard for me to believe that Treadwell formed his own religion from his experience from the bears and rose out of his addictions. I mean, after all, Treadwell still seemed pretty messed up to me.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Post 7
Sam Harris does have a valid point. It seems to me that the basis of his argument is that the Koran, and moreso the hadiths control Muslims lives. I'm not sure if incorporating Obedience to Authority is allowed. Granted, I know it will be subject to criticism. However, I think Harris' view of Muslims and the Koran is indeed a similar view that Stanley Milgram would have held. Both the followers of the Koran and the subjects in Milgram's experiments are obedient to a higher power. Muslims serve God as the Koran tells them. And just so, the subjects in Milgrams experiments follow the orders of the experimenter.
Sam Harris wrote on page 123, "On almost every page, the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise non-believers." Of course, in the majority of cases they do so. Through similar quotes to this, other portions taken from the Koran, and the surveys held it is understood that most Muslims believe this. Some even go to the extent of destroying non-believers. The Koran is overpowering. What Sam Harris is saying, whether he is right or wrong, is that the Koran consumes the minds of Muslims, and therefore they are dangerous.
Milgram, too, believed people were subject to being obedient to authority figures. The men in labcoats that were paid actors made the subjects feel like there was something very serious and real going on and that they were powerless in the hands of the professionals. His experiments proved this theory. Of course, there was a smaller percentage of subjects that didn't participate to the fullest extent. However, the majority did go to extremes when shocking the the persons answering the questions.
These different levels of authority are definitely reflected by both Harris and Milgram. Harris shows in the survey that there is a percentage of people who believe suicide bombing in self defense is going to far. Milgram gives tables and charts of the numbers of people who did and didn't obey and to what extent they obeyed. He even interviewed some of them to see what their motives were. Obviously, both Harris and Milgram want people to perceive their conclusions as true so the studies are skewed to their viewpoint. But, there is definitely significant substantial data given by both authors.
Sam Harris wrote on page 123, "On almost every page, the Koran instructs observant Muslims to despise non-believers." Of course, in the majority of cases they do so. Through similar quotes to this, other portions taken from the Koran, and the surveys held it is understood that most Muslims believe this. Some even go to the extent of destroying non-believers. The Koran is overpowering. What Sam Harris is saying, whether he is right or wrong, is that the Koran consumes the minds of Muslims, and therefore they are dangerous.
Milgram, too, believed people were subject to being obedient to authority figures. The men in labcoats that were paid actors made the subjects feel like there was something very serious and real going on and that they were powerless in the hands of the professionals. His experiments proved this theory. Of course, there was a smaller percentage of subjects that didn't participate to the fullest extent. However, the majority did go to extremes when shocking the the persons answering the questions.
These different levels of authority are definitely reflected by both Harris and Milgram. Harris shows in the survey that there is a percentage of people who believe suicide bombing in self defense is going to far. Milgram gives tables and charts of the numbers of people who did and didn't obey and to what extent they obeyed. He even interviewed some of them to see what their motives were. Obviously, both Harris and Milgram want people to perceive their conclusions as true so the studies are skewed to their viewpoint. But, there is definitely significant substantial data given by both authors.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Post 6
In reading The Zohar, I found many comparisons in every day life. It seems to me that the purpose of these interpretations was basically to show people that whether or not stories are true or factual, they have real moral and purposeful meaning behind them. The comparison that most closely resembles this, in my mind, is the way in which our class found meaning in the Paleolithic art and things that the Neanderthals did.
On page forty three of the Zohar it is written, "Woah to the human being who says that Torah presents mere stories and ordinary words!". Instantly, the reader is set back and considers the meaning behind each story and word that is present in the Torah. We, as readers, are more easily swayed to believe that the meanings are true and relevant because we can interpret them as we please. Thus, religion is there for us to analyze and take what we want. Humans like the ability to perceive thoughts in a way that gels well with their own opinions.
Just how the Zorah says to interpret the Torah, our class studied early human and neanderthal life as we pleased. There was obviously confliction between thoughts, and even more between the way objects, paintings, and symbols were looked at. Some saw religion, some saw artwork, and some nothing but day to day materials needed for survival. The Zorah exemplifies one type of person and the Torah another. I know that there are people that believe Adam and Eve were actually people that walked the earth. There are also others that believe the story is there just to give meaning. I think it is clear that no matter what, there will always be a distinction between the two types of people. Even those who read the Zorah may still believe that all the stories in the Torah are factual.
On page forty three of the Zohar it is written, "Woah to the human being who says that Torah presents mere stories and ordinary words!". Instantly, the reader is set back and considers the meaning behind each story and word that is present in the Torah. We, as readers, are more easily swayed to believe that the meanings are true and relevant because we can interpret them as we please. Thus, religion is there for us to analyze and take what we want. Humans like the ability to perceive thoughts in a way that gels well with their own opinions.
Just how the Zorah says to interpret the Torah, our class studied early human and neanderthal life as we pleased. There was obviously confliction between thoughts, and even more between the way objects, paintings, and symbols were looked at. Some saw religion, some saw artwork, and some nothing but day to day materials needed for survival. The Zorah exemplifies one type of person and the Torah another. I know that there are people that believe Adam and Eve were actually people that walked the earth. There are also others that believe the story is there just to give meaning. I think it is clear that no matter what, there will always be a distinction between the two types of people. Even those who read the Zorah may still believe that all the stories in the Torah are factual.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Post 5
Even though I was unable to attend class on Monday for the 'Grizzly Man' discussion I did rent it to compensate for my absence. I'm not sure what was discussed in class, but I found Tim's actions most closely related to those of Native Americans.
I spent two weeks out of the last three summers on Indian reservations in South Dakota. Each summer there were Pow Wows, which seemed to honor most exclusively animals as somewhat spiritual beings. In doing the Pow Wows, masks and outfits were created that transformed the Native Americans into animals. It seems to me that what Timothy Treadwell did was similar to what the Native Americans I spent time with still do.
Tim Treadwell seemed more concerned with the sensation of becoming a bear (swimming with them, feeling the bear's poop, making noises and gestures that were much like a bear's). Even the Alaskan tour guide that was interviewed said that he thought Tim was trying to achieve something spiritual by becoming more like a bear. This is what I thought of when I witnessed the Pow wows. The Native Americans sing and dance and transform the image of animals into something of a higher power.
Now, I'm not quite sure what they get out of this religiously. Maybe it is just a feeling of interconnectedness. I do remember a conversation I had while eating dinner with an elder named Amos at the Cherry Creek Reservation. I asked him his opinion on Christians trying to convert the Native Americans because of what the Mennonites there called, "a dark and deceived religion". His answer was something like this, "I don't think we are much different. So many people want to find differences in belief. We are all connected: the wolf, the deer, the fox, and the human. I think that that's what their problem with spirtuality is. They (the Mennonites) just have to realize that we are all connected right here (as he pounded his fist against his heart)."
I spent two weeks out of the last three summers on Indian reservations in South Dakota. Each summer there were Pow Wows, which seemed to honor most exclusively animals as somewhat spiritual beings. In doing the Pow Wows, masks and outfits were created that transformed the Native Americans into animals. It seems to me that what Timothy Treadwell did was similar to what the Native Americans I spent time with still do.
Tim Treadwell seemed more concerned with the sensation of becoming a bear (swimming with them, feeling the bear's poop, making noises and gestures that were much like a bear's). Even the Alaskan tour guide that was interviewed said that he thought Tim was trying to achieve something spiritual by becoming more like a bear. This is what I thought of when I witnessed the Pow wows. The Native Americans sing and dance and transform the image of animals into something of a higher power.
Now, I'm not quite sure what they get out of this religiously. Maybe it is just a feeling of interconnectedness. I do remember a conversation I had while eating dinner with an elder named Amos at the Cherry Creek Reservation. I asked him his opinion on Christians trying to convert the Native Americans because of what the Mennonites there called, "a dark and deceived religion". His answer was something like this, "I don't think we are much different. So many people want to find differences in belief. We are all connected: the wolf, the deer, the fox, and the human. I think that that's what their problem with spirtuality is. They (the Mennonites) just have to realize that we are all connected right here (as he pounded his fist against his heart)."
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Post 4
This post is inspired by Kelly Dirkman's April 5th post titled, "Effigy Mounds".
The main points contained within Kelly's post are sound, and do make an excellent argument in regard to the spirtuality of these indian tribes. It is not my intent to disagree with this or pick apart any aspect of her idea. This post awakened ideas that connected the ways in which the indian mounds were created to the way modern society and religion exist. In my mind Catholicism was the most exclusively connected.
Kelly wrote, "the symbols on their pottery is like the effigy mounds they created", which is also mentioned within the reading. This relates so well to modern day Christianity. We have crosses on necklaces, "WWJD" emblems on car bumpers, and even churches that are shaped like a dove from an ariel view. Like the indian mounds, the churches and day to day items revolve around symbols that come from the core of our spirituality (Not to say that every one is christian. It seems to be the same with all religions). We visualize the cross so much that it has been ingrained into soceity in every aspect. The indians that created these mounds seem to have had the same sort of thing happening.
Kelly also wrote, "The fact that mounds in different areas were aligned similarly gave way to a suggestion of a shaman going to different tribes to oversee construction". To me this is much like the Catholics. They have Bishops, Cardinals, and a Pope. There is a group of people that oversee each individual component of the Catholic Church.
I want to thank Kelly for bringing this together for me. Like the indians, today religion is still passed down. Maybe these ways were passed down to us from a pot?
The main points contained within Kelly's post are sound, and do make an excellent argument in regard to the spirtuality of these indian tribes. It is not my intent to disagree with this or pick apart any aspect of her idea. This post awakened ideas that connected the ways in which the indian mounds were created to the way modern society and religion exist. In my mind Catholicism was the most exclusively connected.
Kelly wrote, "the symbols on their pottery is like the effigy mounds they created", which is also mentioned within the reading. This relates so well to modern day Christianity. We have crosses on necklaces, "WWJD" emblems on car bumpers, and even churches that are shaped like a dove from an ariel view. Like the indian mounds, the churches and day to day items revolve around symbols that come from the core of our spirituality (Not to say that every one is christian. It seems to be the same with all religions). We visualize the cross so much that it has been ingrained into soceity in every aspect. The indians that created these mounds seem to have had the same sort of thing happening.
Kelly also wrote, "The fact that mounds in different areas were aligned similarly gave way to a suggestion of a shaman going to different tribes to oversee construction". To me this is much like the Catholics. They have Bishops, Cardinals, and a Pope. There is a group of people that oversee each individual component of the Catholic Church.
I want to thank Kelly for bringing this together for me. Like the indians, today religion is still passed down. Maybe these ways were passed down to us from a pot?
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Post 3
My goal in writing this post is to bring about an idea that is new, but based on a few of the previous discussed topics in class. I think there is a definite possibility that the various cave paintings were painted by all sorts of men after their first kill. Thus, each painting may be a symbol of an individual's passage to manhood.
If we consider ourselves, in the modern world, a good portion of us still withhold the desire to kill other animals. For some reason or another we want to show our dominance over all other creatures. Most hunters today go out and hunt not for food, but for sport. They hang the dead stuffed bodies on their walls, take pictures, and even right about magnificient hunts. Most notably, every hunter remembers their first kill.
In class, we considered the possibility that the animal paintings in the cave were created by only a select few "Shaman" individuals to honor the beasts. However, it seems equally possibly that these paintings were created by all men after their first hunt. In "The Nature Of Paleolithic Art" the paintings are compared and contrasted. It turns out they are all very different; they contain different styles, colors, sizes, etc. It would make sense that each painting is done by a different man, a man painting the first animal that he killed. As for the painting of the man laying down in front of the bull on the verge of charging with intestines dangling, I have an idea. I think that this man may have died on his first hunt, and his elders painted it to represent what happened to him. I think this is entirely believable. I mean, there are certain African hunters that force new hunters to take a bite out of the heart of the first animal they kill. I think there is something similar going on with these paintings.
If we consider ourselves, in the modern world, a good portion of us still withhold the desire to kill other animals. For some reason or another we want to show our dominance over all other creatures. Most hunters today go out and hunt not for food, but for sport. They hang the dead stuffed bodies on their walls, take pictures, and even right about magnificient hunts. Most notably, every hunter remembers their first kill.
In class, we considered the possibility that the animal paintings in the cave were created by only a select few "Shaman" individuals to honor the beasts. However, it seems equally possibly that these paintings were created by all men after their first hunt. In "The Nature Of Paleolithic Art" the paintings are compared and contrasted. It turns out they are all very different; they contain different styles, colors, sizes, etc. It would make sense that each painting is done by a different man, a man painting the first animal that he killed. As for the painting of the man laying down in front of the bull on the verge of charging with intestines dangling, I have an idea. I think that this man may have died on his first hunt, and his elders painted it to represent what happened to him. I think this is entirely believable. I mean, there are certain African hunters that force new hunters to take a bite out of the heart of the first animal they kill. I think there is something similar going on with these paintings.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Post 2
The Genesis passage from the Bible doesn't have the most cohesive argument in relation to the neanderthal articles. I'm hoping that it can be assumed that most of the stories with the Bible were not thought to be taken literally. In my opinion they are merely there to teach lessons and show a moral way of life. Their main problem that can lead this argument astray is that modern humans do not know everything about neanderthals, nor do we know how factual the story of Genesis was meant to be. However, on the basis of evolution and the creation of mankind we can compare them.
According to "The Singing Neanderthals" passage, "Genetic evidence indicates that our species, Homo sapiens, shared an ancestor with the Neanderthals somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 years ago, and evolved quite separately" (222). This seems odd in contrast with Genesis, which claims that man has dominion over all things and that humankind, the reflection of God, all came from Adam and Eve. This may seem laughable, since it is incredibly unlikely that people actual believe this was really how mankind began. However, I feel like it is still an area of evolution that can be assessed. Really, humans share "99.5%" of DNA traits with neanderthals. We are really similar beings. When humankind interbreeded with neanderthals we had to have been at the same or a similar intellectual level. This intellectual level was not high. How could Adam and Eve have thought on such a high intellectual level if they had existed hundreds of thousands of years before humans and neanderthals interbreeded? It seems to me that it doesn't all compute well. I guess a lot of what I've discussed is based on interpretation. Well, food for thought.
According to "The Singing Neanderthals" passage, "Genetic evidence indicates that our species, Homo sapiens, shared an ancestor with the Neanderthals somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 years ago, and evolved quite separately" (222). This seems odd in contrast with Genesis, which claims that man has dominion over all things and that humankind, the reflection of God, all came from Adam and Eve. This may seem laughable, since it is incredibly unlikely that people actual believe this was really how mankind began. However, I feel like it is still an area of evolution that can be assessed. Really, humans share "99.5%" of DNA traits with neanderthals. We are really similar beings. When humankind interbreeded with neanderthals we had to have been at the same or a similar intellectual level. This intellectual level was not high. How could Adam and Eve have thought on such a high intellectual level if they had existed hundreds of thousands of years before humans and neanderthals interbreeded? It seems to me that it doesn't all compute well. I guess a lot of what I've discussed is based on interpretation. Well, food for thought.
Post 1
The assertions that Atran makes about "belief in hope beyond reason" seem entirely relevant to my own beliefs. I used to tag along with my folks to church, fold my hands together, bow my head, and pray. I quickly grew out of that stage and got some sort of satisfaction from criticizing christianity because it seemed so unreasonable to me. Like Atran, I too, cross my fingers and knock on wood. The only problem I've found in dealing with this, is purpose. I honestly can't think of any reason why I consume myself in these meaningless activities, other than the possibility that it could be a result of my own desire to have a connection with something supernatural or a being that trancends me.
This seems stunning to me because I've often found myself praying or involving myself in some form of prayer and questioned what its purpose was. Albeit, I talk myself out of it and pretend like I have no connection to anything that seems surreal. The information assessed in "Why Do We Believe?" seems entirely relevant to my own experiences. I feel that Atran and I are very parallel in belief and approach. I've never considered my tendency to not put my hand in magic box, if you will, something inherent or genetic. However, it seems entirely possible. I'm not announcing that I have a newfound earnest belief in a god, but the argument made that God created humans to want to have a connection with him seems plausible. Dawkins' belief, which seems pertinent, is something similar to a genetic flaw, or something that has been developed over time which shouldn't exist. I can't say which is right or wrong. Obviously, I am in no position to assert that one belief stands above the rest. From the conclusions I can draw from this material, humans do have a desire for religion. Whether or not this need for religion is created by God within humans or it's a genetic deformity I can't say, but it seems it exists within humankind. Atran's part in this article provides an excellent way for the reader to relate.
This seems stunning to me because I've often found myself praying or involving myself in some form of prayer and questioned what its purpose was. Albeit, I talk myself out of it and pretend like I have no connection to anything that seems surreal. The information assessed in "Why Do We Believe?" seems entirely relevant to my own experiences. I feel that Atran and I are very parallel in belief and approach. I've never considered my tendency to not put my hand in magic box, if you will, something inherent or genetic. However, it seems entirely possible. I'm not announcing that I have a newfound earnest belief in a god, but the argument made that God created humans to want to have a connection with him seems plausible. Dawkins' belief, which seems pertinent, is something similar to a genetic flaw, or something that has been developed over time which shouldn't exist. I can't say which is right or wrong. Obviously, I am in no position to assert that one belief stands above the rest. From the conclusions I can draw from this material, humans do have a desire for religion. Whether or not this need for religion is created by God within humans or it's a genetic deformity I can't say, but it seems it exists within humankind. Atran's part in this article provides an excellent way for the reader to relate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)