Thursday, April 29, 2010
Kim Robinson - misc. # 5
For most like me this has been a long semester with stressful classes. However, it was a nice thing every monday night to head to class just so I could watch movies. I have to say that this has been one of the best classes I've taken at CNU. I love movies in general, but I also love to go back ad see movies I haven't seen in years and view it from a different perspective. Other than the foreign films, I had seen most of the movies we watched over these past weeks. I was able to re-watch these movies and because of the discussions held before and after class I was able to view all these movies through a different lense. I don't think that I would have ever have been able to make some of the connections that others made during the films, but once pointed out these connections made sense. As my last blog I just wated to write how this class gave me an opprotunity to learn new points of view and to re-interpret that which we think we already know. It was a fun class!
Kim Robinson - Misc. # 4
The other day in preperation for Spain, we were suppose set up and partake in this labyrinth. Unfortunately the day we had planned to set up the labyrinth was the beginning of this rainy weather we've been having and therefore the event had to be shut done because there just wasn't ebough time left in the school year to postpone it. Labyrinths originally have ties back to Acient Greece and are more often seen today as a sort of maze. ore often seen these days as a sort of maze. People walk on the paths of the labyrinth which curl back to each and evevtually you rach the center. They can be used as a physical form of prayer. I had done a labyrinth once before, but i was kind of excited to have the opprotunity to do it again.I wouldn't say that I've become more religious but rather more spiritual since the last time I walked a labyrinth. Its calming exerience if nothing else and gives a person time to slow down and collect their thoughts. I was excited that a labyrinth was coming to our school and people who have just a small example of what my summer will be like in Spain. Prayers do not always have to be in front a statue of Christ or in church kneeling before "the presence" of God. I wonder truly how many people at CNU have either done a labyrinth and how many have never even heard a labyrinth.I bet the differences are closer than we expect. And maybe we'd be surprised too that more have done than you think. It can be a very spiritual thing for those who are religious and now as I develop my own sense of my faith in a higher being, I wonder if doing a labyrinth now would be different than it was before????
Kim Robinson - outside reading #5
One of my classes this semester was called Power & Mystification. The majority of our time spent looking at and examining how political leaders and social figures gained and used their power. However, at the beginning of the semester we were discussing government as a whole and many of readings talked about church and state. It was interesting to read all these articles that highlight how religion has become part of every government, no matter how much they say they seperate it. Even in our own government there are obvious rituals or symbols that can be directly back to religion, more specifically Christianity. When the president gets sworn in every four years, he (so far) places his hand on a copy of the bible and some even add "So help me God" into their oaths of office. There the president of the US is acknowledging the power of God in a very public venue. Also, the official motto of the United States and it's government is "In God We Trust" . We now use that motto on almost all forms of currency. I'm not saying that I believe it is wrong that the US government uses religious symbolism or rituals in the practice of government. More that when I was reading these different articles it really just struck me that as a people and as a government we openly declare that the fate of us all lies in the hands of God. That we trust his reason above all others. I just thought it was interesting and now it makes me want to go look for connections of religion to out government :p
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
#7 Wilderness as Sacred Place: Spiritual Journey- no pain no gain
Afton Reed
Spiritual journey is comprised of many things. One important aspect is "no pain no gain," In order to recieve any benefits, like everything else, you have to be willing to push yourself to the limit. Finding your limits really allows you to grow as a person. You grow a new respect for yourself, and a new knowledge of what you can handle.To complete a spiritual journey you must have perseverence.
Spiritual journey is comprised of many things. One important aspect is "no pain no gain," In order to recieve any benefits, like everything else, you have to be willing to push yourself to the limit. Finding your limits really allows you to grow as a person. You grow a new respect for yourself, and a new knowledge of what you can handle.To complete a spiritual journey you must have perseverence.
#6 Wilderness as Sacred Place: My sacred place at CNU
Afton Reed
I don't feel like I have many places that I consider sacred.The only place that really strikes me is a place I went to a few times for answers. There were a few nights I just felt like going for walks and I always ended up at the fountain. Most nights no one was sitting there so I could do whatever I wanted to without feeling watched. Sometimes I cried. I often watched the sky or the water in the fountain. I'm not sure what was so relaxing about it. And why I felt so comfortable there, but there it was. I guess it chose, I didn't choose it. I didn't really perform any rituals there, but if crying could be considered a ritual, or somewhat questioning a higher power, then I performed rituals there. It is both local and universal because many people find water to be relazing. And finally it is tread upon every day but I am the only one who has entered it as a sacred place. But, now that I have shared it's sacredness, you may enter.
I don't feel like I have many places that I consider sacred.The only place that really strikes me is a place I went to a few times for answers. There were a few nights I just felt like going for walks and I always ended up at the fountain. Most nights no one was sitting there so I could do whatever I wanted to without feeling watched. Sometimes I cried. I often watched the sky or the water in the fountain. I'm not sure what was so relaxing about it. And why I felt so comfortable there, but there it was. I guess it chose, I didn't choose it. I didn't really perform any rituals there, but if crying could be considered a ritual, or somewhat questioning a higher power, then I performed rituals there. It is both local and universal because many people find water to be relazing. And finally it is tread upon every day but I am the only one who has entered it as a sacred place. But, now that I have shared it's sacredness, you may enter.
#5 Wilderness as Sacred Place: Community vs. Communitas
Afton Reed
Community is simply people living together in the same vicinity. It is conventional and utterly meaningless. But communitas is so much more. Communitas is people forced together in somewhat extreme circumstances who form this inexplainable bond. People form this connection from the experience. People who are living memorable, meaningful experiences are so overwhelmed with emotion they can't help but connect and relate those people to that experience.Communitas often incorporates flow. People just feel like everything is going right between them. Everyone is focused on eachother and sending eachother good vibes. Communitas is rare, and community is every day.
Community is simply people living together in the same vicinity. It is conventional and utterly meaningless. But communitas is so much more. Communitas is people forced together in somewhat extreme circumstances who form this inexplainable bond. People form this connection from the experience. People who are living memorable, meaningful experiences are so overwhelmed with emotion they can't help but connect and relate those people to that experience.Communitas often incorporates flow. People just feel like everything is going right between them. Everyone is focused on eachother and sending eachother good vibes. Communitas is rare, and community is every day.
#4 Liminality
Afton Reed
Liminality is an inbetween. You are who you are in the beginning and who you end up being changes drastically,the things inbetween being the cause. For example Kip refers to people who hike the Appalachian trail. They are thrown into this new situation, stripped of conventional society, forced to overcome goals, forced to persevere and push themselves to the limit and to do all of these things that they never have before,(that they may have thought they were incapable of doing) and if that doesn't change a person I don't know what does. Liminality is the state after being a catapillar but before you turn into a butterfly.
Liminality is an inbetween. You are who you are in the beginning and who you end up being changes drastically,the things inbetween being the cause. For example Kip refers to people who hike the Appalachian trail. They are thrown into this new situation, stripped of conventional society, forced to overcome goals, forced to persevere and push themselves to the limit and to do all of these things that they never have before,(that they may have thought they were incapable of doing) and if that doesn't change a person I don't know what does. Liminality is the state after being a catapillar but before you turn into a butterfly.
#3 Space and Place Diagram
Afton Reed
Space is expansive and place is enclosed.Both space and place have postive and negative qualities. Space consisits of freedom and threat. Freedom provides excitement, and a feeling of limitlessness. A free space is open and boundless.However, space can also be a threat. People are afraid that they will be lost in space. If the space is too large you felt swallowed up in it.There is no end and that can be frightening.Place also has a positive and a negative. The positive side is comfort. For example,the myths of a small town. predictability,and stability are comforting things that a small town can offer. Having things that are familiar. People you know by name, who know you by name can be a very reassuring thing to have. But a place can also be constricting.It can make you feel suffocated. It is unexciting and routine.
Space is expansive and place is enclosed.Both space and place have postive and negative qualities. Space consisits of freedom and threat. Freedom provides excitement, and a feeling of limitlessness. A free space is open and boundless.However, space can also be a threat. People are afraid that they will be lost in space. If the space is too large you felt swallowed up in it.There is no end and that can be frightening.Place also has a positive and a negative. The positive side is comfort. For example,the myths of a small town. predictability,and stability are comforting things that a small town can offer. Having things that are familiar. People you know by name, who know you by name can be a very reassuring thing to have. But a place can also be constricting.It can make you feel suffocated. It is unexciting and routine.
Kim Robinson - outside reading # 4
On another day when I was reading for my religious studies class I was reading about Japanese religions. This time the section was highlighting specific Shinto practices and one was able to catch my attention. It was the practice of misogi which is believed to purify one’s self by standing under a waterfall. This caught my attention because I began to think how that same practice is done throughout the world, specifically here in the United States. You have Southern Baptist churches who baptize their new members by submerging themselves in a river or body of water. The water is said to wash away the past sins. Also even in my church, St. Georges Episcopal Church, which George Washington attended when he lived in Ferry Farm, uses water to purify the one being baptized. The simple act of using water to form a cross on the forehead can relate back to the Japanese practice. It’s interesting to see how such a simple thing can translate into different cultures and religions.
#2 Cold Fever and the four axioms
Afton Reed
In Cold Fever,Hirata, a japanese business man, is forced to go to Iceland instead of a vacation to Hawaii. His is obligated to perform rituals at the place where his parents died 7 years ago. Along the way he encounters many strange things.He never would have suspected that he was trekking across a sacred place. However, Iceland's sacredness is revealed throughout the film. Let's see if it fits into Lane's view of sacred place by applying the 4 axioms, shall we? "Sacred place chooses, it is not chosen." Hirata obviously did not choose the place to be sacred. It is sacred because of circumstance. The place where his parents died evokes strong emotions. It is a place where he feels connected to them, as this was the last place they were, while on earth. Secondly, "sacred place is an ordinary place made ritually extraordinary." The river where Hirata's parents died is seemingly ordinary, but because of the events that happened there, rituals must take place there,making it is sacred. Hirata performs many rituals at the river. He lights candles and sends them down the river, he pours wine into the river and he prays at the river. All of these things are done because the place has meaning to Hirata, and because of that, the place is sacred. Thirdly, "sacred place can be tread upon but not entered." Hirata doesn't know anything about the sacredness of Iceland. This is evident when he rides by the fairy stones, that Icelandic people believe to be the home of fairies, and has no idea that they are something out of the ordinary. It is not until he is told about them that he can know of the sacredness, and truly enter the place. And lastly, "Sacred place is both local and universal." The rituals Hirata performs at the river are recognizable rituals. It is local, but it is also universal because someone else has a place that they hold sacred, where they perform similar rituals.They recognize his place as being sacred to him, because of their sacred place, and therefore it is universal.
In Cold Fever,Hirata, a japanese business man, is forced to go to Iceland instead of a vacation to Hawaii. His is obligated to perform rituals at the place where his parents died 7 years ago. Along the way he encounters many strange things.He never would have suspected that he was trekking across a sacred place. However, Iceland's sacredness is revealed throughout the film. Let's see if it fits into Lane's view of sacred place by applying the 4 axioms, shall we? "Sacred place chooses, it is not chosen." Hirata obviously did not choose the place to be sacred. It is sacred because of circumstance. The place where his parents died evokes strong emotions. It is a place where he feels connected to them, as this was the last place they were, while on earth. Secondly, "sacred place is an ordinary place made ritually extraordinary." The river where Hirata's parents died is seemingly ordinary, but because of the events that happened there, rituals must take place there,making it is sacred. Hirata performs many rituals at the river. He lights candles and sends them down the river, he pours wine into the river and he prays at the river. All of these things are done because the place has meaning to Hirata, and because of that, the place is sacred. Thirdly, "sacred place can be tread upon but not entered." Hirata doesn't know anything about the sacredness of Iceland. This is evident when he rides by the fairy stones, that Icelandic people believe to be the home of fairies, and has no idea that they are something out of the ordinary. It is not until he is told about them that he can know of the sacredness, and truly enter the place. And lastly, "Sacred place is both local and universal." The rituals Hirata performs at the river are recognizable rituals. It is local, but it is also universal because someone else has a place that they hold sacred, where they perform similar rituals.They recognize his place as being sacred to him, because of their sacred place, and therefore it is universal.
#1 Wilderness as Sacred Place: Lane's 4 axioms
Afton Reed
I guess I always thought of sacred place as nothing more than a place that someone felt connected to in a positive way. I never knew there were specific things that make a sacred place a sacred place. But, there are actually 4 axioms that characterize sacred place.These 4 axioms include: "A sacred place isn't chosen, it chooses." Which means that a place has a sacred quality that draws a person in. The place is divine and reveals itself to the beholder of the sacred.The place chooses to show itself to the person, the person doesn't merely pick it at random. The next axiom is "sacred place is an ordinary place, made extraordinary." This is pretty self explanatory. But to expand upon it, sacred place is geographically normal, nothing special, but the rituals that take place there make it sacred. The place isn't sacred without the person using it as a sacred place.The third axiom is "Sacred place can be tread upon but not entered." A sacred place can be overlooked to someone who is not informed of the place's sacred qualities. The sacred place can be physically walked on, but only when the person has the knowledge of the sacredness can they truly enter. And lastly, "sacred place is both local and universal." A place can be recognized as sacred by outsiders, because they share a similar bond with a place.
I guess I always thought of sacred place as nothing more than a place that someone felt connected to in a positive way. I never knew there were specific things that make a sacred place a sacred place. But, there are actually 4 axioms that characterize sacred place.These 4 axioms include: "A sacred place isn't chosen, it chooses." Which means that a place has a sacred quality that draws a person in. The place is divine and reveals itself to the beholder of the sacred.The place chooses to show itself to the person, the person doesn't merely pick it at random. The next axiom is "sacred place is an ordinary place, made extraordinary." This is pretty self explanatory. But to expand upon it, sacred place is geographically normal, nothing special, but the rituals that take place there make it sacred. The place isn't sacred without the person using it as a sacred place.The third axiom is "Sacred place can be tread upon but not entered." A sacred place can be overlooked to someone who is not informed of the place's sacred qualities. The sacred place can be physically walked on, but only when the person has the knowledge of the sacredness can they truly enter. And lastly, "sacred place is both local and universal." A place can be recognized as sacred by outsiders, because they share a similar bond with a place.
Kim Robinson - outside reading # 3
I’m currently enrolled in RSTD 211 or Religions of the East and right now we’re studying the religions of Japan. We’re learning about Shinto, Zen Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, and so many more. It’s amazing to me how their culture has been able to incorporate a truly pluralistic view of religion into their everyday lives. These different religions have different functions when it comes to how they interact with society. Shinto is seen as the native religion of Japan even though it’s a transplant from China. Buddhism is used in the Japanese practice of ancestor worship and also as final rites during funerals. Political life is dictated by Confucian philosophy which is strongly influenced by moral and rational reasoning. Japan has created their own cultural religion using aspects from many types of religions or belief systems. It’s strange to think how they were able to do that, but what makes it so improbable. Why can’t our culture be like that? We were once considered the mixing bowl because of how many cultures were represented by the immigrants who came to America in the early years. Why can’t we become a mixing bowl once again, but instead of culture it is our religions that blend together. It has happened it some areas I know, but why not on a larger scale. Tolerance is not a quality that some in this country have learned and if religions were to mix, maybe then people would seem as equals and different from one another….
Kim Robinson - Misc. # 3
As school winds down and I realize that it’s just a few short weeks until I leave for Spain it finally hits me, I’m going to Spain for 6 ½ weeks with almost no communication with those I’m leaving back in the states. Yes, one of my closest friends is going to Spain with me, but there’s so many things that I’m leaving behind, not to mention that this will be by far the longest I go being away from those people and everything that is normal to me. But on the other hand, I super stoked to be going. When else would I get a chance like this, to hike over 500 miles through a foreign country and on something so popular, so recognizable as the Camino. It has so much history to it, and there have been millions of people that have walked the same path before me. Some will be like me, out there for the physical aspect, a sense of faith to them but not doing the Camino so much as a Christian pilgrimage but more of an adventure. Then there will be those that are there to experience God. It’ll be an interesting mix of people and there is so much to see. As much as I am excited for the landscape, you cannot go to Europe and not be excited for the architecture, especially the cathedrals. Since we are such a young country comparatively, we don’t have these monumental structures dedicated to the worship of God as Europe does. I can’t wait to walk through all the different cathedrals and see how much detail went into them and to see these old world views of Christianity and God. Even though I’m already looking forward to it, I don’t think I’ll realize how monumental this trip will be in the grand scheme of my life until much later in it, until I’ve had the time to look back on it and remember it as a once in a lifetime experience.
Kim Robinson - outside reading # 2
As I said before I read a lot over spring break and just happened to be on a Dan Brown spree. After reading Angels and Demon, I read The Davinci Code. I had seen the movie already like most people have, but I had never read the book. People try to say that both books are far out there and nothing like the events could ever happen, I think that they aren’t that far off. The premise of The Davinci Code is that the church has been hiding the secret that there was/ still is a descendent of Jesus Christ. To me, at least, I don’t understand why this belief is so unreasonable. Although Jesus was sent to this earth in order to show man how to live and to sacrifice himself for us, he was still a man. He still had the same desires as all men. I guess one reason that I’ve been reading books like this and getting out of them the question of the church’s power is because of my paper for this class. My paper focuses on how the church does not have to be the only place that one receives faith. If someone receives their own faith by believing that Jesus Christ’s descendent walks among us today then why question it. It’s interesting just to read how this could all play out if an event like this did occur. It just makes you think about all the possibilities that life holds and what questions are still out there for us to judge.
Kim Robinson - outside reading # 1
Over spring break I went to New Orleans and in doing so I spent about 12 hours either in airports or flying. Over the course of the week I read several books that I hadn’t had time to read over the semester. One of the books that I had started over the summer but never finished was Angels and Demons by Dan Brown. It’s an interesting book and Brown does make you question the superiority that institutionalized practices of religion have over people. One dialogue from the book really sparked my interest though and I believe that it sums up what religion can be to different people.
Vittoria Vetra: Religion is like language or dress. We gravitate toward the practices with which we were raised. In the end, though we are all proclaiming the same thing. That life has meaning. That we are grateful for that created us.
Robert Langdon: So you’re saying that whether you are a Christian or a Muslim simply depends on where you were born?
Vittoria Vetra: Isn’t it obvious? Look at the diffusion of religion around the globe.
Robert Langdon: So faith is random?
Vittoria Vetra: Hardly. Faith is universal. Our specific methods for understanding it are arbitrary. Some of us pray to Jesus, some us go to Mecca, some of us study subatomic particles. In the end we are all just searching for truth, that which is greater than ourselves
For those who haven’t seen this movie, Langdon is not what you would call a good Christian boy, he does believe that there is something out there, he just doesn’t know what. The way that Vittoria views religion is a way that people like me can understand what the big deal is. I have never been the most religious of people but viewing religion, no matter what practice, as a quest for truth makes it seem not easier, but more reasonable than searching for that one person who rules or guides our lives.
Vittoria Vetra: Religion is like language or dress. We gravitate toward the practices with which we were raised. In the end, though we are all proclaiming the same thing. That life has meaning. That we are grateful for that created us.
Robert Langdon: So you’re saying that whether you are a Christian or a Muslim simply depends on where you were born?
Vittoria Vetra: Isn’t it obvious? Look at the diffusion of religion around the globe.
Robert Langdon: So faith is random?
Vittoria Vetra: Hardly. Faith is universal. Our specific methods for understanding it are arbitrary. Some of us pray to Jesus, some us go to Mecca, some of us study subatomic particles. In the end we are all just searching for truth, that which is greater than ourselves
For those who haven’t seen this movie, Langdon is not what you would call a good Christian boy, he does believe that there is something out there, he just doesn’t know what. The way that Vittoria views religion is a way that people like me can understand what the big deal is. I have never been the most religious of people but viewing religion, no matter what practice, as a quest for truth makes it seem not easier, but more reasonable than searching for that one person who rules or guides our lives.
Kim Robinson - thin red line
The final movie that we watched in this class was The Thin Red Line. I remember when the film came out and now that I look back and realize that it came out 12 years ago I’m amazed, I didn’t think it was that long ago, I was only 8. However, I did see the film when it came out and now re-watching it gives me a different view on it (either that or being told what to look for did it). The first thing I noticed each time watching it, was how the movie was filmed. From a cinematography standpoint the film is amazing. The images filmed that aren’t focused on the characters themselves helps to portray the emotions and feelings that the people are experiencing. Another thing that sticks out from the film is frailty of life. In war death happens all around and it’s sad that it takes an event like that or even a portrayal of that kind of event for people to realize it. We watch as Sgt. Keck blows himself up with a grenade. Even more than the frailty of death, we see those in charge play God. Col. Tall is in command and no matter how many lives he has to spare he wants to impress those higher up then him. Capt. Gaff struggles as he decides whether to disobey a command and save the lives of his men or follow orders and watch them die. Life is short and who are we as a country that expects the few to die for us all, and not by choice alone. World War II enlisted many men who never wanted to go to war, it is not like today where people are signing up to join military service. These soldiers didn’t have a choice to fully live their already short lives, and they were shortened even more due to this war.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Michael Christensen- Last Anything Post
I have absolutely no ideas of what to write about, so this will be another string of ideas. The reason I have nothing to write about is because, due to exams, I have had to completely bury my conscious ego in order to focus on the things which my ego balked at. Right now I am writing, not from my conscious, but from my subconscious. It feels like a lizard mind which reacts, but does not actually think unless prompted to. And then only so far. Due to a large amount of writing recently, I have needed to prompt that mind to work more efficiently, so I guess there has been some good to these posts. Even so, for months now I have had to do work which was not my own choosing, but rather laid along a path that a me four years prior had chosen. And now my ego can finally start to show itself. It can finally think on other things without detracting from the amount of cognition that goes into the other "necessary" work.
The first thing that I shall do when I am fully free (after my last exam on thurs) is to reflect on my life up until this point. After that I shall need to reflect on whom I consider myself to be, and then whom I wish to be. And finally I shall need to reflect on what paths in life I truly wish to take. It is out of my knowledge what shall come of all this, but of course one can guess. So far my only obligations in the future are to somehow acquire the money to pay off my loans (the only reason I am interested in money beyond a few hobbies I wish to pursue) and enter the Phoenix Program (which teaches young professionals about non-profits). After that I am now aspiring to enter Americorps, and then Peace Corps, but I am not sure that the future me shall have the same aspirations, so I am holding out on those for now. At some point in my life I hope to write a novel (of course), get a television show I am working on produced (I think its a hoot), teach a college class for a semester (one is all I ask), join a commune temporarily (I want to see its sense of community) and skydive. What aspirations do you have in life, or are they all checked off?
The first thing that I shall do when I am fully free (after my last exam on thurs) is to reflect on my life up until this point. After that I shall need to reflect on whom I consider myself to be, and then whom I wish to be. And finally I shall need to reflect on what paths in life I truly wish to take. It is out of my knowledge what shall come of all this, but of course one can guess. So far my only obligations in the future are to somehow acquire the money to pay off my loans (the only reason I am interested in money beyond a few hobbies I wish to pursue) and enter the Phoenix Program (which teaches young professionals about non-profits). After that I am now aspiring to enter Americorps, and then Peace Corps, but I am not sure that the future me shall have the same aspirations, so I am holding out on those for now. At some point in my life I hope to write a novel (of course), get a television show I am working on produced (I think its a hoot), teach a college class for a semester (one is all I ask), join a commune temporarily (I want to see its sense of community) and skydive. What aspirations do you have in life, or are they all checked off?
Michael Christensen- Anything
There is no value to this post. I have no intrinsic reason to write it. My personal reasons for coming to college was mental illumination through a liberal learning and to gain the experience of a college community. That is done and over, I have learned all that I will. Now I just await that all-important piece of paper. That piece of paper, though, is only important because society has left me with no visible way to go my own. I'd love to have been a pioneer in the days when land was young and virgin territory, but there is nothing to explore by foot and hand. And there seem no places which can produce shelter, water, and food (all a man needs besides some company) in achievable potentiality, which are not fenced off to be sold. What is one to do when all the land around him has been sectioned off and taxed by the generations past?
To another land, I might suppose, but they are beginning to look all the same. There is a McDonald's in every country it seems, a Starbucks in every land. Can a man not escape his own back yard? Possibly today, but what about tomorrow? It seems everyone is so connected that there shall be but one culture, with several fractions that pretend they are not alike. Only those without a computer can truly say they are not a part of this majority, but only if their acquaintances also do without.
As to identity, soon shall come a day when a man travels twelve thousand miles and they already know his favorite color of shoes, that is what this internet does. And when you meet them, those people twelve thousand miles away, they shall comment on the rude comment you made towards a bartender, that is what the internet will do. Of course they shall not look into the fact that the man shorted your change and watered down your drink, for people are not interested in hearing both sides when one is juicy. And so everyone will eventually see everyone else at their worst, and even the saints will be known for their sins. Can it be any way but this?
To another land, I might suppose, but they are beginning to look all the same. There is a McDonald's in every country it seems, a Starbucks in every land. Can a man not escape his own back yard? Possibly today, but what about tomorrow? It seems everyone is so connected that there shall be but one culture, with several fractions that pretend they are not alike. Only those without a computer can truly say they are not a part of this majority, but only if their acquaintances also do without.
As to identity, soon shall come a day when a man travels twelve thousand miles and they already know his favorite color of shoes, that is what this internet does. And when you meet them, those people twelve thousand miles away, they shall comment on the rude comment you made towards a bartender, that is what the internet will do. Of course they shall not look into the fact that the man shorted your change and watered down your drink, for people are not interested in hearing both sides when one is juicy. And so everyone will eventually see everyone else at their worst, and even the saints will be known for their sins. Can it be any way but this?
George Evans Blogs
The Decalogue 1-
In this film we see the dichotomous relationship between faith and evidence. The protagonist, a mathematics professor sees the world through the eyes of logic and reason, and has very little use for faith in god or religion. What is ironic is that he puts his faith into the weather forecast and his own calculations to the point of his own son dying when he skates on ice that is too thin. He has become what he hates, a person so incapable at looking at the other side of an issue that they are blinded by their own unanalyzed faith.
The Decalogue 2-
This film asks the question is it ever right to kill? It shows how horrible murder is but also how equally horrendous the death penalty can be in response to that murder. The director emotionally drags us through the mud and while he never equivalates the two forms of death -the end result of the film that he wants us to take is murder is murder, killing is killing and it is never a completely justified thing. The act itself is perverse.
In this film we see the dichotomous relationship between faith and evidence. The protagonist, a mathematics professor sees the world through the eyes of logic and reason, and has very little use for faith in god or religion. What is ironic is that he puts his faith into the weather forecast and his own calculations to the point of his own son dying when he skates on ice that is too thin. He has become what he hates, a person so incapable at looking at the other side of an issue that they are blinded by their own unanalyzed faith.
The Decalogue 2-
This film asks the question is it ever right to kill? It shows how horrible murder is but also how equally horrendous the death penalty can be in response to that murder. The director emotionally drags us through the mud and while he never equivalates the two forms of death -the end result of the film that he wants us to take is murder is murder, killing is killing and it is never a completely justified thing. The act itself is perverse.
George Evans Blogs Part 2
Outside Reading, Pontifical Academy on Stem Cells
This debate, like many we have seen, centers around the fundamental question, what constitutes a life? There is a divide, an impasse that centers around this question, because no matter how philosophical or how scientific arguments may be for or against a particular viewpoint, in the end it doesn’t matter. This is not a question of science; it is a question of religion, of dogmatic ideology. Nothing an individual can say to another individual will make them think discarding human life is ok, regardless of how many lives it may save, (using embryonic stem cells as an example). And if one has a more liberal view of when life begins, then the entire ordeal is less about the whether or not we are destroying a life, and more about the potential benefits that terminating a fetus or using stem cells from embryos can bring about. Where one side sees perverse genocide, the other sees medical opportunity and rights over a woman’s body. This is what makes the debate controversial and not very likely to go away any time soon.
With that context in mind we begin our debate. The Pontifical Academy, a religious entity asks the question “Is it morally licit to produce and/or use living human embryos for the preparation of ES cells?” (p314). Their answer –quite characteristically is no. They have a bevy of reasons for their stance but the first and most immovable is just as I described above. They write: “On the basis of a complete biological analysis, the living human embryo is - from the moment of the union of the gametes - a human subject with a well defined identity, which from that point begins its own coordinated, continuous and gradual development, such that at no later stage can it be considered as a simple mass of cells.” (p 315) From that bedrock their argument is fairly cut and dry. Because they view the union of gametes as producing a full fledged human being –who merely hadn’t the opportunity to develop into something more by terminating or using the stem cells for any other purpose than to allow them to mature into full humans is wrong and to do so in their view it to deny them their right to life. They write, regarding the stem cells, “it has the right to its own life; and therefore every intervention which is not in favour of the embryo is an act which violates that right.”
They disagree with cloning for the same reason: “Every type of therapeutic cloning, which implies producing human embryos and then destroying them in order to obtain stem cells, is illicit; for there is present the ethical problem examined above, which can only be answered in the negative.” (p 316).
This is in stark contrast to Michael Sandel’s point of view. He argues that “to regard an embryo as a mere thing, open to any use we may desire or devise, is, it seems to me, to miss its significance as nascent human life. One need not regard an embryo as a full human person in order to believe that it is due a certain respect. Personhood is not the only warrant for respect: we consider it a failure of respect when a thoughtless hiker carves his initials in an ancient sequoia, not because we regard the sequoia as a person, but because we consider it a natural wonder worthy of appreciation and awe—modes of regard inconsistent with treating it as a billboard or defacing it for the sake of petty vanity.” While he doesn’t come right out and say it, Sandel is arguing for a middle ground. The embryos are not just ‘things’ but they aren’t quite full humans either. This quite a moderate stance, but in this debate it might be easy to be mischaracterized as ‘’wish-y washy.” Instead Sandel provides a more nuanced view that while there is ultimately some respect that must be given to embryonic stem cells, it is not a black or white distinction that most people try to make. He writes: “The way to combat the instrumentalizing impulse of modern technology and commerce is not to insist on an all-or-nothing ethic of respect for persons that consigns the rest of life to a utilitarian calculus.” (p319) And while Sandel denounces the hubris of reproductive cloning he makes a utilitarian argument for biomedical research.
In the end regardless of how nuanced either side is, it does boil down to those who think stem cells are life and should be treated as such, and those who think that they aren’t. Sandel thinks they aren’t, though he would probably not like to be characterized so bluntly, and the Pontifical Academy thinks they are. This is an immovable differentiation that is the base of every other argument there is. The utilitarian concept that there are stem cells that will be thrown away regardless of whether or not they are life is the most middle ground that can be made. And probably one that even in its moderateness won’t be accepted by those who think life starts when gametes connect.
Miscellaneous Blog -Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin’s polticalization of schools in regards to teaching creationism along side evolution is not only scary, it is just plain illegal. Creationism in the sense that Governor Palin espouses is predominately a fundamental Christian ideology, relying on faith rather than actual scientific evidence. It would be unconstitutional for the state to sponsor such doctrine, as it would be clearly violating the first amendment which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Governor Palin’s suggestion to teach creationism with evolution establishes a tacit sponsorship of the institution that proclaims creationism as truth, in this case Christianity. This tacit sponsorship is completely at odds with the preceding part of the first amendment in that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The doctrine of separation of church and state would be broken, a fundamental constitutional foundation. Furthermore, this is not even touching the ludicrousness of teaching a faith-based ideology in a scientific classroom, where evidence is the prerequisite for serious inquiry. To teach creationism along side of evolution is farce not only constitutionally, but scientifically as well.
Miscellaneous Blog -Musings on Religion
In every religion, there lies an inherent dichotomy in regards to the traditions and dogmas practiced, and those that actually end up in canonical law. The space between these two is often accrued via backroom political dealings, monetary influence, and what is considered acceptable behavior of the citizenry. Because religion then acts as a pillar for what is and what is not socially acceptable, what will and what will not bring eternal salvation, and which practices elevate men to holiness or cast them into condemnation –there lies an exceptional amount of power in the hands of those that can manipulate what is included and what is simply discarded from canonical texts.
Take then for example this passage : : Jesus said to them, If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves. And if you pray, you will be condemned. And if you give alms, you will injure your spirits. When you enter any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal those who are sick among them. For what goes into your mouth does not defile you; what comes out of your mouth will." It would seem that this passage is hypocritical with the rest of scripture, such advice would be completely at odds with ideas of Kosher, eating meat or Friday, etc.
This debate, like many we have seen, centers around the fundamental question, what constitutes a life? There is a divide, an impasse that centers around this question, because no matter how philosophical or how scientific arguments may be for or against a particular viewpoint, in the end it doesn’t matter. This is not a question of science; it is a question of religion, of dogmatic ideology. Nothing an individual can say to another individual will make them think discarding human life is ok, regardless of how many lives it may save, (using embryonic stem cells as an example). And if one has a more liberal view of when life begins, then the entire ordeal is less about the whether or not we are destroying a life, and more about the potential benefits that terminating a fetus or using stem cells from embryos can bring about. Where one side sees perverse genocide, the other sees medical opportunity and rights over a woman’s body. This is what makes the debate controversial and not very likely to go away any time soon.
With that context in mind we begin our debate. The Pontifical Academy, a religious entity asks the question “Is it morally licit to produce and/or use living human embryos for the preparation of ES cells?” (p314). Their answer –quite characteristically is no. They have a bevy of reasons for their stance but the first and most immovable is just as I described above. They write: “On the basis of a complete biological analysis, the living human embryo is - from the moment of the union of the gametes - a human subject with a well defined identity, which from that point begins its own coordinated, continuous and gradual development, such that at no later stage can it be considered as a simple mass of cells.” (p 315) From that bedrock their argument is fairly cut and dry. Because they view the union of gametes as producing a full fledged human being –who merely hadn’t the opportunity to develop into something more by terminating or using the stem cells for any other purpose than to allow them to mature into full humans is wrong and to do so in their view it to deny them their right to life. They write, regarding the stem cells, “it has the right to its own life; and therefore every intervention which is not in favour of the embryo is an act which violates that right.”
They disagree with cloning for the same reason: “Every type of therapeutic cloning, which implies producing human embryos and then destroying them in order to obtain stem cells, is illicit; for there is present the ethical problem examined above, which can only be answered in the negative.” (p 316).
This is in stark contrast to Michael Sandel’s point of view. He argues that “to regard an embryo as a mere thing, open to any use we may desire or devise, is, it seems to me, to miss its significance as nascent human life. One need not regard an embryo as a full human person in order to believe that it is due a certain respect. Personhood is not the only warrant for respect: we consider it a failure of respect when a thoughtless hiker carves his initials in an ancient sequoia, not because we regard the sequoia as a person, but because we consider it a natural wonder worthy of appreciation and awe—modes of regard inconsistent with treating it as a billboard or defacing it for the sake of petty vanity.” While he doesn’t come right out and say it, Sandel is arguing for a middle ground. The embryos are not just ‘things’ but they aren’t quite full humans either. This quite a moderate stance, but in this debate it might be easy to be mischaracterized as ‘’wish-y washy.” Instead Sandel provides a more nuanced view that while there is ultimately some respect that must be given to embryonic stem cells, it is not a black or white distinction that most people try to make. He writes: “The way to combat the instrumentalizing impulse of modern technology and commerce is not to insist on an all-or-nothing ethic of respect for persons that consigns the rest of life to a utilitarian calculus.” (p319) And while Sandel denounces the hubris of reproductive cloning he makes a utilitarian argument for biomedical research.
In the end regardless of how nuanced either side is, it does boil down to those who think stem cells are life and should be treated as such, and those who think that they aren’t. Sandel thinks they aren’t, though he would probably not like to be characterized so bluntly, and the Pontifical Academy thinks they are. This is an immovable differentiation that is the base of every other argument there is. The utilitarian concept that there are stem cells that will be thrown away regardless of whether or not they are life is the most middle ground that can be made. And probably one that even in its moderateness won’t be accepted by those who think life starts when gametes connect.
Miscellaneous Blog -Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin’s polticalization of schools in regards to teaching creationism along side evolution is not only scary, it is just plain illegal. Creationism in the sense that Governor Palin espouses is predominately a fundamental Christian ideology, relying on faith rather than actual scientific evidence. It would be unconstitutional for the state to sponsor such doctrine, as it would be clearly violating the first amendment which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Governor Palin’s suggestion to teach creationism with evolution establishes a tacit sponsorship of the institution that proclaims creationism as truth, in this case Christianity. This tacit sponsorship is completely at odds with the preceding part of the first amendment in that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The doctrine of separation of church and state would be broken, a fundamental constitutional foundation. Furthermore, this is not even touching the ludicrousness of teaching a faith-based ideology in a scientific classroom, where evidence is the prerequisite for serious inquiry. To teach creationism along side of evolution is farce not only constitutionally, but scientifically as well.
Miscellaneous Blog -Musings on Religion
In every religion, there lies an inherent dichotomy in regards to the traditions and dogmas practiced, and those that actually end up in canonical law. The space between these two is often accrued via backroom political dealings, monetary influence, and what is considered acceptable behavior of the citizenry. Because religion then acts as a pillar for what is and what is not socially acceptable, what will and what will not bring eternal salvation, and which practices elevate men to holiness or cast them into condemnation –there lies an exceptional amount of power in the hands of those that can manipulate what is included and what is simply discarded from canonical texts.
Take then for example this passage : : Jesus said to them, If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves. And if you pray, you will be condemned. And if you give alms, you will injure your spirits. When you enter any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal those who are sick among them. For what goes into your mouth does not defile you; what comes out of your mouth will." It would seem that this passage is hypocritical with the rest of scripture, such advice would be completely at odds with ideas of Kosher, eating meat or Friday, etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
