Raithere--darts, irony, leisure, and something about coffee
We might say the methodology is interpretive, but so are most methods for anything.
However, as a simple analogy, what consequence is there to pitching to you the idea that Tully's coffee is better than Starbucks'? Very little in terms of one's caffeine addiction; either product will suffice. But when we get to religions, we see that one product can have radically different results than another. This is based in large part on the priorities of each religious paradigm, which in turn determine the constraints of interpretation and application.
There is, for instance, a sound logical method applied within Catholic theology and its social implications. This is not revelatory. However, the constraints applied to the logical process--the basis of the reality that it examines, is quite revelatory.
One of my constant companions of late, despite it being boring reading, is Albert Hirschman's The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before its Triumph. This relatively modern work examines the history of the ideas which lend to Capitalism, starting pretty much with St. Augustine and moving forward from there.
In previous discussions, I've derided Capitalists as being "religious" on the same grounds that atheists often criticize religion--a lack of objective foundation. A dollar is worth a dollar because we all agree so, just as "God exists" because people agree so. (I offer Salem, the Inquisitions, and the Crusades in support of the idea; people agreed that God existed, and acted in response to that idea as they understood it.)
In other words, I think you're more correct than you may realize.
I used to make a big point of the fact that even among atheists, certain Judeo-Christian fundamentals existed. In the West, at least, dualisms are part of this foundation.
Take artificial intelligence, for instance. Binary isn't enough. Yes/No? There needs to be a maybe in order to force a subjective decision, which in turn requires the development of criteria for that decision. Artificial thought requires subjectivity. Objectivity and subjectivity cannot be mutually exclusive and remain fully applicable to the human endeavor. Isolation of one or the other results in dysfunction.
When I examine this aspect of atheism, I run into the common assertion that atheism is a small idea. While it is in and of itself, it addresses a broad and complex array of ideas. An atheist may be a moral relativist, but the two are not separate ideas when atheism is put into a comparative with religion. The moral relativism fills a void left by the large religious structure.
When a religion isolates itself or another religion, the results are disastrous, as history shows. Encomienda, prayer villages, slavery, Manifest Destiny, creationism, and in the modern era terrorism.
Just for starters.
If I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the morning .... At any rate, I can also hammer your skull in with it. Point being, who says the limitation of religious interpretations is what religion was intended for, if it was ever intended for anything?
The problem is that this tool or product, being such as religion is, has radical effects on behavior and perception.
Give a man a license, he thinks he knows how to drive. Give a man religion, he thinks he knows anything.
I know it's not much, but if I had figured out what to do about it, I wouldn't be howling at our fellow posters nearly as much as I am.
In other words ... agreed.
Nonetheless, I believe I understand your point. The digression that comes from there is long and unprepared. Suffice to say that I do wonder about the possibility of an age when only the intellectually destitute are left to cling to God, and what that condition begets society.
You can't defeat God, as such. But you can certainly take the sting out of it. It's going to take the rest of my life to get back the things I lost, and the only reason it's possible at all is because technically, none of it matters to me in the sense that I don't worry about what God thinks or judges.
To the other, I wouldn't change that period of my life. I could not have learned many of the things I have since without experiencing that failure.
But in terms of our posters, have you noticed how presentation and style (e.g. artistic considerations at best) are more important than content? Well, generally speaking? Averages? Trends? Tendencies?
Speaking of standards, I lamented to a friend a few months ago that it had gotten so bad, that I had become so fixated on things going wrong, that I was enjoying the fact that I didn't miss the bus I was trying to catch. Hell of an aspiration, eh?
But I remember making "progress" jokes similar to what you're referring to when I was very young. Sometimes I think my cynicism is directly taught me. Probably was.
And this is what I don't understand, the prescription for hyperactivity in children is to give them speed.
We start them young with caffeine and sugar. (The former is a known addictive substance.) And then we wonder why they are so high-strung. What gets me, though, is that we give them speed in order to "take care of the problem".
I always wondered why people got so easily hooked on cocaine. Then again, I never took Ritalin. However, I did recently take Wellbutrin, which my doctor gave me to quit smoking. Here's the stunning thing: it's a drug they give kids for ADD. It turns out that it can quell nicotine cravings.
I don't ever want that drug near me again. I've never felt so awful. It was really clean speed, with a massive static wall in the forebrain. Cocaine doesn't make me feel that bad. It makes me about as dysfunctional, perhaps moreso. But holy crap, I can almost see why so many of my peers, having taken antidepressants as children, are drawn to coke and meth like, well ... flies to shite.
Apparently, folks long for the old days when children worked sixteen-hour days in coal mines. Of course, none of those, generally speaking, lived very long.
But part of progress has been a struggle to reduce essential labor in favor of progressive labor. However, progressive labor is not nearly as gratifying a condition of luxury as entertainment.
Of course, if they don't care ...? Well, we shouldn't wonder about the whys and wherefores of revolutions.
Now here's the problem: Moral relativism has value here because the depth and breadth of the social indictment becomes shocking otherwise.
In the end, we the people choose this result. And it always bugs me when religious extremists have a point. But my dirty secret is that part of the reason I've never had a proper emotional reaction to 9/11 is that the people who chose to work for the companies in those buildings were willfully contributing to the problems of the world. You can't go around bombing people for that, but I've been aghast at the stupidity of Americans since. As Dubya put it: Why do they hate us?
Well, George ... how much time you got?
What's fascinating is the difference. When viewed microcosmically, at Sciforums, such devices as we're discussing seem nearly quaint. How deep does it run, though, through people's lives?
In the lesser scale, I don't know what to do about it. In the larger scale, all I can do is holler at people that, whether they want to admit it or not, we've given "them" (as such) a reason.
At times like this, being a theist helps. I can say God help us all without guilt. Accepting God as a mystery, the phrase seems somewhat fitting. What will change this process is presently beyond my knowledge. However, when I figure it out I can stop saying God help us all and start telling people what God (e.g. Life, nature, the way of things that exist, the indescribable condition of being alive) has revealed, and hopefully even call it wisdom in the end. In other words, I can stop worrying about it and do something.
In the meantime, let's get drunk and play darts. It's about as effective.
thanx,
Tiassa
It depends entirely on what facet of the methodology we're examining. Determining the basis for reality, for instance, is revelatory and symbolic, such as we see in creationism. But in moral and ethical decisions, the methodology is an examination of the results of that revelation and an application thereof; similarly based, the process is at least one step removed from direct revelation.Perhaps what is needed here is an exploration of "religious methods". As I see it, the primary religious method is revelation and perhaps we can work in symbolism as well. What would you define as religious method?
We might say the methodology is interpretive, but so are most methods for anything.
However, as a simple analogy, what consequence is there to pitching to you the idea that Tully's coffee is better than Starbucks'? Very little in terms of one's caffeine addiction; either product will suffice. But when we get to religions, we see that one product can have radically different results than another. This is based in large part on the priorities of each religious paradigm, which in turn determine the constraints of interpretation and application.
There is, for instance, a sound logical method applied within Catholic theology and its social implications. This is not revelatory. However, the constraints applied to the logical process--the basis of the reality that it examines, is quite revelatory.
I agree, even in the non-theistic religious sense.But the reasoning was there and it was illuminated by some of the earlier thinkers such as Aristotle. It just kept getting overridden by religious interpretation.
One of my constant companions of late, despite it being boring reading, is Albert Hirschman's The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before its Triumph. This relatively modern work examines the history of the ideas which lend to Capitalism, starting pretty much with St. Augustine and moving forward from there.
In previous discussions, I've derided Capitalists as being "religious" on the same grounds that atheists often criticize religion--a lack of objective foundation. A dollar is worth a dollar because we all agree so, just as "God exists" because people agree so. (I offer Salem, the Inquisitions, and the Crusades in support of the idea; people agreed that God existed, and acted in response to that idea as they understood it.)
In other words, I think you're more correct than you may realize.
Dualisms are part of the problem. Dualisms inherently limit possible perspectives, which can cause problems. They also inherently limit possible solutions, which obviously perpetuates problems.Objectivity has it's limits. At some point there must be a transition between objectivity and subjectivity. I find our tendency to see dualism as a binary set to be partially to blame here. Objectivity/Subjectivity is seen as an either/or proposition. But there does need to be a congruency between the two.
I used to make a big point of the fact that even among atheists, certain Judeo-Christian fundamentals existed. In the West, at least, dualisms are part of this foundation.
Take artificial intelligence, for instance. Binary isn't enough. Yes/No? There needs to be a maybe in order to force a subjective decision, which in turn requires the development of criteria for that decision. Artificial thought requires subjectivity. Objectivity and subjectivity cannot be mutually exclusive and remain fully applicable to the human endeavor. Isolation of one or the other results in dysfunction.
Examination of the priorities which determine focus can be fascinating.At some point this may simply be a matter of focus, which is fine.
Agreed.However, I do think that you have a tendency to see objectivity as mechanistic... which, IMO, is a paradigm that quickly falls apart when forced upon humans.
I find this focus curious, and I only mention that for the irony.I do find this problematic, on both sides. To wit, the Christian struggle to come-to-terms with non-Christians who live good lives and/or do not know about Christianity. The loopholes invented to justify the obvious contradictions would put a lawyer to shame. Yet, because of the paradigm they cannot see the issue for what it is.
When I examine this aspect of atheism, I run into the common assertion that atheism is a small idea. While it is in and of itself, it addresses a broad and complex array of ideas. An atheist may be a moral relativist, but the two are not separate ideas when atheism is put into a comparative with religion. The moral relativism fills a void left by the large religious structure.
When a religion isolates itself or another religion, the results are disastrous, as history shows. Encomienda, prayer villages, slavery, Manifest Destiny, creationism, and in the modern era terrorism.
Just for starters.
Exactly.But then it's not literal... it's interpretative.
The failure of a religion to acknowledge its own interpretive value supports the notion that there is no single correct response.The Rorschach test acknowledges that it's interpretative. There is no single correct response.
If I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the morning .... At any rate, I can also hammer your skull in with it. Point being, who says the limitation of religious interpretations is what religion was intended for, if it was ever intended for anything?
The problem is that this tool or product, being such as religion is, has radical effects on behavior and perception.
Give a man a license, he thinks he knows how to drive. Give a man religion, he thinks he knows anything.
This is a matter of will and priority. If the relationships explored were important to people, such as our fellow posters at Sciforums or American voters (to take a couple of groups not quite at random), then they would focus on the relationships.The Rorschach test acknowledges that it's interpretative. There is no single correct response.
I know it's not much, but if I had figured out what to do about it, I wouldn't be howling at our fellow posters nearly as much as I am.
I might re-apply the beginning of this post. It seems we're addressing different facets of the issue. Or, at least, were at one point.Flexibility is apparent from a societal/historical viewpoint where we see the shift in principles over time. Meanwhile, taken at any single point in time we find a particular set of declared absolutes.
Which I find exceptionally interesting because the term "Newtonian God" refers to the notions of God which have come about since Newton, and to which modern Western atheism is largely a reaction. Diderot, Spinoza ... vital principles lending to modern atheism did not come about until people were faced with the absurdity of reconciling God to a Newtonian universe.We are still locked into a Newtonian paradigm where facts are supposedly immutable, where reality is thought to be concrete and inflexible.
I find it discouraging that so many Christians are unable to cope honestly with the history of the ideas they hold so dear. A rejection of one's history and heritage almost certainly indicates the eventual repetition of past errors. Funny how we think of the savage Catholics burning people at the stake. Compared to the modern-day televangelist, Anselm is Einstein, Huxley, and Hawking put together.What is amazing is how, when a fact regarding a changing system is brought up, how quickly the issue is avoided. Bring up the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch trials, cross burning, and the modern Christian answer is almost always refers to a "false" interpretation. Yet I find no basis upon which a "true" interpretation may be founded. It is always interpretative.
For all the monism and pseudo-monism going on in the world today, you'd actually be amazed at how few people realize it.Heh... if I knew you'd be this happy about it I could have stated it at the beginning.
It tends to work that way, but it's subtle I admit.In this sense of God, God and knowledge are both. Zen philosophy has called it Beginner's Mind ("In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's there are few.")
An exploration of the problematic issues might possibly reveal that the issues themselves are invalid. What happens with an idea like God being greater than what can be conceived is that you can't really assert anything about God. To me, that's the point. As the Sufis note, the balance of the rest is religion.That exists which is greater than can be imagined. Defined as such I don't know that it can be denied. Which I see as somewhat problematic in itself.
Politics, politics, politics: How subtly dost thou stain the social fabric ...Definitely. Or the manipulation of terms in such a way that it forces a conclusion.
In other words ... agreed.
I point out, for the record, that slamming a 757 into the World Trade Center is just a bit outside the box.While I agree with the potential due to the lack of limits I think that most of the current measurable difference is symptomatic and I feel that it will grow smaller as atheism becomes more predominant. To wit, most of the world's population is religious and most societies have a strongly influential religious aspect. Therefore atheists tend to be the type of people who "think outside the box" who challenge the traditionally accepted beliefs... these people tend to be more intelligent.
Nonetheless, I believe I understand your point. The digression that comes from there is long and unprepared. Suffice to say that I do wonder about the possibility of an age when only the intellectually destitute are left to cling to God, and what that condition begets society.
I question the use of the word "but", which seems to mount the form of an objection. I actually agree, and apologize if I hadn't made that clear.But it's not the gun or the label that's problematic... it's the use of them.
The simple problem without a proper solution was the necessity of integrity. If I am willing to apply a fundamental test of objectivity to God and the ethics and morals thereof, I should be willing to apply that test to any ethical or moral construct. They all failed. Nihilism resulted.But I don't find that to be necessary. I have not experienced anything like it. If anything, I find myself more capable of adopting various perspectives for various reasons. I think the problem lies in trying to apply a single point of reason across the board or a single method across paradigms.
You can't defeat God, as such. But you can certainly take the sting out of it. It's going to take the rest of my life to get back the things I lost, and the only reason it's possible at all is because technically, none of it matters to me in the sense that I don't worry about what God thinks or judges.
To the other, I wouldn't change that period of my life. I could not have learned many of the things I have since without experiencing that failure.
Perhaps we're crossing wires. I realize we sometimes switch between narrower considerations of Sciforums and broader cultural and world-level considerations. The lack of refinement runs throughout American at least, and seemingly Western thought and discourse. Certes, there are important ideas running around, but how many people read the journal of Sigma Xi, or Lancet, or the CDC-MMR? I can watch University of Washington lectures on my local cable network, but I don't because they're exceptionally boring and many are, to me, arcane. But whether it's FOX News or Sciforums or whatnot, if it has to do with ideas, it does seem that people are moving toward a lower standard. Part of this is the availability of tools. I do think people are getting more artistic. Remember watching home movies as a kid? I have Final Cut, for when I need it, and iMovie, for when I need it. I can make a movie with a cheap Super 8 video camera. You can get a thousand-dollar MIDI keyboard (ten years ago) for seventy bucks now. You can get 4-track recording for $300. Got an iMac? Furthermore, life is starting to imitate art. People seem to expect different things from life. They're becoming less conformist and more insistent and ideological. Beyond that, I have to think on your point some. It's been a while, and though I'm happy to see your post, I have to shake myself back into form.I agree with the statement that people are not refining, however, I disagree that they're taking a more artistic direction.
Ah, but the refinement of what? Or is that nitpicking? Bradbury, Coupland, Lovecraft, all quite refined. Mondrian or Rembrandt? Both refined, and how.In short, I find that refinement is the essence of art.
But in terms of our posters, have you noticed how presentation and style (e.g. artistic considerations at best) are more important than content? Well, generally speaking? Averages? Trends? Tendencies?
Subjectively speaking, that's refinement.We're more concerned with easier and faster rather than better.
Maybe I'm just confusing myself on context. Oh, well. I think I've caught up.This is particularly true in the Western experience. I mean, I'm all for getting my fast food quickly but when I find myself thrilled to find my fries are actually hot when I get them I have to wonder at the standards we're setting for ourselves.
Speaking of standards, I lamented to a friend a few months ago that it had gotten so bad, that I had become so fixated on things going wrong, that I was enjoying the fact that I didn't miss the bus I was trying to catch. Hell of an aspiration, eh?
But I remember making "progress" jokes similar to what you're referring to when I was very young. Sometimes I think my cynicism is directly taught me. Probably was.
It is easier to suppress what you fear than understand it. On the one hand, there's no arguing with killer bees, but to the other, it's quite hard to fathom the depths of the human psyche. Damn near impossible, it seems.Similarly, I'm appalled and enraged at the influence of the psychiatric community. The norm has become the apex of our culture. We vigorously beat down any expression outside the range of normalcy.
I know ... and people wonder what's wrong with the culture.I mean, come on, ADD in pre-teen children?
And this is what I don't understand, the prescription for hyperactivity in children is to give them speed.
We start them young with caffeine and sugar. (The former is a known addictive substance.) And then we wonder why they are so high-strung. What gets me, though, is that we give them speed in order to "take care of the problem".
I always wondered why people got so easily hooked on cocaine. Then again, I never took Ritalin. However, I did recently take Wellbutrin, which my doctor gave me to quit smoking. Here's the stunning thing: it's a drug they give kids for ADD. It turns out that it can quell nicotine cravings.
I don't ever want that drug near me again. I've never felt so awful. It was really clean speed, with a massive static wall in the forebrain. Cocaine doesn't make me feel that bad. It makes me about as dysfunctional, perhaps moreso. But holy crap, I can almost see why so many of my peers, having taken antidepressants as children, are drawn to coke and meth like, well ... flies to shite.
One of my favorite questions in all the world.As opposed to what?
Apparently, folks long for the old days when children worked sixteen-hour days in coal mines. Of course, none of those, generally speaking, lived very long.
How many people are living day-to-day, hand to mouth? How many people are timing their grocery purchases not to when they need it but to when they can afford it?But we're not focused upon survival here in the US. We're focused upon immediate gratification. Quantity, not quality is our standard.
Spiritually, psychologically, or functionally as relates the species, you may well be correct.But we're not focused upon survival here in the US. We're focused upon immediate gratification. Quantity, not quality is our standard.
They're applying the necessities of subsistence to a condition of luxury, such as in the United States. I mean, the American version of hand to mouth is no way for a person to live, but it's a far shot better than the equivalent in Afghanistan.They'd have less time to fuck things up and less imaginary problems if they were dealing with real ones.
But part of progress has been a struggle to reduce essential labor in favor of progressive labor. However, progressive labor is not nearly as gratifying a condition of luxury as entertainment.
Hallelujah!Amen!
It's just that for the amount we all bitch about products of our cultures ... I mean, you and I are subject to it, too, so I'm not claiming that. But at some point we put a foot down.But Tiassa, it's too much a product of our culture to be anything else. I've learned to appreciates those occasion where we rise above the common babble but most of the time it is beyond a public forum such as this.... there is a leveling affect at work.
Agreed entirely. I must have been thinking about that line a few minutes ago.I think the primary problem in Western culture is our use of leisure time. The large majority uses leisure time strictly for playing.
Ah, the lovely accretions--products of our culture.And there you hit it on the head... it's not the necessities that are the problem. It's all those things we "invent" and then declare necessary... but aren't.
Of course, what are the odds that someone's going to pay you to paint a chapel ceiling? Or pay me to write the epic history of whatever? Changing priorities, a new perspective on art. I mean, hell ... a record company says you like it, and ten million people instantly agree that they do. (How is a song a "hit" before it is released?) Faster, cheaper ... something like that? (I haven't the energy to be ironic, but you hit on it exactly somewhere above.)I believe that for the most part we're medicating it and educating it out of existence. But one must also acknowledge that such works were bought at great expense.
Now there is one I don't understand. It seems the leisure class has never learned any other way to do it. I have no idea why. I mean, it seems to me that one has to be stupid to not figure out that this isn't the best way to do it.For all the offenses of the leisure class they make tremendous contributions to civilization but they were paid in blood and suffering.
Of course, if they don't care ...? Well, we shouldn't wonder about the whys and wherefores of revolutions.
Cool. But it's 5:30 in the morning and I haven't slept. So all I can see in my head right now is Homer Simpson opening beers, turning off the TV, and putting out the lights with his pistol.Actually, I have a particular aptitude for that.
The benefits of capitalism--five-hundred channels, and there's still nothing on worth watching.Now, after the collapse... we can all watch fucking football.
A strange separation of perspective that I only mention because observing it might be useful. I think my statement agrees with yours directly. I think we settle for the lesser and then, naturally pursue it. The pursuit isn't in question, though the settling is. I think people settle for less because it's too much effort for them, in this age of relative luxury and leisure, to give any thought so anything more.It's worse than that... we're actively pursuing something lesser all the time, telling ourselves and each other that it's what we really want/need.
Now here's the problem: Moral relativism has value here because the depth and breadth of the social indictment becomes shocking otherwise.
In the end, we the people choose this result. And it always bugs me when religious extremists have a point. But my dirty secret is that part of the reason I've never had a proper emotional reaction to 9/11 is that the people who chose to work for the companies in those buildings were willfully contributing to the problems of the world. You can't go around bombing people for that, but I've been aghast at the stupidity of Americans since. As Dubya put it: Why do they hate us?
Well, George ... how much time you got?
What's fascinating is the difference. When viewed microcosmically, at Sciforums, such devices as we're discussing seem nearly quaint. How deep does it run, though, through people's lives?
In the lesser scale, I don't know what to do about it. In the larger scale, all I can do is holler at people that, whether they want to admit it or not, we've given "them" (as such) a reason.
At times like this, being a theist helps. I can say God help us all without guilt. Accepting God as a mystery, the phrase seems somewhat fitting. What will change this process is presently beyond my knowledge. However, when I figure it out I can stop saying God help us all and start telling people what God (e.g. Life, nature, the way of things that exist, the indescribable condition of being alive) has revealed, and hopefully even call it wisdom in the end. In other words, I can stop worrying about it and do something.
In the meantime, let's get drunk and play darts. It's about as effective.
thanx,
Tiassa