Communities, relationships ... these are the themes of form -- of differentiation. Form has come to exist in the human psyche, being the essential pyschological difference between man and other beings. The perception of form is intially difficult because it requires a shift in our thinking about the world by a degree of abstraction.
So its that nationalities, sports, religions, occupations, sexualities, languages, corporate brands come to dominate the landscape of the human psyche ... without these the human experience is without form ... without differentiation
It has been proven by the string of successful cosmopolitan societies making up human history, that a certain doubt of this form -- a progressive tolerance and even acceptance of other forms -- is related to appreciable gains.
There is, of course, reaction to the abuse of form -- something that was previously understood in common. Form is not just a common bond among people -- it is also a wall. That is why it is so difficult when one group of people declare independence from another -- it not only ends their common understanding, but also impedes future understanding. In a phrase: what is important -- important being understood not as 'important' but the essential elements that "cause" importance -- is form. A signficant bundle of forms is embedded in national identity -- thus disposal of this identity happens to be the exact recipricol of another's perception of form -- of their own sense of importance -- on their place in a differentiated world.
Back to the cosmpolitan pardigm, which in its first thrust proliferates differentiation. In this world, both brand and ethnicity are things to be desired. As desire for differentiation increases, the domain of "value added" becomes unending. Thus the cosmopolitan community becomes wealthy.
After a period of time , the cosmopolitan begins to question: what is this form (what is left of it) -- why should we believe in form at all.
Now for the question: what should we do when we've lost our faith in form?
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Loosing Faith while Gaining Wisdom : A Poor Trade
The modern experience has been highlighted by gaining first-hand or even secondary knowledge of the world around us.
We respect those around us who have gained insight from movies, music, books, and university education -- even more so for insight gained by travel, military adventures, scuba diving.
Implicit in those experiences ... in "growing-up," is the loss of innocence ... even a loss of faith. In the end, the gaining of wisdom is not adequate to make up for the loss of faith.
We respect those around us who have gained insight from movies, music, books, and university education -- even more so for insight gained by travel, military adventures, scuba diving.
Implicit in those experiences ... in "growing-up," is the loss of innocence ... even a loss of faith. In the end, the gaining of wisdom is not adequate to make up for the loss of faith.
Academic Weaknesses: Race
Academia is enamoured by discussion of race, and rightly so, the issue of race is a strong sociological factor which affects the lives of many. Yet race discussions are too often made under the pretext of one-way racism perpetrated by the dominant group. Though this tactic underlines vested institutional control by the dominant group, by doing so it sacrifices the potential for reconciliation with this group, instead taking a more confrontational stance. This footing is useful for attracting marginalized groups, who have historically been at odds with the university. Though this strategy allows the university to hopscotch through acceptable racial policy, this sort of inorganic intervention often ends up leaving bad blood with dominate groups, while serving such a thin layer of minorities to side step reconciliation with marginalized communities.
the tree of good and evil
"humans have always, mostly implicitly and unknowingly, understood themselves as a composition of their experiences. as experiences have become layered with the experiences of our ancestors -- imagine a stylized example, a university classroom, where in one sitting a student might hear the intellectual product of thousands, and those thousands which in turn owe their thoughts to many more -- so the individual's ego becomes both more complex, certain, indirect, unintended, and indifferent."
by trade, i am neither biblical scholar, anthropologist/archeologist, philosopher, nor linguist -- foolishly i will proceed
the story of adam introduces one overpowering nugget of truth -- knowledge as (hu)man's path away from "god/good" and towards "evil." true, knowledge is an indispensable element in modern life, and indeed without knowledge we often do more evil than with it.
i will describe the roundabout logic which justifies this seeming contradiction:
-(most of you might want to skip this first part) first, assume human beings undertake every action (or "take no action") with some consequence in mind, whether it be immediate or long-term. these consequences are necessarily based on perceived self interest/values. anything that i can do is something that i blindly or deliberately base on my self interest/values, to the extent of, say, burning my hand on a stove (i wouldn't do this because i don't want to hurt my hand, but might do it if i was cooking quickly because i valued my time over the perceived risk of injury. conversely, someone who wants to demonstrate pain to others, or enjoys pain, etc. might go ahead with it)
-resources, by their existence, distort human behavior, since they enhance perceived outcomes. it is often the fight over limited resources -- money, oil, mates, labor, etc. -- that we identify as the prime catalyst for our own evil. on the other hand, knowledge would seem most benign, for it is usually free or at least relatively cheap, and more importantly, limitless.
-however, it is resources that are the red herring in this mess. knowledge is evil. or more accurately, PERCIEVED KNOWLEDGE is evil. what event could have marked this descent? surely not the settling of the hunter-gatherer to become the agrarian -- as those who favor a resources paradigm might describe. but it is also hard to imagine it under my own logic (which may be evident throughout these writings) -- for humans have always fought, mostly over mates and food, just as other animals sometimes fight. maybe then it is best described by the old story of the tree of knowledge. as the story goes, once humans "ate" from this tree they COULD undertake evil for the first time. they could think, albeit simplistically, as they laid the foundations upon which we continue to build intellectual (or, hah, unintellectual) fortresses (... if it wasn't evident, i'm not a fan of fortresses). their thoughts first drove them to bury their dead, to mourn, to fear, and to question. quickly these thoughts lead to communal warfare, which cannot be fathomed without an understood positive group identity and a negative view of others.
people learnt language throughout time to express important events (in the most universal temporal sense, as in computer languages). first came pleasure, fear, and mourning which were expressed, as is now thought, through movements, mostly facial expressions. next came guttural sounds -- it is oft observed that no sound could be more universally gut wrenching than the mourning cry at the death of a beloved -- which is a testament to the early importance of the human mourning custom that proceeded the elaborate differentiated languages which were to come. next to be communicated were conflict, location, and history, by which time simple spoken language could be used. of course as man settled in fixed agrarian locations, language and social custom continued to develop side-by-side each becoming more ritualistic and complex. we began to make both complex observations about such things as beauty and simultaneously developing systems of ideas such as religion or medicine. throughout all of this both language and society has become more elaborate and ritualized. humans have always, mostly implicitly and unknowingly, understood themselves as a composition of their experiences. as experiences have become layered with the experiences of our ancestors -- imagine a stylized example, a university classroom, where in one sitting a student might hear the intellectual product of thousands, and those thousands which in turn owe their thoughts to many more -- so the individual's ego becomes both more complex, certain, indirect, unintended, and indifferent.
in our age of indirect, unintentional, and therefore thoughtless exposure to most everything, only a few lucky ones can claim the diversity of life experiences to even begin the task of self-introspection to an extent greater than any crash course in self help guides, biographies, romance novels, biblical texts, sappy movies, college texts, and assorted experts would suggest. evidently, the greatest power that anyone has to stop this maddening crush is to enroll themselves in the best educational opportunity which they can afford. unfortunately both the breadth and accuracy of perceived educational opportunities and the lessons learned depend on the early life decisions of innocents -- little idiots expected to understand the implication of their childish impulses on their future long-term position in a falsely, sickeningly, and self-congratulatory meritocratic society.
therefore our world has become one of certain indifference (though from perhaps something worse?) -- not necessarily in the color-inside-the-lines political sense, a perennially favored indicator of all-that-is-socially-important, more accurately a proxy for perceived individual and social economic change or lack-thereof -- but rather by what really matters: respect for ourselves and our communities as fragile mortal creatures living under the oppressive and unstoppable burden of knowledge.
judgementalism is the most powerful and destructive force with which our world is now faced. the silent masses look indifferently towards judgementalism, which easily becomes a continuous stream during a day filled with idiot drivers, idiot coworkers, idiot bosses, lazy minorities, yuppies, snobs, evil-doing foreign extremists etc. judgementalism creeps indifferently into the hands of the powerful few -- presidents with their axis of evil and terrorists with their great satan. almost unanimously, scholars of the religious traditions at hand describe this sort of extreme judgementalism as the expression of certain indifferent agreement of a dogma composed of a media focused on extremes of every shade. just as compatriot communities are loath to give up their brethren "terrorist" is america loath to "betray our leader in time of war." by the time such calculations are made no one is trying to understand why humans have such a hard time getting along on this paradise planet, but rather trying to hold together a story about why the enemy is generally at fault.
to live responsibly in this world means to live respectfully with knowledge. knowledge should not be a weapon to embarrass others, nor a wall with which to exclude oneself and strengthen the ego. therefore with transparency and openness we can live with knowledge, but we must wait until our time comes to return to the earth and throw away this fraudulent cloak.
so unlike what is said by capleton (an avowed and awful homophobic, but also a very insightful rastafarian) - "money, money, an a woman are the root of all evil" - perhaps more accurately, "knowledge, knowledge, and knowledge are the root of all evil"
sources: i think the bit about goal oriented human behavior from adam smith or david ricardo?, also development of human expressions and gestures: (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9111472)
by trade, i am neither biblical scholar, anthropologist/archeologist, philosopher, nor linguist -- foolishly i will proceed
the story of adam introduces one overpowering nugget of truth -- knowledge as (hu)man's path away from "god/good" and towards "evil." true, knowledge is an indispensable element in modern life, and indeed without knowledge we often do more evil than with it.
i will describe the roundabout logic which justifies this seeming contradiction:
-(most of you might want to skip this first part) first, assume human beings undertake every action (or "take no action") with some consequence in mind, whether it be immediate or long-term. these consequences are necessarily based on perceived self interest/values. anything that i can do is something that i blindly or deliberately base on my self interest/values, to the extent of, say, burning my hand on a stove (i wouldn't do this because i don't want to hurt my hand, but might do it if i was cooking quickly because i valued my time over the perceived risk of injury. conversely, someone who wants to demonstrate pain to others, or enjoys pain, etc. might go ahead with it)
-resources, by their existence, distort human behavior, since they enhance perceived outcomes. it is often the fight over limited resources -- money, oil, mates, labor, etc. -- that we identify as the prime catalyst for our own evil. on the other hand, knowledge would seem most benign, for it is usually free or at least relatively cheap, and more importantly, limitless.
-however, it is resources that are the red herring in this mess. knowledge is evil. or more accurately, PERCIEVED KNOWLEDGE is evil. what event could have marked this descent? surely not the settling of the hunter-gatherer to become the agrarian -- as those who favor a resources paradigm might describe. but it is also hard to imagine it under my own logic (which may be evident throughout these writings) -- for humans have always fought, mostly over mates and food, just as other animals sometimes fight. maybe then it is best described by the old story of the tree of knowledge. as the story goes, once humans "ate" from this tree they COULD undertake evil for the first time. they could think, albeit simplistically, as they laid the foundations upon which we continue to build intellectual (or, hah, unintellectual) fortresses (... if it wasn't evident, i'm not a fan of fortresses). their thoughts first drove them to bury their dead, to mourn, to fear, and to question. quickly these thoughts lead to communal warfare, which cannot be fathomed without an understood positive group identity and a negative view of others.
people learnt language throughout time to express important events (in the most universal temporal sense, as in computer languages). first came pleasure, fear, and mourning which were expressed, as is now thought, through movements, mostly facial expressions. next came guttural sounds -- it is oft observed that no sound could be more universally gut wrenching than the mourning cry at the death of a beloved -- which is a testament to the early importance of the human mourning custom that proceeded the elaborate differentiated languages which were to come. next to be communicated were conflict, location, and history, by which time simple spoken language could be used. of course as man settled in fixed agrarian locations, language and social custom continued to develop side-by-side each becoming more ritualistic and complex. we began to make both complex observations about such things as beauty and simultaneously developing systems of ideas such as religion or medicine. throughout all of this both language and society has become more elaborate and ritualized. humans have always, mostly implicitly and unknowingly, understood themselves as a composition of their experiences. as experiences have become layered with the experiences of our ancestors -- imagine a stylized example, a university classroom, where in one sitting a student might hear the intellectual product of thousands, and those thousands which in turn owe their thoughts to many more -- so the individual's ego becomes both more complex, certain, indirect, unintended, and indifferent.
in our age of indirect, unintentional, and therefore thoughtless exposure to most everything, only a few lucky ones can claim the diversity of life experiences to even begin the task of self-introspection to an extent greater than any crash course in self help guides, biographies, romance novels, biblical texts, sappy movies, college texts, and assorted experts would suggest. evidently, the greatest power that anyone has to stop this maddening crush is to enroll themselves in the best educational opportunity which they can afford. unfortunately both the breadth and accuracy of perceived educational opportunities and the lessons learned depend on the early life decisions of innocents -- little idiots expected to understand the implication of their childish impulses on their future long-term position in a falsely, sickeningly, and self-congratulatory meritocratic society.
therefore our world has become one of certain indifference (though from perhaps something worse?) -- not necessarily in the color-inside-the-lines political sense, a perennially favored indicator of all-that-is-socially-important, more accurately a proxy for perceived individual and social economic change or lack-thereof -- but rather by what really matters: respect for ourselves and our communities as fragile mortal creatures living under the oppressive and unstoppable burden of knowledge.
judgementalism is the most powerful and destructive force with which our world is now faced. the silent masses look indifferently towards judgementalism, which easily becomes a continuous stream during a day filled with idiot drivers, idiot coworkers, idiot bosses, lazy minorities, yuppies, snobs, evil-doing foreign extremists etc. judgementalism creeps indifferently into the hands of the powerful few -- presidents with their axis of evil and terrorists with their great satan. almost unanimously, scholars of the religious traditions at hand describe this sort of extreme judgementalism as the expression of certain indifferent agreement of a dogma composed of a media focused on extremes of every shade. just as compatriot communities are loath to give up their brethren "terrorist" is america loath to "betray our leader in time of war." by the time such calculations are made no one is trying to understand why humans have such a hard time getting along on this paradise planet, but rather trying to hold together a story about why the enemy is generally at fault.
to live responsibly in this world means to live respectfully with knowledge. knowledge should not be a weapon to embarrass others, nor a wall with which to exclude oneself and strengthen the ego. therefore with transparency and openness we can live with knowledge, but we must wait until our time comes to return to the earth and throw away this fraudulent cloak.
so unlike what is said by capleton (an avowed and awful homophobic, but also a very insightful rastafarian) - "money, money, an a woman are the root of all evil" - perhaps more accurately, "knowledge, knowledge, and knowledge are the root of all evil"
sources: i think the bit about goal oriented human behavior from adam smith or david ricardo?, also development of human expressions and gestures: (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9111472)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)