A meaning to life, who really needs one?
I don't think I've ever heard of a baby who has been thought that life must have a meaning. We're simply poured into the mold that implies life must have one, and we accept it. Life's meaning. No man knows it, so no man is good enough to dictate it. So, perhaps God must exist.
But if you think about it, the meaning was never there. A flower never questions its existence, because it doesn't have the capacity to, nor the want. Neither does a goat, nor a dog, nor a cactus. It simply lives out its purpose (most probably to exist, produce offspring, then return to non-existence).
Except for the want and the capacity to, (Well, maybe not so much the want) we are very much tied to this birth, reproduction, death cycle. We may not want to know it, nor do we want anything to do with it, but we are tied to it in a way that makes us feel like we are more than it.
I have a theory that evolution ensures we're always trying to improve, trying to advance the race to a more sustainable state of existence. Even if it means plotting a revolution that may involve the murder of fellow human beings.
But that all sounds a little rash. Let's analyze.
A plot to overthrow an unfair state always comes across as a little rash, but looking at it from an evolutionary point of view, it may make sense.
An unfair state represents the alpha male tendency that is the failure of the animal species. It must be eradicated by means of revolt by the powerful many in order to maintain survival and expansion of the species.
From a larger scope the world makes more sense. We look at the West as a distant oppressor(especially Malaysians who are indirectly suppressed by the Western idea that the Asian is inferior(supported also indirectly by Anglo-American empire), but upon further inspection, what the west is doing is almost right for our species. They are the unjust ones, but they are also the ones who are forcing us out of our shells. We need the best of humanity to survive, not the laid back. They need us to compete and strive to be the best that we can be. And the poor Asian politicians think it's a game of suck-up. It isn't. It's probably bigger than we can imagine.
It may even mean that the survival of the species relies on the brightest minds this world has to offer, Asian or not.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Thanks for the comment Sean! Here's a post-reply.
I was hoping to try and explain the open mind bit in the next post(that's why I numbered it), so you may have to wait a while for me to put it into words and publish it.
Until very recently I thought it was a person's choice whether or not they believed in God. I even felt that atheist pride for choosing not to believe.
And yes, there IS an apparent conscious decision made by the individual. That I do not deny. But take into consideration some of the things we know.
Think about your childhood. Think of a memory from when you were a kid. Something that's vivid and almost touchable. It is apparent that you are that kid, because those are your memories. But scientifically speaking, not trace of matter from 5 year old Sean is part of 19 year old Sean. If you've got a science background, you'll know that cells die and are replaced.
I don't know what that implies to choice DIRECTLY, but indirectly, it shows that that which is true, may not necessarily be that which is apparent.
Gabriel Gan told me that my method of reasoning would mean destroying the meaning of the word 'choice' itself. Maybe that's why it's so hard to get into. *shrugs*
So back to your question. Is it a choice, when we choose to break free from religion?
Our subconscious self does not make decisions. It is more of a determinant of choice, for the same reason punching in '2 + 2 =' on a calculator produces '4'. What we take to be choices, are just natural reactions due to the ways in which we were wired.
I know that doesn't answer your question, but I hate playing preacher. I prefer just expressing my formulas and getting people to try it out themselves. =)
And I think you probably made more sense than me!
I was hoping to try and explain the open mind bit in the next post(that's why I numbered it), so you may have to wait a while for me to put it into words and publish it.
Until very recently I thought it was a person's choice whether or not they believed in God. I even felt that atheist pride for choosing not to believe.
And yes, there IS an apparent conscious decision made by the individual. That I do not deny. But take into consideration some of the things we know.
Think about your childhood. Think of a memory from when you were a kid. Something that's vivid and almost touchable. It is apparent that you are that kid, because those are your memories. But scientifically speaking, not trace of matter from 5 year old Sean is part of 19 year old Sean. If you've got a science background, you'll know that cells die and are replaced.
I don't know what that implies to choice DIRECTLY, but indirectly, it shows that that which is true, may not necessarily be that which is apparent.
Gabriel Gan told me that my method of reasoning would mean destroying the meaning of the word 'choice' itself. Maybe that's why it's so hard to get into. *shrugs*
So back to your question. Is it a choice, when we choose to break free from religion?
Our subconscious self does not make decisions. It is more of a determinant of choice, for the same reason punching in '2 + 2 =' on a calculator produces '4'. What we take to be choices, are just natural reactions due to the ways in which we were wired.
I know that doesn't answer your question, but I hate playing preacher. I prefer just expressing my formulas and getting people to try it out themselves. =)
And I think you probably made more sense than me!
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Determinism 1
The objective of this post is to describe, in detail, why 'choice' is not a word that carries any relevance to the real world. I COULD be wrong, and nearly everyone I who has heard this theory from me thinks I'm delusional. I've also lost my ability to piece words together nicely, so this may get a little rough. Here goes.
Let's deal with the easy bit first; choices made by nature FOR us. No one chooses their genetic make-up, the culture into which they are soaked in, the way they're raised, the list goes on really. That much, we can infer to be true. Truth being a fact that's been tested enough times to be generally accepted as a fair reflection of the nature of things. My idea is this(it's not mine, but hey, NO ONE can truly own anything, though they can legally);
An extrapolation of the influence of external and internal forces(conscious and subconscious evaluations) on free will shows that choice is an illusion.
It's not that choice is outright FALSE. Choice is like superstition. It makes the world we live in easier to accept.
Ok, now to explain that idea.
Let's narrow the field down to behavioral choices, the typical gray area between free will and determinism. An individual's behavior is said to be determined by past experience, genetic make up, and free will. However, the perspective of the individual does not typically take this into account when behaving. When engaged in a conversation, the individual feels like he or she is choosing his or her words. But isn't it all part of a bigger mechanism? A conversation isn't something that occurs between two people.
A conversation cannot go many ways, but just one. Here's why.
When involved in a conversation, participants must know their boundaries, that is, how well they know the other person, what sort of topics would be relevant to a conversation with the other person, how the other person responds to rudeness or how the other person responds to dominating the conversation. These aren't always wild guesses. The accuracy of a person's boundary-judgment depends on how they interpret their past experience of conversations. This too, is determined by how much they think about their interactions with people, which in turn is determined by how socially inclined they are, which in turn is determined by many other factors. I don't think I have to list the factors that determine what makes an individual good at socializing out or maybe I just don't think I want to.
In a conversation involving two perfectly sane people, everything is pre-determined. Whether it starts with a "good morning" depends on the time of the day. No choice there. Whether or not they chose to meet in the morning depended on when they were mutually free to meet. Our schedules are rarely something we choose. Whether or not there is any hostility or humor depends on the moods of the two people, also determined by pre-conversation factors.
Atheism as well as religion aren't our own choices as well. A Christian who is born and raised Christian had no say in the matter. A person who continues practicing his religion does so because he or she is molded that way. When a person breaks free of his or her religion, it has to be an external force that sparks the change. Whatever the outside cause, the inside change is equally important. If the mind is open(an open mind is a trait that no one chooses, and open mindedness is rare. Most of us are open minded to certain ideas, but block off the rest. Again, it all depends on someone else's action), then the external force has a multiplied effect on the individual.
These 'invisible forces of determinism' can, and probably are easily mistaken as God. However, there is no degree of omniscience or self reflection in these invisible forces. They simply are. In fact, I think 'forces' is the wrong word. It's more of a series of events that influence each other. Unlike the ripple effect, these do not flow in a perfectly smooth pattern. If we were to use to ripple effect as an analogy for determinism, then the uneven lake floor and wind direction, that also effect the shape of the ripple must also be considered as part of the picture. In a sense, it's sort of a multiple ripple effect. Where each individual is its own ripple, unable to chose for itself its shape, but having no choice but to change itself as a natural reaction to other ripples or obstacles it encounters. That about sums it up.
Let's deal with the easy bit first; choices made by nature FOR us. No one chooses their genetic make-up, the culture into which they are soaked in, the way they're raised, the list goes on really. That much, we can infer to be true. Truth being a fact that's been tested enough times to be generally accepted as a fair reflection of the nature of things. My idea is this(it's not mine, but hey, NO ONE can truly own anything, though they can legally);
An extrapolation of the influence of external and internal forces(conscious and subconscious evaluations) on free will shows that choice is an illusion.
It's not that choice is outright FALSE. Choice is like superstition. It makes the world we live in easier to accept.
Ok, now to explain that idea.
Let's narrow the field down to behavioral choices, the typical gray area between free will and determinism. An individual's behavior is said to be determined by past experience, genetic make up, and free will. However, the perspective of the individual does not typically take this into account when behaving. When engaged in a conversation, the individual feels like he or she is choosing his or her words. But isn't it all part of a bigger mechanism? A conversation isn't something that occurs between two people.
A conversation cannot go many ways, but just one. Here's why.
When involved in a conversation, participants must know their boundaries, that is, how well they know the other person, what sort of topics would be relevant to a conversation with the other person, how the other person responds to rudeness or how the other person responds to dominating the conversation. These aren't always wild guesses. The accuracy of a person's boundary-judgment depends on how they interpret their past experience of conversations. This too, is determined by how much they think about their interactions with people, which in turn is determined by how socially inclined they are, which in turn is determined by many other factors. I don't think I have to list the factors that determine what makes an individual good at socializing out or maybe I just don't think I want to.
In a conversation involving two perfectly sane people, everything is pre-determined. Whether it starts with a "good morning" depends on the time of the day. No choice there. Whether or not they chose to meet in the morning depended on when they were mutually free to meet. Our schedules are rarely something we choose. Whether or not there is any hostility or humor depends on the moods of the two people, also determined by pre-conversation factors.
Atheism as well as religion aren't our own choices as well. A Christian who is born and raised Christian had no say in the matter. A person who continues practicing his religion does so because he or she is molded that way. When a person breaks free of his or her religion, it has to be an external force that sparks the change. Whatever the outside cause, the inside change is equally important. If the mind is open(an open mind is a trait that no one chooses, and open mindedness is rare. Most of us are open minded to certain ideas, but block off the rest. Again, it all depends on someone else's action), then the external force has a multiplied effect on the individual.
These 'invisible forces of determinism' can, and probably are easily mistaken as God. However, there is no degree of omniscience or self reflection in these invisible forces. They simply are. In fact, I think 'forces' is the wrong word. It's more of a series of events that influence each other. Unlike the ripple effect, these do not flow in a perfectly smooth pattern. If we were to use to ripple effect as an analogy for determinism, then the uneven lake floor and wind direction, that also effect the shape of the ripple must also be considered as part of the picture. In a sense, it's sort of a multiple ripple effect. Where each individual is its own ripple, unable to chose for itself its shape, but having no choice but to change itself as a natural reaction to other ripples or obstacles it encounters. That about sums it up.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Capitalism is spreading bullshit across the globe, much like jam across toast
Of the 5 unpublished posts that have been half written, I chose to complete this, as it means the most to me.
Please remember that capitalism isn't merely about private ownership, in capitalist countries, many goods are public(traffic lights, street lights, roads, schools) and in Communist countries many things are privately owned(cars, furniture, clothes).
Well, obviously capitalism is easy. Easy, at least for people to relate to. But the world is counter intuitive. So much of what we know to be true was not ascertained by merely observing what happens in everyday life. In most cases, some form of investigation was required.
Capitalism, especially the sort that is exported by the West, is easy to get into because it's basis is in human nature.
but Ernesto Guevara had this to say,
This system blinds people also to invisible forces. People are lost in the idea of the self made man. I won't deny that for most of my life I thought that a man was measured this way as well. But no one realizes that there are forces that give them more opportunities to succeed than others. Capitalism uses freedom as a front to expand it's borders, but freedom is at an untold cost.
Instead of putting the rest of my content into paragraphs, I'll have to do a Nietzsche, that is, to continue in point form.
What I don't like about capitalism:
1) It seems to have skipped ahead of itself, saying, "look, at the rate we're progressing, we'll be on Pluto in no time!" without realizing 'we' means 'us privileged few'. If all the world cash spent on military funding OR fast food OR bail-outs were diverted to providing farmlands for the poor, we'd be able to advance as a human race instead of forgetting those who sew our clothes in sweatshops.
2) When I look at the endless rows of tissue papers, coffee beans, potato chips, etc, I'm not amazed by the capitalists capacity to produce, I'm thinking, "don't we need just one or two brands, making, supplying and researching specialized products?" Instead, we're packed with a billion different labels. Even Proton and Perodua are wasteful. Why would we need TWO Malaysian car companies that don't know how to make cars? This IS NOT an insult to their efforts, all I'm saying is that they are simply re-badge-ing old Japanese cars without having the right skills for the job. I'm aware of the dangers posed by monopolies, but I do not withdraw my previous statement. I am confident that consumers have no idea what their dollar votes do and that the capitalist system is to blame(more on this later)
3)Marketing. You see, the one thing about capitalism that does it some degree of justice is the demand-supply graph. In many socialist countries, severe famine has occurred because they lack privately owned farms, so farmers don't get to price food according to the the aforementioned graph(which usually makes things easier). Essentially, what the demand-supply graph does is it sets (y) price when (x) quantity is provided. Without going into detail, it's an efficient way to make sure resources are efficiently allocated. So, when a product isn't favored, it drops out of the market and is replaced. When there's marketing, it all goes topsy turvy. With marketing, firms MAKE you WANT things by exploiting your emotions. McDonalds puts up a poster of a juicy looking burger, all of a sudden demand SPIKES, even though you KNOW that the actual burger is going to look tiny and pathetic and will probably taste like salted cardboard. I fail to see how marketing makes people aware of quality goods. What happens if McDonalds spends 80% of its cash on advertising and 20% on the burger, while Carl Jr Burgers spends 20% of its cash on advertising and 80% on the burger? You still pay the full 100%(maybe even more), but you're more likely to cast your dollar votes in the inferior product.
4)The power of the few. Bill Moyers once talked about mythology. After reading his book on myth I no longer saw the need to nit-pick every aspect of religion. I thought it was at LEAST semi-justified. When he talked about systems, he explained that most systems were to aid the individual but at a collective level. Societies usually understand common wants, then create a system that benefits the many. But what makes people miserable? Layoffs, quitting, going to work from Monday - Friday, and not having money, to name a few(that relate to capitalism). This system no longer benefits the individual. Ever since the rise of corporation, only a handful of owners enjoy the benefits of capitalism compared to the millions of employees. A million people will work to fatten the wallets of their slave driver, called the CEO in the modern world.
5)Consumption. Humans never NEEDED to buy this much before. The fact is, when combined with the wretched powers of marketing, capitalism is willing and able to feed a single person with a weeks worth of food. Money talks. In the modern capitalist world it screams. Landfills are one of the many by-products of capitalism. A firm is not obligated to deal with the product it sells once it leaves the shelf, unless of coarse, there's a warranty. Even then, who deals with all the packaging? Who's to blame for the tons of unused plastic? Who pays for the ads and excessive amount of boxing and wrapping that comes with something as tiny as a pen?
6)Opportunity cost. Firms are reminded by economists of the dangers of sharing, helping, caring or even spending money on research, as every dollar spent is a lost income opportunity. Why spend money finding a safer, more intelligent product if the rival product is going to do that next week? We can just copy his designs! What about the Haitians? There is real money to be made in the country North of it where we can supply our food and make real money out of it(unless they advertise their efforts, then it becomes a soulless act of kindness).
7)Transfer of blame. A corporation like McDonalds is NOT a human. It cannot feel, speak or decide. When a CEO is blamed, he shrugs and excuses himself by saying he's acting in the interest of the share holders. When the share holders are blamed, they shrugged and say they were not involved in the decision making process. A modern day public firm is an organization that is completely unblamable. The laws that protect it are the laws of capitalism, the law of the land. Externalities are absolutely disgusting. It is what happens when someone (like a person living in a 3rd world country) is directly effected by a transaction made between some other person and a firm. Basically, if Toyota sells ME a car, and I pollute YOUR air, it's YOUR problem, not mine or Toyota's.
7)It is legal to be unfair. That is what capitalism stands for. And that is what's worst about it.
Please remember that capitalism isn't merely about private ownership, in capitalist countries, many goods are public(traffic lights, street lights, roads, schools) and in Communist countries many things are privately owned(cars, furniture, clothes).
Well, obviously capitalism is easy. Easy, at least for people to relate to. But the world is counter intuitive. So much of what we know to be true was not ascertained by merely observing what happens in everyday life. In most cases, some form of investigation was required.
Capitalism, especially the sort that is exported by the West, is easy to get into because it's basis is in human nature.
but Ernesto Guevara had this to say,
It is very easy to claim that in capitalism, the individual has the option
to satisfy or to express true human nature. A child has one toy, and wants two. That child gets two toys and wants four. This is human nature, isn't it?
But when a whole society behaves in the same way
or when it becomes a monopoly, oppressing the less fortunate is that human nature?
This system blinds people also to invisible forces. People are lost in the idea of the self made man. I won't deny that for most of my life I thought that a man was measured this way as well. But no one realizes that there are forces that give them more opportunities to succeed than others. Capitalism uses freedom as a front to expand it's borders, but freedom is at an untold cost.
Instead of putting the rest of my content into paragraphs, I'll have to do a Nietzsche, that is, to continue in point form.
What I don't like about capitalism:
1) It seems to have skipped ahead of itself, saying, "look, at the rate we're progressing, we'll be on Pluto in no time!" without realizing 'we' means 'us privileged few'. If all the world cash spent on military funding OR fast food OR bail-outs were diverted to providing farmlands for the poor, we'd be able to advance as a human race instead of forgetting those who sew our clothes in sweatshops.
2) When I look at the endless rows of tissue papers, coffee beans, potato chips, etc, I'm not amazed by the capitalists capacity to produce, I'm thinking, "don't we need just one or two brands, making, supplying and researching specialized products?" Instead, we're packed with a billion different labels. Even Proton and Perodua are wasteful. Why would we need TWO Malaysian car companies that don't know how to make cars? This IS NOT an insult to their efforts, all I'm saying is that they are simply re-badge-ing old Japanese cars without having the right skills for the job. I'm aware of the dangers posed by monopolies, but I do not withdraw my previous statement. I am confident that consumers have no idea what their dollar votes do and that the capitalist system is to blame(more on this later)
3)Marketing. You see, the one thing about capitalism that does it some degree of justice is the demand-supply graph. In many socialist countries, severe famine has occurred because they lack privately owned farms, so farmers don't get to price food according to the the aforementioned graph(which usually makes things easier). Essentially, what the demand-supply graph does is it sets (y) price when (x) quantity is provided. Without going into detail, it's an efficient way to make sure resources are efficiently allocated. So, when a product isn't favored, it drops out of the market and is replaced. When there's marketing, it all goes topsy turvy. With marketing, firms MAKE you WANT things by exploiting your emotions. McDonalds puts up a poster of a juicy looking burger, all of a sudden demand SPIKES, even though you KNOW that the actual burger is going to look tiny and pathetic and will probably taste like salted cardboard. I fail to see how marketing makes people aware of quality goods. What happens if McDonalds spends 80% of its cash on advertising and 20% on the burger, while Carl Jr Burgers spends 20% of its cash on advertising and 80% on the burger? You still pay the full 100%(maybe even more), but you're more likely to cast your dollar votes in the inferior product.
4)The power of the few. Bill Moyers once talked about mythology. After reading his book on myth I no longer saw the need to nit-pick every aspect of religion. I thought it was at LEAST semi-justified. When he talked about systems, he explained that most systems were to aid the individual but at a collective level. Societies usually understand common wants, then create a system that benefits the many. But what makes people miserable? Layoffs, quitting, going to work from Monday - Friday, and not having money, to name a few(that relate to capitalism). This system no longer benefits the individual. Ever since the rise of corporation, only a handful of owners enjoy the benefits of capitalism compared to the millions of employees. A million people will work to fatten the wallets of their slave driver, called the CEO in the modern world.
5)Consumption. Humans never NEEDED to buy this much before. The fact is, when combined with the wretched powers of marketing, capitalism is willing and able to feed a single person with a weeks worth of food. Money talks. In the modern capitalist world it screams. Landfills are one of the many by-products of capitalism. A firm is not obligated to deal with the product it sells once it leaves the shelf, unless of coarse, there's a warranty. Even then, who deals with all the packaging? Who's to blame for the tons of unused plastic? Who pays for the ads and excessive amount of boxing and wrapping that comes with something as tiny as a pen?
6)Opportunity cost. Firms are reminded by economists of the dangers of sharing, helping, caring or even spending money on research, as every dollar spent is a lost income opportunity. Why spend money finding a safer, more intelligent product if the rival product is going to do that next week? We can just copy his designs! What about the Haitians? There is real money to be made in the country North of it where we can supply our food and make real money out of it(unless they advertise their efforts, then it becomes a soulless act of kindness).
7)Transfer of blame. A corporation like McDonalds is NOT a human. It cannot feel, speak or decide. When a CEO is blamed, he shrugs and excuses himself by saying he's acting in the interest of the share holders. When the share holders are blamed, they shrugged and say they were not involved in the decision making process. A modern day public firm is an organization that is completely unblamable. The laws that protect it are the laws of capitalism, the law of the land. Externalities are absolutely disgusting. It is what happens when someone (like a person living in a 3rd world country) is directly effected by a transaction made between some other person and a firm. Basically, if Toyota sells ME a car, and I pollute YOUR air, it's YOUR problem, not mine or Toyota's.
7)It is legal to be unfair. That is what capitalism stands for. And that is what's worst about it.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Why I stopped writing here
When I first started, I was more interested in expressing my opinion rather than looking at facts.
After a while I realized that most things had already been established, and that I only needed to look for what I needed to know, instead of starting topics off from scratch.
Even though I became an atheist unintentionally, the undeniable logic behind atheism made it very... circular. As in, everytime there was a thought in my head, it would always be filtered through Godless logic.
Apart from losing my ability to express my thoughts using clear explanations and small words, I have also begun to bend facts to support my theories, where it should be fixed facts that change theories.
I hope 2010 sparks something in my head.
After a while I realized that most things had already been established, and that I only needed to look for what I needed to know, instead of starting topics off from scratch.
Even though I became an atheist unintentionally, the undeniable logic behind atheism made it very... circular. As in, everytime there was a thought in my head, it would always be filtered through Godless logic.
Apart from losing my ability to express my thoughts using clear explanations and small words, I have also begun to bend facts to support my theories, where it should be fixed facts that change theories.
I hope 2010 sparks something in my head.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
On myth
In a book I'm reading called the Power of Myth (a conversation between Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers), I finally got the real and nearly complete answer to the purpose of religion and God. I always talk about God being useful but not true, and I stick to that answer. BUT I also stick to Friedrich Nietzsche's story of the Ubermensch(literally translated, the super, or over man). First off, I will explain what myth is to me.
Myth, so far as I can tell, is a sort of fable, with a sort of collective teachings of a society. Each and every civilization has had its own myths. Myths help people go through their lives. It's sort of like a collective knowledge, consisting of subconscious knowledge and experience, reflections of a society as a whole and is passed on from one generation to another in a sort of symbolic fashion. Let's remember, myths are supposed to be interpreted by everyone in a society. For that reason, they are written in poetic, symbolic, and vague verses.
There was one example of subconscious symbolism that shocked me, that is the recurring theme of the eagle(a symbol of spiritual freedom, soaring) and the snake(the symbol of bondage to the earth) suddenly and almost universally throughout all cultures amalgamated to form the dragon. A serpent with wings. Without thinking about it, societies related these two animals that symbolized the human desire to have a free spirit and the constriction of man to form the dragon.
Another thing about myths that I mentioned above is how they are parallel. All myths share the same teachings but in different context. If you don't believe me, read this next part.
Part of the conversation between Campbell and Moyers. They are discussing the parallels between the myth in Genesis and myths in other societies:
"
MOYERS : Genesis 1; "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
CAMPBELL : This is from "The Song of the World," a legend of the Pima Indians of Arizona; "In the beginning there was only darkness everywhere- darkness and water. And the darkness gathered thick in places, crowding together and then seperating, crowding and seperating . . . . "
MOYERS : Genesis 1;"And the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light."
CAMPBELL : And this is from the Hindu Upanishads, from about the eight century B.C.: "In the beginning, there was only the great self reflected in the form of a person. Reflecting, it found nothing but itself. Then its first word was, 'This am I.' "
MOYERS : Genesis 1:"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply.' "
CAMPBELL : Now, this is from a legend of the Bassari people of West Africa: "Unumbotte made a human being. Its name was Man. Unumbotte next made an antelope, named Antelope. Unumbotte made a snake, named Snake...... And Unumbotte said to them, 'The earth has not yet been pounded. You must pound the ground smooth where you are sitting.' Unumbotte gave them seeds of all kinds, and said: 'Go plant these'. "
MOYERS : Genesis 2: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done..."
CAMPBELL : And now again from the Pima Indians: "I make the world and lo, the world is finished. Thus I make the world, and lo! The world is finished."
-
MOYERS : But Genesis continues: " 'Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat? The man said, 'The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.' Then the Lord God said to the woman, 'What is this that you have done?' The woman said, 'The serpent beguiled me, and I ate.' "
CAMPBELL : The Bassari legend continues in the same way. "One day Snake said, We too should eat these fruits. Why must we go hungry? Antelope said, 'But we don't know anything about this fruit.' Then Man and his wife took some of the fruit and ate is. Unumbotte came down from the sky and asked, 'Who ate the fruit?' They answered, 'We did.' Unumbotte asked, 'Who told you that you could eat that fruit?' They replied, 'Snake did.' " ' It is very much the same story.
"
I implore you all to read at least the last part of the conversation. Read it and reread it.
If you cannot see the similarities between myths by now, you are truly lost. I'm not implying that every culture tells the same exact story. What I mean is that the problems of mankind are the same everywhere on Earth. From that myth is born, and is told in context to the society. I have reason to believe that myth helps in the survivability of mankind, or at least has up until globalization.
But I am no expert on myth. It is just a topic that has my interest sparked at the moment.
The most important aspect that I think should never be ignored is the fictitious nature of myths. Very easily, people take myths literally. The same way you don't ask your parents why you're not allowed to do dangerous things, you don't question the truth behind the myths they've thought you.
Myths do have purpose, and atheists (I admit) often disregard their power to teach in the same way theists take them a in a literal sense. There was obviously no snake, woman, man, God and fruit gathered in the Garden of Eden(or even a Garden of Eden). The messages in every religion are symbolic.
But here's where I take off my blanket of niceness. We're in the 21st century. Science makes planes fly. Religion makes planes fly into buildings. Science discovers nuclear power, the power of the sun,. Politics levels cities with nukes. Science discovers a way to satisfy the basic need of every man, woman and child on earth. Capitalist economies insist on feeding the already full.
These three major retardants of the progress of man, religion, politics and economics, have found ways to appeal to our animal like tendencies. Religion with the promise to never die(live forever with God), politics with the promise of equality and fairness, and capitalism with the promise of fair trade. All facades for the animal need for an alpha male(a God, the King) and greed.
Myth, so far as I can tell, is a sort of fable, with a sort of collective teachings of a society. Each and every civilization has had its own myths. Myths help people go through their lives. It's sort of like a collective knowledge, consisting of subconscious knowledge and experience, reflections of a society as a whole and is passed on from one generation to another in a sort of symbolic fashion. Let's remember, myths are supposed to be interpreted by everyone in a society. For that reason, they are written in poetic, symbolic, and vague verses.
There was one example of subconscious symbolism that shocked me, that is the recurring theme of the eagle(a symbol of spiritual freedom, soaring) and the snake(the symbol of bondage to the earth) suddenly and almost universally throughout all cultures amalgamated to form the dragon. A serpent with wings. Without thinking about it, societies related these two animals that symbolized the human desire to have a free spirit and the constriction of man to form the dragon.
Another thing about myths that I mentioned above is how they are parallel. All myths share the same teachings but in different context. If you don't believe me, read this next part.
Part of the conversation between Campbell and Moyers. They are discussing the parallels between the myth in Genesis and myths in other societies:
"
MOYERS : Genesis 1; "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep."
CAMPBELL : This is from "The Song of the World," a legend of the Pima Indians of Arizona; "In the beginning there was only darkness everywhere- darkness and water. And the darkness gathered thick in places, crowding together and then seperating, crowding and seperating . . . . "
MOYERS : Genesis 1;"And the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light."
CAMPBELL : And this is from the Hindu Upanishads, from about the eight century B.C.: "In the beginning, there was only the great self reflected in the form of a person. Reflecting, it found nothing but itself. Then its first word was, 'This am I.' "
MOYERS : Genesis 1:"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply.' "
CAMPBELL : Now, this is from a legend of the Bassari people of West Africa: "Unumbotte made a human being. Its name was Man. Unumbotte next made an antelope, named Antelope. Unumbotte made a snake, named Snake...... And Unumbotte said to them, 'The earth has not yet been pounded. You must pound the ground smooth where you are sitting.' Unumbotte gave them seeds of all kinds, and said: 'Go plant these'. "
MOYERS : Genesis 2: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and the host of them. And on the seventh day God finished his work which he had done..."
CAMPBELL : And now again from the Pima Indians: "I make the world and lo, the world is finished. Thus I make the world, and lo! The world is finished."
-
MOYERS : But Genesis continues: " 'Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat? The man said, 'The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.' Then the Lord God said to the woman, 'What is this that you have done?' The woman said, 'The serpent beguiled me, and I ate.' "
CAMPBELL : The Bassari legend continues in the same way. "One day Snake said, We too should eat these fruits. Why must we go hungry? Antelope said, 'But we don't know anything about this fruit.' Then Man and his wife took some of the fruit and ate is. Unumbotte came down from the sky and asked, 'Who ate the fruit?' They answered, 'We did.' Unumbotte asked, 'Who told you that you could eat that fruit?' They replied, 'Snake did.' " ' It is very much the same story.
"
I implore you all to read at least the last part of the conversation. Read it and reread it.
If you cannot see the similarities between myths by now, you are truly lost. I'm not implying that every culture tells the same exact story. What I mean is that the problems of mankind are the same everywhere on Earth. From that myth is born, and is told in context to the society. I have reason to believe that myth helps in the survivability of mankind, or at least has up until globalization.
But I am no expert on myth. It is just a topic that has my interest sparked at the moment.
The most important aspect that I think should never be ignored is the fictitious nature of myths. Very easily, people take myths literally. The same way you don't ask your parents why you're not allowed to do dangerous things, you don't question the truth behind the myths they've thought you.
Myths do have purpose, and atheists (I admit) often disregard their power to teach in the same way theists take them a in a literal sense. There was obviously no snake, woman, man, God and fruit gathered in the Garden of Eden(or even a Garden of Eden). The messages in every religion are symbolic.
But here's where I take off my blanket of niceness. We're in the 21st century. Science makes planes fly. Religion makes planes fly into buildings. Science discovers nuclear power, the power of the sun,. Politics levels cities with nukes. Science discovers a way to satisfy the basic need of every man, woman and child on earth. Capitalist economies insist on feeding the already full.
These three major retardants of the progress of man, religion, politics and economics, have found ways to appeal to our animal like tendencies. Religion with the promise to never die(live forever with God), politics with the promise of equality and fairness, and capitalism with the promise of fair trade. All facades for the animal need for an alpha male(a God, the King) and greed.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Prophecies
First(Sorry, you asked for it), an explanation on fulfilled prophecies with the help of David Hume and Nostradamus.
My part of the explanation goes like this. If a thousand people wrote a thousand different stories, each with a vague writing style, and these stories were compiled in a book; after a thousand years, would it be easy to fit any of these stories to an occurrence in history? History, of coarse, is written by the victors, so history can be vague and one sided as well.
That explanation may not have made sense, but consider this;
I once believed the world was going to end in 2012, because of the predictions that Nostradamus made that actually came true(Hitler's rise to power among many others).
Before I allowed myself to fall into the trap of belief without evidence, I read through all opinions on Nostradamus' work. I even read the translated prophecies. It surprised me that about 50% of his prophecies could be related to something that had happened. And they were were VERY vague. One had scrutinize every symbol to get some sort of meaning behind the images and words. What this meant was that prophecies were sort of like horoscopes. They're always vague, but people tend to believe them by fitting them into a situation even if there isn't any concrete evidence.
That was not the reason I stopped believing the world would end in 2012. It was months later when I read Neil Gaiman's Sandman. There was a comic involving the same bar being visited every century from the middle ages till the year 2000. In the first strip(the year 1500), there's a few people saying that it seems as if the world is coming to end the way things are going. Then in the last strip(the year 2000), there are people having the same exact conversation. That comic strip was enough to change my mind entirely.
It showed me that men are subconsciously aware and afraid of their inescapable doom. It is true the world will end; but just for them. Once you die, your world ends. People are generally afraid of losing. Death, being the worst way of losing, brings out the 'bad loser' attitude in people. "If I'm going to die, then so is the rest of the world."
Whether or not the world ends in 2012, it is stupid and wasteful to cling on to prophecies like that.
David Hume's explanation on miracles(which are related to prophecies, since most consider the fulfillment of prophecies to be miracles):
That is all I have to say about prophecies.
My part of the explanation goes like this. If a thousand people wrote a thousand different stories, each with a vague writing style, and these stories were compiled in a book; after a thousand years, would it be easy to fit any of these stories to an occurrence in history? History, of coarse, is written by the victors, so history can be vague and one sided as well.
That explanation may not have made sense, but consider this;
I once believed the world was going to end in 2012, because of the predictions that Nostradamus made that actually came true(Hitler's rise to power among many others).
Before I allowed myself to fall into the trap of belief without evidence, I read through all opinions on Nostradamus' work. I even read the translated prophecies. It surprised me that about 50% of his prophecies could be related to something that had happened. And they were were VERY vague. One had scrutinize every symbol to get some sort of meaning behind the images and words. What this meant was that prophecies were sort of like horoscopes. They're always vague, but people tend to believe them by fitting them into a situation even if there isn't any concrete evidence.
That was not the reason I stopped believing the world would end in 2012. It was months later when I read Neil Gaiman's Sandman. There was a comic involving the same bar being visited every century from the middle ages till the year 2000. In the first strip(the year 1500), there's a few people saying that it seems as if the world is coming to end the way things are going. Then in the last strip(the year 2000), there are people having the same exact conversation. That comic strip was enough to change my mind entirely.
It showed me that men are subconsciously aware and afraid of their inescapable doom. It is true the world will end; but just for them. Once you die, your world ends. People are generally afraid of losing. Death, being the worst way of losing, brings out the 'bad loser' attitude in people. "If I'm going to die, then so is the rest of the world."
Whether or not the world ends in 2012, it is stupid and wasteful to cling on to prophecies like that.
David Hume's explanation on miracles(which are related to prophecies, since most consider the fulfillment of prophecies to be miracles):
- People often lie, and they have good reasons to lie about miracles occurring either because they believe they are doing so for the benefit of their religion or because of the fame that results.
- People by nature enjoy relating miracles they have heard without caring for their veracity and thus miracles are easily transmitted even where false.
- Hume notes that miracles seem to occur mostly in "ignorant" and "barbarous" nations and times, and the reason they don't occur in the "civilized" societies is such societies aren't awed by what they know to be natural events.
- The miracles of each religion argue against all other religions and their miracles, and so even if a proportion of all reported miracles across the world fit Hume's requirement for belief, the miracles of each religion make the other less likely.
That is all I have to say about prophecies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
