I have written in Mr. Sheep's blog about my belief that there were better ways to end LOST. It is clear that if you say that you are a person of faith, I do not doubt you.
As for the ending, I would have changed the last ten minutes. Ben would have appeared at the concert to kill Mrs. Hawking: "Your son sent me, Mother." At most three minutes for that. Back to the island Jack is dead, but he is not alone. Faraday is standing over his body emptying his pockets of sand. "Get up, Jack. You have patients waiting." Jack is helped to his feet by Faraday and Ben. Jack is puzzled. Faraday cuts to the point. You are not dead; you were dead until I released you. Your life must go on. Your friends are not dead. Only Desmond, Ben, Hurley, and I know what you know happened here in the shadow of the statue. And you will notice as we walk to my plane that there is no wreckage on the beach. There is nothing here, just a fire, a couple of houses from the 50's. the American military built them Hurley and Ben have lived in them for a long time. It's 2004; I am afraid that you and I need to get back to LA. I have a lottery ticket and a dead father to bury. The last shot is Widmore's dead body on the cliff. (NOT LOCKE)! END TITLE:LOST. Ben's voice: Professor Faraday, I have had some experience with these coffins on planes. They get lost. How about cremation, economical and quick. FARADAY: That makes sense, Doctor Linus.
I regret that I prefer irony. Piety, Tragic endings or Comic finales need a stiff shot of irony to satisfy this man of faith. I have studied the Gospels too well to do without it. Who would thought that the King of Kings was a carpenter? A King who would be killed on planks of wood? I believe in impossible things: bread and wine are God incarnate and we eat Him. Truly, I am a fool to admit such things. And only a fool would believe a child could be conceived without intercourse. I am a doctor; I should know better. I have enough strange ideas in my head. I think of them as facts. Please do not ask to believe too much: my portion is ample.
sabato 29 maggio 2010
martedì 25 maggio 2010
Jack
[edit] NO NOT EVERYBODY IS DEAD
We are fooled into that concept of everybody's dead by Jack's reward. He is seeing his death in 2004 when really died in 2007. he is being given the gift of a life fulfiiled. His father was no wise, loving parent. He was a hateful, sloppy drunk. Jack redeemed them all. His action of extinguishing the flame ended Mother's rule. How do we know this? 1) The new "jacob" is Hugo, an infinitely more powerful being than Jacob. He who speaks with the dead is a person that mortality cannot touch. You know when he plays chess and thepieces move by themselves that he has achieved a higher state. His work in the world beyond the island is done. There is no place for him in the world of LA X. And he is not jacob. The flame that Jack lit was Hugo's. He held the fire all the time. But Mother and her children would have destroyed that Fire. He was the one above corruption. 2) Hume's refusal to answer Mrs. Widmore's question. I believe Hume said not this time. In other words, how many times must he die. He is the author of all this, culminating in the concert. Hume is also saying that Charles and Eliose have ceased to have any importance. This is Daniel's last word to his mother. The concert is the culmination of the sideways world for Daniel. He has prepared Jack for his mission. Even Jack's son is an illusion to provide him fulfillment as a parent. His last patient is a miracle. Faraday has tried to give jack some joy. 3) The sideways world exists because of the energy from the island. when Mother's light was extinguished. the sideways world became real. the energy from the island has been converted. 4) Ben is outside the church because he must return to the island to protect it. He is the King of trees and deserted houses.--the sideways world is only purgatory if you consider real life to purgatory. It may be. Marriage, children, jobs -- all may be considered purgatory. Christian Sheepherd is no more a prophet than Charles Widmore. He is a figment of Faraday's conjuring. Hume calls Jack. Hume picks up a coffin. It's all for Jack's benefit, the happy death. The reality is that Ben in his endless machinations taught Jack one thing. "Thomas is not remembered for his bravery, but for his doubt. You have chosen courage. I have chosen doubt. That's why I cannot enter. Look at us, you saved us all. I killed so many people for a good that never existed. You gave up your life, and you saved us all" I would liked that ending.
In the Gospel, there is a rich young man who comes to Jesus.
What must i do to be saved? You must give up what you have , leave your family, follow me. the rich young man turns away. my opinion is that this figure represents the Buddha. Outside the scripture, the young realizes that he has no choice. he has seen the suffering. Hurley is the Buddha . The male demi-god who has taken the place of mother. Ben is Napoleon who ends as the king of deserted kingdom. his two subjects, Rose and Bernard have no regard for him.
Jack joins Faraday as a shadow who appear, mumble a few words, and guide the world.
We are fooled into that concept of everybody's dead by Jack's reward. He is seeing his death in 2004 when really died in 2007. he is being given the gift of a life fulfiiled. His father was no wise, loving parent. He was a hateful, sloppy drunk. Jack redeemed them all. His action of extinguishing the flame ended Mother's rule. How do we know this? 1) The new "jacob" is Hugo, an infinitely more powerful being than Jacob. He who speaks with the dead is a person that mortality cannot touch. You know when he plays chess and thepieces move by themselves that he has achieved a higher state. His work in the world beyond the island is done. There is no place for him in the world of LA X. And he is not jacob. The flame that Jack lit was Hugo's. He held the fire all the time. But Mother and her children would have destroyed that Fire. He was the one above corruption. 2) Hume's refusal to answer Mrs. Widmore's question. I believe Hume said not this time. In other words, how many times must he die. He is the author of all this, culminating in the concert. Hume is also saying that Charles and Eliose have ceased to have any importance. This is Daniel's last word to his mother. The concert is the culmination of the sideways world for Daniel. He has prepared Jack for his mission. Even Jack's son is an illusion to provide him fulfillment as a parent. His last patient is a miracle. Faraday has tried to give jack some joy. 3) The sideways world exists because of the energy from the island. when Mother's light was extinguished. the sideways world became real. the energy from the island has been converted. 4) Ben is outside the church because he must return to the island to protect it. He is the King of trees and deserted houses.--the sideways world is only purgatory if you consider real life to purgatory. It may be. Marriage, children, jobs -- all may be considered purgatory. Christian Sheepherd is no more a prophet than Charles Widmore. He is a figment of Faraday's conjuring. Hume calls Jack. Hume picks up a coffin. It's all for Jack's benefit, the happy death. The reality is that Ben in his endless machinations taught Jack one thing. "Thomas is not remembered for his bravery, but for his doubt. You have chosen courage. I have chosen doubt. That's why I cannot enter. Look at us, you saved us all. I killed so many people for a good that never existed. You gave up your life, and you saved us all" I would liked that ending.
In the Gospel, there is a rich young man who comes to Jesus.
What must i do to be saved? You must give up what you have , leave your family, follow me. the rich young man turns away. my opinion is that this figure represents the Buddha. Outside the scripture, the young realizes that he has no choice. he has seen the suffering. Hurley is the Buddha . The male demi-god who has taken the place of mother. Ben is Napoleon who ends as the king of deserted kingdom. his two subjects, Rose and Bernard have no regard for him.
Jack joins Faraday as a shadow who appear, mumble a few words, and guide the world.
domenica 23 maggio 2010
the magiffin
In nearly all Hitchcock films, there is an object that most characters chase. The famous Magiffen is Houston's Maltese falcon: As Bogie says this is the stuff that dreams are made of. The bridge over (on) the River Kwai, the two passports in Casblanca and the Pink Panther diamond are other examples. In LOST, there are two such items. One is the title of leader. There is a trap the real leader must protect the other MaGuffin called the Source What Mother says is a heresy to all Christians and probably to all Buddhists. The light within is divided among all. This is the Gnostic Heresy, i.e., God is within you from the start. Christians believe that the original sin is within the fetus at conception. From what I understand of Buddhism, the journey to light is harch and long. (Personally, I believe both. As I wrote to Mr. Sheep, religion is a burden. The final destination is a cross.) Here is the real choice. Salvation lies in giving back the Source to this all-subsuming physicist that we call God. Every knowledgable Christian, Muslim, Jew and many others especially Spinoza and Einstein know the all is of this male, jealous God. Everyone should know that energy and matter are interchangable. They should know that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The question is who knows this. I am sure Faraday knew this. Maybe he still does. I bet that Linus knows this. Jack, Juilet, Locke Lapidus, Miles, Chang (or Candlewax) should know this. (I had this drummed into my head at age 11 by the nuns). In other words, everybody knows this. So what's the use of all these words? This is Pentecost when Peter spoke to the crowds and each heard in his own tongue. You may believe it or not. But there need not be a miracle to spark such a debate. A simple phrase can ignite an even bigger debate. Christ said, but it could come from anybody's lips. "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. I pay many taxes, but render little else to Caesar. That's the answer. The key to life (survival, happiness, return from the dead, true love....) lies in the shadow of the statue as well as in the hearts of some, but not so many, homo sapiens.
sabato 22 maggio 2010
the glass bead game
So here we are: THE BIG QUESTIONS
1). Is Faraday going to reappear? Does he represent the Spinozan God who cannot interfere in the world because his intrusion is destructive? I would hope so. If he represented that whining ass jacob. I would be disappointed.
2).Will that 10 year brain in the kung fu body finally leave us alone (the viewers and the characters)? Killing this idiot was the best thing Ben ever did. Next Mib, then rid us of jack. Mail him back to LA, dead or alive. I am sure you can dispose of these idiots. then go ahead rule the island, the world: you deserve it, Ben. Or instead get with faraday, locke, and desmond for a spin-off Three nerds and a hunk (or 3 wise men and 1 wise ass; they could draw straws)
Of course, Ben, you need to make sure that Locke is safe. Mib will just grab somebody else; he needs an ashtray. Also make sure that Hurley does not get any smoke in his eyes. 3) Will Faraday be able to save everybody? Put richard and isabella in a condo far from the sea, next door to jin and sun. (spin-off) Bring back most of dead, not all of them? (Let Juilet go to Greenland. She deserves to live, but she is a bitch.) Faraday or somebody, send Claire (but not her baby) and Kate to torment Woman in hell. Will somebody (Ben or Faraday or Hume) stab Eli Hawking as MiB did Woman?
Across the sea was the episode that I was waiting for. I was intriqued by the archetype: the angel guarding the gate to Eden. THEN Darlton gave it away with Richard: the slave is the one is meant to kill the King of the Wood. The absolute clarity of the reference explains the infertility, the sickness, jacob's inability to function (he's the HAL of LOST). His very last scene in which he thinks he can appoint his successor was a real manifestation of his inability to learn his own mythology. he is Ben's opposite; Ben is the physically frail, but intellectual agile sociopath. Jacob is an example of the borderline personality.
Locke may have died without answers, but the audience has them. Explicit answers: from Ben, "he was a better man"; from smokie "of all of you, he alone had faith" then that ego-building lie to Jack: "he was a sucker" (translation: "You were always the smarter one, Jack, and I am trying to trick you, Doctor Dummy"). LOST has the subtle touch of a sledge hammer. My name is Henry Gale (Gee, I must be a liar just as the Wizard of Oz) Hi, I am Sawyer and just like my friend Huck, I do not like wearing shoes. I do like fooling people. But I am going to get civilized by a slightly older woman (Juilet = Becky Thatcher). Reference after reference given without much grace. Rousseau, Burke, Napoleon. Hume, Minkowski, Michael's son, Faraday. And over and over, the clue I missed until I saw Across the Sea. The madonnas filled with cocaine that killed every man who touched them. The only one who may escape is Locke thanks this year's HUGE CLUE: Elba, the one arm posture, the embrace from Rousseau. Linus was never "redeemed".
WHO IS BURIED OR RECLINES IN THE SHADOW OF THE HOUSE OF THE BOY WHO LIVED IN THE SHOE? COULD IT BE LAPIDUS, ALPERT, FARADAY, WALT? I would exclude Alpert; he was falling his new master, Ben. I would guess it is the same person who got Desmond out of the well. There were only four individuals with divine powers: MIB is just a ghost trapped between worlds. He can't run too far and he knows he cannot kill Ben because Ben is the true candidate. Alpert is immutable. MiB cannot kill him either. Jacob (now dead) gave Alpert a gift. So we got However, Hurley's power is far greater. He exists both among the living and the dead. Jacob once again was lying. Only a foolish demon would ever try to manipulate such a being. Desmond is being manipulated by either Walt whose youth makes it less likely or by Faraday. Daniel has appeared to only one person - Desmond. Alpert<< Hurley probably less than Walt's or Faraday's
venerdì 21 maggio 2010
Ben and Faraday
So here we are: THE BIG QUESTIONS
1). Is Faraday going to reappear? Does he represent the Spinozan God who cannot interfere in the world because his intrusion is destructive? I would hope so. If he represented that whining ass jacob. I would be disappointed.
2).Will that 10 year brain in the kung fu body finally leave us alone (the viewers and the characters)? Killing this idiot was the best thing Ben ever did. Next Mib, then rid us of jack. Mail him back to LA, dead or alive. I am sure you can dispose of these idiots. then go ahead rule the island or the world: you deserve it, Ben.
Of course, Ben, you need make sure that Locke is safe. Mib will just grab somebody else. Also make sure that Hurley does not get any smoke in his eyes. 3) Will Faraday be able to save everybody? Put richard and isabella in a condo far from the sea, bring back most of dead, not all of them? (Let Juilet go to Greenland. She deserves to live, but she is a bitch.) Faraday or somebody, send Claire (but not her baby) and Kate to torment Woman in hell. Will somebody (Ben or Faraday or Hume) stab Eli Hawking as MiB did Woman?
giovedì 20 maggio 2010
KING OF THE WOOD
The entire line of inquiry of The Golden Bough is developed from one particular ritualistic practice that Frazer describes in the book’s early pages. In Italy, he explains, there is a wooded area on the shore of Lake Nemi, which is dedicated to the memory of the Roman goddess Diana. By tradition, each priest of Diana who guards the forest, known as the King of the Wood, gained his position by murdering the priest who held the position before him.
This is a summary taken from one of the crib-books concerning Sir James Frazier's ponderous The Golden Bough Let go to the beginning: Mother steals the first king (MiB); she realizes that he won't play his part so she gives the title to Jacob. Generally in the mythical paradigm a freed slave (Richard) is the killer and loses nothing. (in those early times the penalty for escape was death except when the slave finds divine protection). That explains why Richard was told to kill Jacob. It also explains why Flocke will never Ben. MiB thought that Ben would not know this. Of course, Ben knows it. The business about asking for Stephen King earlier in the series was another deception. Ben can kill Charles is because Ben is now KING. If Ben dies by MiB's hand, MiB will never escape Jacob's whole ceremony is another deception. It is a farce. Another false baptism (like Richard's)...
You don't pick God. God picks you. Often God picks strangely. Why would God (not that whining demon, jacob)pick Ben. Because Ben will protect the light and he is so strong in will and wit that he will be able to secure the light or die with it, should the need come. Again we have Napoleon mentioned. We have Rousseau, the enemy of democracy. Ben could kill Widmore because he is above the rules.
My dear Mr. Sheep, it is an observation from the Bible, from Plato (few understand the meaning of the shadows in the cave) to Joyce (read The Dead, you will see that Joyce [in his early 20's] undersood that faith, hope, grace are gifts God gives, and it seems he is not generous with such gifts).
Mr. Sheep a few items:I am a student of religion, but I am not full of grace. I am not a man of faith, but a man who believes that from what he knows no one/nothing could exist with God and without Redemption. My redeemer is the enemy of entropy, the enemy of waste, the author of natural law.I have no belief in zealots that are young, no faith in instant karma. It took 40-43 years to believe the little that I do. I am Catholic, but I do not attend mass. My priest is stupid. I am looking for wisdom, not foolishness.To your question: here's the answer: you do not want to be God's choice. You end up on a cross.
You end up hating the world (see TS Eliot's poem Journey of the Magi).All these liars who say that religion gives them confidence and lightens their spirit are liars. The more one studies God, the colder this world becomes. You become the stranger in a strange land.
As for the use of God's name for theft or murder, no one chosen by God could such things (unless he was acting under the provisions of Exodus chapter 23 to 26 which are limited to orthodox Jews; it is only for males without significant sins (there are plenty) who are conservative or orthodox Jews).
Sorry, Mr. Sheep, this remnant under very restricted circumstances may answer the call of blood. If Sawyer were an orthodox or conservative Jew, his killing of Cooper would be obedience to God. But Sawyer is not sinless; he is not Jewish. This is the single exception against killing. No one else has God on their side. It is a very high standard.
As for knowing God's will, those who say they know such things are liars. If I had such power, I would hide. No sane person wants the powers of God. the human frame aint built for it. The A-bomb brought not the nuclear age, but the age of anxiety. (the phrase is WH Auden's).
Belief in God has been a great burden; it has made my spirit sad. Lacking grace, intrinsic faith, the gift of hope, belief is hard. I cling to it because I know it to be true.
This is a summary taken from one of the crib-books concerning Sir James Frazier's ponderous The Golden Bough Let go to the beginning: Mother steals the first king (MiB); she realizes that he won't play his part so she gives the title to Jacob. Generally in the mythical paradigm a freed slave (Richard) is the killer and loses nothing. (in those early times the penalty for escape was death except when the slave finds divine protection). That explains why Richard was told to kill Jacob. It also explains why Flocke will never Ben. MiB thought that Ben would not know this. Of course, Ben knows it. The business about asking for Stephen King earlier in the series was another deception. Ben can kill Charles is because Ben is now KING. If Ben dies by MiB's hand, MiB will never escape Jacob's whole ceremony is another deception. It is a farce. Another false baptism (like Richard's)...
You don't pick God. God picks you. Often God picks strangely. Why would God (not that whining demon, jacob)pick Ben. Because Ben will protect the light and he is so strong in will and wit that he will be able to secure the light or die with it, should the need come. Again we have Napoleon mentioned. We have Rousseau, the enemy of democracy. Ben could kill Widmore because he is above the rules.
My dear Mr. Sheep, it is an observation from the Bible, from Plato (few understand the meaning of the shadows in the cave) to Joyce (read The Dead, you will see that Joyce [in his early 20's] undersood that faith, hope, grace are gifts God gives, and it seems he is not generous with such gifts).
Mr. Sheep a few items:I am a student of religion, but I am not full of grace. I am not a man of faith, but a man who believes that from what he knows no one/nothing could exist with God and without Redemption. My redeemer is the enemy of entropy, the enemy of waste, the author of natural law.I have no belief in zealots that are young, no faith in instant karma. It took 40-43 years to believe the little that I do. I am Catholic, but I do not attend mass. My priest is stupid. I am looking for wisdom, not foolishness.To your question: here's the answer: you do not want to be God's choice. You end up on a cross.
You end up hating the world (see TS Eliot's poem Journey of the Magi).All these liars who say that religion gives them confidence and lightens their spirit are liars. The more one studies God, the colder this world becomes. You become the stranger in a strange land.
As for the use of God's name for theft or murder, no one chosen by God could such things (unless he was acting under the provisions of Exodus chapter 23 to 26 which are limited to orthodox Jews; it is only for males without significant sins (there are plenty) who are conservative or orthodox Jews).
Sorry, Mr. Sheep, this remnant under very restricted circumstances may answer the call of blood. If Sawyer were an orthodox or conservative Jew, his killing of Cooper would be obedience to God. But Sawyer is not sinless; he is not Jewish. This is the single exception against killing. No one else has God on their side. It is a very high standard.
As for knowing God's will, those who say they know such things are liars. If I had such power, I would hide. No sane person wants the powers of God. the human frame aint built for it. The A-bomb brought not the nuclear age, but the age of anxiety. (the phrase is WH Auden's).
Belief in God has been a great burden; it has made my spirit sad. Lacking grace, intrinsic faith, the gift of hope, belief is hard. I cling to it because I know it to be true.
lunedì 17 maggio 2010
Paradise by the slice
1.Dickens---Great Expectations. The mysterious prisoner who is Pip's benefactor = Ben. Jaggers the lawyer as a puppetmaster = Faraday, Mrs Haversham = Eli Hawking. Hume and Penny as Pip and his beloved. We switched from our Mutual Friend (the triangle of faraday, widmore and desmond)Unless he has sudden change of heart, Widmore will likely be reading Our Mutual Friend as he dies.
2. Nobody wants to be Mib or Jacob or the new Jacob. Jonathan Edwards' famous sermon applies. God wants all light, all the power. they are dead meat. Along with the wicked witch and her successors
3.Dostoyevsky: ws are doling the parts of the 4 brothers Alyosha = Hurley (whose power exceeds Jacob's the holy one). Sawyer = Dmitri the unjustly condemned. Jack = Ivan who has played too long with a shabby devil (Locke). There is nothing worst than misplaced faith. Smerdyakovthe illegimate son, small, and evil, the real killer who hung himself (a slight change in victims on LOST).
4. But there are slices of Paradise waiting. The famous question about the shadow of the statue is a trick, a sign of who is going to cut the cake. Lapidus, Ben, Hurley, Hume, Faraday, Burke. From the Latin, this person is NOT a liar. This person is buried (dead) or reclining in the shadow (living). He gets to play the deity for 60 minutes Like PJ Farmer "TO YOUR SCATTERED BODIES GO" no take backs, no give backs, Final Judgment.
"
2. Nobody wants to be Mib or Jacob or the new Jacob. Jonathan Edwards' famous sermon applies. God wants all light, all the power. they are dead meat. Along with the wicked witch and her successors
3.Dostoyevsky: ws are doling the parts of the 4 brothers Alyosha = Hurley (whose power exceeds Jacob's the holy one). Sawyer = Dmitri the unjustly condemned. Jack = Ivan who has played too long with a shabby devil (Locke). There is nothing worst than misplaced faith. Smerdyakovthe illegimate son, small, and evil, the real killer who hung himself (a slight change in victims on LOST).
4. But there are slices of Paradise waiting. The famous question about the shadow of the statue is a trick, a sign of who is going to cut the cake. Lapidus, Ben, Hurley, Hume, Faraday, Burke. From the Latin, this person is NOT a liar. This person is buried (dead) or reclining in the shadow (living). He gets to play the deity for 60 minutes Like PJ Farmer "TO YOUR SCATTERED BODIES GO" no take backs, no give backs, Final Judgment.
"
venerdì 14 maggio 2010
the ruthless god
Hi sean, this is the mortal veil with some answers.
1. this is an island that God (the jealous God of Hebrew, Christian, and Islamic Faiths) wants.
2. as i have written the woman is a rival the jealous God. The God of Abraham does not any female deity. It's a man's world. Again Grant's The history of ancient israel pp24-6; pp47-9 andEliade's A mistory of Religious Ideas, chapters 6,7,9,12,14,15 explain it all.
3. The first clue was the cocaine virgin marys: God turned the female goddess into his vessel. The crazy Rousseau, the crazy Claire, the ditzy Mrs. Hawking all make sense. Faraday's dead was a continuation of the WOMAN's MISSION (the mirror image inverted: mother kills son). Boone's death, the sacrifice of the young man, infertility, the trees which lost their leaves all are part Diana's sacred grove.
The central theme of James Frazier's The Golden Bough is how the sacred tree of Diana near has been supplanted by the Ava Marias.
4. There is this ruthless deceiving jealous God who is the redeemer BUT he is equally interested in exclusive rights to all creation. There is this place He wants so He begins to play HIS GAME after WWII(man has become able to destroy the earth)The male GOD wants this power which is supernatural in one sense BUT HE wants to seem a source of power that the 20th century would preceive as part of natural science. Wave after wave of invaders come. MiB and Jacob do not understand why. GOD is trying to reverse Arthur C. Clarke remark about technology. God wants "magic" to seem like "science".
1. this is an island that God (the jealous God of Hebrew, Christian, and Islamic Faiths) wants.
2. as i have written the woman is a rival the jealous God. The God of Abraham does not any female deity. It's a man's world. Again Grant's The history of ancient israel pp24-6; pp47-9 andEliade's A mistory of Religious Ideas, chapters 6,7,9,12,14,15 explain it all.
3. The first clue was the cocaine virgin marys: God turned the female goddess into his vessel. The crazy Rousseau, the crazy Claire, the ditzy Mrs. Hawking all make sense. Faraday's dead was a continuation of the WOMAN's MISSION (the mirror image inverted: mother kills son). Boone's death, the sacrifice of the young man, infertility, the trees which lost their leaves all are part Diana's sacred grove.
The central theme of James Frazier's The Golden Bough is how the sacred tree of Diana near has been supplanted by the Ava Marias.
4. There is this ruthless deceiving jealous God who is the redeemer BUT he is equally interested in exclusive rights to all creation. There is this place He wants so He begins to play HIS GAME after WWII(man has become able to destroy the earth)The male GOD wants this power which is supernatural in one sense BUT HE wants to seem a source of power that the 20th century would preceive as part of natural science. Wave after wave of invaders come. MiB and Jacob do not understand why. GOD is trying to reverse Arthur C. Clarke remark about technology. God wants "magic" to seem like "science".
giovedì 13 maggio 2010
WOMAN
document.write("");
This box uses wikitext-style input
Destinedjourney 21:26, April 30, 2010
I'm sorry to say I did. In my defense, I read it to try to understand people who believed vehemently in the way that the authors of Left Behind believe, to see what it was that I wasn't getting. I don't want to offend anyone so apologies if I do. This book is one in a series which presents a version of the apocalypse. People who disappear are those who accepted Jesus. Those remaining become either followers of a new leader (who does try to present himself as interested in the good but quickly becomes evident to be the devil come again - -guess you could find parallel to MIB), or they go underground in a way and band together against this evil. Not being a believer, I thought it would be good if I could at least understand how people who do believe accept this stuff, but the writing was so poor that I could hardly finish the book. Very, very, cookie cutter style characterizations.
Okay, now all the people who liked this can throw stones
Destinedjourney 21:27, April 30, 2010
MIght I add that,if I remember correctly, the authors even go so far as to have Jewish scholars convert in order to be saved once they are shown the light. Okay, shouldn't have gotten my started....
Mittelman 21:40, April 30, 2010
No, Destinedjourney, you're not alone. Although, I must admit you're a better person than I am. I couldn't make it through more than a few chapters, and I quickly put those out of my head. Not written with a lot of style or imagination. I think the kind of story the writers of Lost are trying to tell may in a sense be apocalyptic literature, which could account for some parallels with common Christian themes.
Annied 21:46, April 30, 2010
I know this is going to be considered inflamatory too. I am Christian and have a deep faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I read the bible as a book of wisdom but certianly not the infallible word of God (was raised Catholic- so there you go!) I have to agree with Destined. Thee writers have rich material to work with here, and this series could not be more poorly written and uncreative. And don't try to pass this off as non-fiction or that they received inspiration because the Jesus I know would be embarassed by this books depiction of Christians in all their self-rightous splendor. He fought against these very types - remember the Pharissees? don't get me started. I actually find the book insulting to "beleivers" and non-beleivers.
BUT I do think there ae some parallels to the LOST story and the Left Behind Series was on Ben's book shelve beleive it or not..I was shocked, so if you beleive as I do that they draw from the books/literature they show in Lost, then I think there are a few parallels that come from that book.
Spoilerhater 22:24, April 30, 2010
I didn't read the original series but i unfortunatley read the Left behind kids series all 40 books thats right 40 books but only because i have a rule
Annied 22:37, April 30, 2010
WOW! 40 books for kids, that is pretty scary indoctrinazation (is that a word)
Sorry, don't mean to offend anyone, both posts are just my own personal opinion obviously.
Hurley's Hummer 01:10, May 1, 2010
"Left Behind" does have some parallels with LOST much like any other book referenced in the show.
In my eyes the book is Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins attempt to try and convert people over to Christanity. Which like Annied said is atrosious(sp?) and the Jesus I know would be appaled by these writings. I too am a Christian but I do not let my religion dictate the way I feel about others, Lahaye and Jenkins try and tell a story that if you don't change your ways you will be not accepted by Christ, which is crap!! It is a story about the Rapture, which if you have ever seen or heard Tim Lahaye speak he is about the most un-believable man of God I have ever heard speak. I can't believe a word he says, just something about him.
@Annied - The book is VERY insulting to believers and non-believers alike. "was raised Catholic- so there you go!" That's some funny stuff. Some in the Catholic religion namely the ones who are supposed to be the most religious turn there back on children (you know what I'm talking about). That's why I am not and never will be a Catholic, just can't trust some of those Catholics.
@Destined - No stones being thrown here, you know your entitled to believe whatever you want. That's what makes us human.
Evanathsma 17:34, May 1, 2010
Just awful. I read the whole series, because I'm a fan of apocalypse fiction, but the whole thing was obvious and contrived and patronizing. Ugh. Just awful.
Destinedjourney 17:41, May 1, 2010
@Annied and Hurley's Hummer, I am so glad to know that there are people like you who can have their beliefs but be rational and not rabid about them. I was raised Catholic and like most who were, we either are totally turned off in our adulthood or continued in traditional, organized religion buying into the church, which is okay if it works for you. What I don't like is when people, like these authors, tell me that my way is wrong and I'm going to the devil. Guess I'll be in good company! That's another thing I like about Lost, it makes one question beliefs and be open to new ideas.
Sean Sheep 18:51, May 1, 2010
I would really be devastated if Lost turned out to be some Fundamental Christian epic.I personally find all this 'rapture' stuff quite bizarre. The people who claim it to be true insist that we should read the bible literally, but when it comes to this stuff, it seems to me that they just let their imaginations and their interpretation of the text run riot.
Anyway,...
I cannot believe that the writers of Lost would alienate a huge proportion of their audience by having a 'rapture' type ending.
Annied 19:53, May 1, 2010
Destined and HH and it seems like everyone who commented on this poor guys post: totally agree! HH, I always love love your comments, so true. Don't either of you get me started on the Catholic church. ;)
In all seriousness, there is something so beautiful in almost all religions. The problem is when people think it is something instituted by God..all religions are instituted by man. Jesus, Budda and Mohammad etc. their spirtuality exceeded any confines of something called religion. Religion is like trying to build a latter to reach God, it is never going to get there, but if it helps you (and only you - does one need to worry about) if it helps you better communicate with God, then it serves a valuable purpose. It is the extreme view, of any religion, that you are not going to xyz when you die unless you belong to our group; it is this where i take issue. And find this series of books and this type of thinking both harmful and insulting.
I hate to say it, but to try to relate Lost to this series trivilizes all we are learning from Lost. I have read many of the books/literature they reference on Lost and there doesn't seem to be one book that really encompasses the storyline. If I HAD to pick one, I would think it might be closest to the Stand, but really it is its own story. It has alot to offer people from different perspectives so if it is more meaningful to one person that it be about "the rapture" and if it is more meaningful to another that it be deeply rooted in Egyptian mythology then they have brigded alot of gaps and they have done something I don't think i have seen done before. And THIS is yet another reason why I LOVE lost!
The mortal veil 22:45, May 1, 2010 edit
Please remember that the American concept of freedom of religion permits not only believers and non- believers, but also freedom of religion allows criticism of religion. I am a Catholic, yet I apologize my stupidity in attending services Conducted by pedophiles. I am ashamed of my Church. I do not find anything of value in the theology Of the Baptist Church (or pick any christian founded after 1500 AD with the exception of a few splinter groups of Catholics and Orthodox). I believe in the actual presence of Christ. We feed on the flesh of God incarnate. I do not want to do violence to any person. I am not anti-semitic. Quite the contrary, Hatred of Jews equals in my mind a hatred of Christ. I do not mean people harm because of their sexual orientation. I do not think most people freely choose their sexual orientation. HOWEVER I think that God need not bother with coming with fire and brimstone. I am sure that we can destroy ourselves. In no way do I endorse Left Behind, CS Lewis, Tolkien, or Pullman. I like my religion Straight. This is a parable: let us discussits meaning. No lions, no hobbits, no disappearing airplane passengers. Want to speak of GOD? Then say it up front. lost is not about religion. It is a story that stands or falls on its artistic merits.
Sean Sheep 23:44, May 1, 2010
This is where I disagree with almost everyone on this blog. Religions, that is, organised religions are not beautiful; they are intrinsically misguided in their aims, and ultimately stultifying to the intellect.
I can see why you think a quest to understand god, the 'transcendental' aspect of religion might be a worthwhile ambition; however that is not the main purpose of religions; they are about control, and they are about ways of shorthanding the thinking process. Every religion, per se, will be based on an assumption, which you need to accept on 'faith'. You need to buy into the religion; to have that faith ; to believe. To do this you need to suspend your disbelief, and that can only mean you must suspend your critical faculties in respect of that particular assumption.
For some, it is the assumption that a particular 'revered' text has been dictated to a messenger by a supreme being;for others, it is the assumption that there is an individual, or group of individuals who have the ability to control & shape our lives. None of these assumptions can be submitted to rational argument or scrutiny; you either accept, or you don't.
What then goes wrong, is that in working through the logic of these assumptions, we then end up with differences of interpretation; for example whether Jesus Christ can be wholly divine and wholly human, or whether he has to be a heterogeneous mix of the whole; or whether dialogue with the supreme being can only be achieved through the offices of a religious organisation whose authority cannot be called into question, or whether the individual is able to commune with the supreme being without any outside assistance, because the individual is responsible only to their conscience and the supreme being.
As an outside observer, the distinctions between such viewpoints strike me as pointless nit-picking; however, in both cases I cited, these factional arguments within the Christian Church caused one side to brand the other as 'heretics', and use the differences of opinion to kill, maim and torture. Once you strike a pose where you claim your side is backed by the Supreme Being, there is no argument with that. Interestingly, both sides in the WW1 trenches had priests of the same denomination blessing theor troops and telling them that God was on their side.
I have no idea whether or not God exists, but if he does, I will tell you this: he does not want any organised religion to fight wars on his behalf, let alone kill, maim and torture on points of logical and philosophical pedantry. Religions are dangerous, because they remove from people the right to question and think for oneself; they demand obedience, and they demand stances which run counter to other religions, this creating conflict. What is worse, they are allowed to do it to children, and they are allowed to do it from a very young age.
You can have a four year old child who is labelled as a Catholic, Muslim or Jew. If an organisation was to profess that it was going to indoctrinate children to be a Communist from the age of 4 there would be a public outcry; however, religions are allowed to do just that.
And before you tell me, yes, I know that religions provide moral codes. However, religions also supply examples of conduct in their stories which codify behaviour which is questionable to say the least for example this one. At least one 'holy book' says that a man should not commit adultery, but it is OK for him to go and have sex with his female slaves.see this reference
I think religions should be outlawed.
Destinedjourney 00:53, May 2, 2010
Lost is not about religion, and yet I think it is. @Hurley's Heroes, I doubt you meant for this blog to lead to this, but really, I think Lost has so many elements of religious faith it isn't funny. Why do people turn to religion? To give them answers to unanswerable questions. That then leads to faith. You have to believe just because you do....With Lost I see how myths become answers to explain that which we can't fathom. Faith in a mystery is held until science achieves a rational explanation. Our capacity to believe is only as great as our imagination. The shame is when one person's way to believe, understand, have faith, answer the questions....is deemed better then another person's.
I once told a silly story on a blog of @Sean Sheep's about how my dog came to understand the mystery of being given treats when he barked at my neighbor in their back yard. My point was just that, if you can only imagine the world at the level of a dog, then who is to say that it is not totally real to him? Why should we presume to think that our intelligence is such that just because we don't understand it, there isn't another answer out there?
Hurley's Hummer 00:59, May 2, 2010
@Sean - Your absolutely entitled to your own opinion. But to say religions should be outlawed is ridiculous. Your obviously a man of science, but to say what you did, just isn't right on any level brotha!!!
DanVader228 01:59, May 2, 2010
Lost isn't about anything. It's just Lost. Most of the themes and characterizations are pretty universal. Even when it parallels other literature; those books are usually full of universal themes, themselves. Reaching all the way back to Homer or the Greek Pantheon.
As far as the Sidebar Discussion: There's absolutely no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. That's why fundamental-theists and fundamental-atheists are equally misguided. Everything should be based on personal experience and your own understanding of the universe. All paths to knowledge and Truth. Even the most enlightened or educated person needs to accept the mystical or unbelievable in order to broaden their perspective and eliminate their own personal biases.
If Jesus existed; he was the anit-fundamentalist. He was a radical, free thinker. Whether he was the Son of God. Or simply the world's most famous and powerful philosopher.
Outlawing religion would do nothing. There are stupid people everywhere. They span all religions and ideologies. Every political party. Nothing will stop them from being stupid. And nothing will stop them from wanting to kill each other. Religion is just a cheap target.
Hurley's Hummer 02:10, May 2, 2010
@DanVader - very true statement about everything being based on your own experiences and understanding of the universe, which by the way in our lifetime will never be fully understood.
Annied 02:19, May 2, 2010
I am with Hurley's Hummer on this - outlawed is a strong word. Especially for a man of science who beleives in all possibilities and the pursuit of finding these possibilities - no search for truth wether it is Religion or not should be outlawed IMO. Has Religion been abused and misguided - absolutely, has science - absolutely, I will give you the Atom Bomb. Yeah, it is great to study atomic structure and what you can do with it, but here it has been used for the ultimate destructive power. There is science out there that is being funded and researched all over the globe for destructive purposes, this you cannot deny and I beleive it is the same with religion. it is rather an unfortuneate trap for those who exploit the power, the hold, religion has on many. But I beleive having a strong enough opinion either way to the point where you are closed-minded to one or the other is a mistake.
I am really enjoying this debate, I respect both science and Faith.
Lionofdharma 02:21, May 2, 2010
I consider myself a spiritual person, but I do not associate myself with any religion. Perhaps that will change in the future, but I what I highly doubt is that I will ever be involved in organized religion again. I feel like spirituality is such a private thing and that there are so many corrupt religious institutions out there that preach intolerance and guilt among other things. I don't know... it's an area I feel very conflicted about. What I do know is that I don't want to force any type of religion on my future kids. There is soooo much of that out there, and I think personal religiosity is something that everybody should determine for themselves.
Mittelman 06:09, May 2, 2010
Outlawed is a strong word; but we've outlawed things less dangerous than religion. Just sayin'.
I work in a library. Forty books is a lot of indoctrinazation (not a word, no, but I like it!). Remember, most of these kids picking up this drivel can barely read. Not the way to make a lifelong reader, but one hell of a way to scare them into line.
There isn't a forty volume set of books for kids about the theory of evolution in our library. Once again, just sayin'.
Basing everything on personal experience etc. is also dangerous. It's what fundamentalists of all stripes essentially do. A broad view says "I know some things, but I can't possibly know everything - in fact it's more likely that I, left to myself, would laze around till I starved, let alone invent calculus. So I'll listen to other ideas, even the ones with which I vehemently disagree. I will do my best to engage other people as though they're serious and intelligent, and I'll try to change my perspective when someone else actually makes sense."
At the same time, it's supremely dangerous to speak of archaic and willfully ignorant ideas in the same terms as those which have mountains of evidence in their favor. When religious ideas don't match up with reality, we don't have to act as though they do. We can respect others right to believe it's wrong to depict Muhammad, or Jesus walked on water, or the Buddha was born from a lotus flower without respecting that they believe it. But respect doesn't mean nodding dully and saying "Yes" when you mean "No".
I'd say we owe it to children to be honest, which is why I find equating false things with verifiable ones more dangerous than anything else. Ideas are not equal.
Tell that to the Texas State Board of Education, though, and they'll tell you where you can go. In fact, some members probably already believe you're going there. Yeah, I know, they're not relativists - but they are the ones who are revising textbooks which will be used in a number of other states, simply because that's how those states afford to buy their books. They piggyback. And so the Texas State Board of Education is deciding for all those children that Thomas Jefferson is not worth learning about, and Intelligent Design is on equal-footing evidence-wise with evolution. Neat.
Regardless, I think we can safely say the ideas represented in the Left Behind books are not things which are "paths to knowledge and truth." As Sean Sheep says, they are "intrinsically misguided in their aims, and ultimately stultifying to the intellect." More than that, they scare little kids and cause them to stay up late freaking the hell out - which is not cool at all.
Someone should teach that controversy: treating your children like people and telling them what's what versus scaring them silly. That would be a nice change.
The mortal veil 06:19, May 2, 2010 edit history
Mr. Sheep. I am a Catholic, and I am ashamed of my religion. I do not attend mass or contribute to the Church financially. I believe in the the contents of the Apostle's Creed and the "real presence" of Christ. I am proud of the intellectual achievements of my faith; however, the problem I have is simpler. I belong to a faith full of leaders who are pedophiles. One bad apple does spoil the barrel. Religion should not be outlawed. The criminals within any particular religion deserve severe punishment. I critize only my faith. But agree with you about the "guns in hands and God on our side" lie. I could go on for hours debating philosophy. But your case is proven up to the point of outlawing religion. That I cannot endorse. Freedom to think stupid thoughts is every person's right. The freedom to commit crimes is not. The motive in 99% of cases is important to understand in order to determine punishment. The devil, God, or patriotism are not mitigating factors.
Sean Sheep 07:44, May 2, 2010
@The Mortal Veil
I do not base my argument on one or two 'bad apples', nor do I base my argument on one or two events, such as the heresies of Catholicism, nor am I limiting my arguments to one faith. see here for a quite damning set of evidence.
Rather, I am saying that the very act of organising religious activity causes events such as these. The main purpose of a religion is not to help you to believe in God, or any other Supreme Being or Beings, you can decide to do that (or not) pretty much on your own; the main purposes are firstly to provide you with a codified set of assumptions about what the world is, and the way that it works, which you must buy into in order to become a 'believer'; secondly to provide you with a set of moral imperatives, and codes of behaviour, by which you must live your life, and thirdly to organise collective acts of worship where those with like beliefs can pursue their activity safe in the comforting knowledge that there are others who think the same. There is a fourth aspect, which anyone who has experienced particularly spectacular versions of football matches where their team ultimately triumphs in the face of adversity, lived through a great collective event such as the death of Diana or the destruction of the Twin Towers, or witnessed a spectacular musical performance, such as a production of Aida set within the backdrop of the Son-et-Lumiere of the Pyramids. This aspect is the ecstasy experienced when the intellect and or internal 'spirit' is lifted up to a realm which appears 'other worldly'. Such things might have a 'spiritual dimension' to them, but their explanation could equally be more mundane: see Timothy Leary's book called "The Politics of Ecstasy" this describes 8 levels of consciousness, the 5th of which is The Neurosomatic Circuit (Zen-Yoga Mind-Body-Connexion). Now while I don't buy this for one minute, to me Leary's explanation of the 'religious experience' is as good as any that I have heard from any religious adherent. I know that people have epiphanies, I know that some claim to be 'born again', and I know that eastern mystics can attain mental states which put the connection between their mind and their bodily senses into a state where they see visions, do not suffer physical pain, or they can perform events which, in the normal course of events, seem miraculous. However, for every event that you can name where someone has done one of these things as a result of religious activity, someone has don this through an act of fear, aggression, bravery, humanity or just sheer force of will. The woman who lifted a car to save her son did not do this because of some divine belief, she did it in an adrenaline-fuelled rush.
Organised religion is not necessary to attain ecstasy, but it is a method of control which has been used since the dawn of time. Stonehenge got built, not by the believers in one god, but by a society which was heavily into ancestor-worship, and animism. The labour involved in hewing stones by hand from the Mountains of Wales, and then lugging them half way across the English countryside was phenomenal. The people did not do that because their ancestors were telling them to do it, but because they believed their priests and mystics who told them it was a good idea. (they also got to participate in drunken orgies as a reward, but that's another story) The 'mystics' had secret knowledge which they used to control the population. The priests at Stonehenge used the device partly to work out celestial events, and decide when to plant crops, when to harvest, when feasts should be held, but also as a temple where the population could witness a ritualised performance, and wonder at how the priests knew such stuff. How ironic it that Stonehenge, actually gets built not by the people who actually possess the knowledge to build it, but by the people who are then subjugated, as a result of its use. They effectively built the means of their own enslavement.
The history of religion is littered with such stuff. You can of course argue, that it's just people who behave in this manner, and you can't blame god. I'm not blaming god. Religion, is simply a man-made concept, and as such suffers from the same sorts of organisational flaws that any man-devised idea has. The problem with religion, organised religion that is, is the claims it makes for itself: the claim to speak on behalf of god, the claim for ultimate truth, and the claim that if you do not follow the religion, you will be eternally damned. It is these absolutes which are dangerous, because they are extremist views, all of them. They do not allow for the possibility that the religion could jut have got it wrong. That idea in itself is very dangerous, especially when people begin to act on the assumption that if all the non-believers are going to hell anyway, we might as well rid ourselves of them now.
I think every person of faith, should take a long hard look at the religion that they subscribe to and ask themselves: what if, just what if, they have all got it wrong? Just think back over the course of history: if people who believed so ardently (for example the Jownestown cult) could have got is so wrong, then it is not the ardency of belief that makes you correct; equally, if you are a Christian, and ardently believe that Jesus Christ is the literal son of God, then how can you account for the fact that for every person like you, there is an ardent Muslim who believes in the same god, but is equally convinced that Jesus Christ was simply a prophet, and not the son of God. I am not trying to debate religious point here, I am simply saying that these were all believers in the 'same' god, and they can't both be right. If religion does have a monopoly on truth, then surely there would be only one religion, and it would be so obvious that we would be forced to believe it. To believe in any one religion, brings with it the belief that every religion apart from the one you have chosen to believe in must have it wrong. However, that is what everyone must think. Therefore, just ask yourself this question: "Why would my religion be any different from all the others out there?"
The mortal veil 16:09, May 2, 2010 edit history
I have posted my reply twice. To quote shakespeare "I offend as to make offense a skill". (henry IV part 1, actI, scene 2. As these inquisitors, witch hunters, sacificers of human life, I can assure that I would attempt (and, of course, fail,for frail old man that I am I'd fail) to dispatch them to God for judgment. Perhaps they are right. However, the only way to be sure is provoke their death and let God decide. This concept that we are judged after death is the subject of St. Jude's brief letter in the New Testament. If they are right, they have nothing to complain about; their 15 dark eyed virgins await them.
Mittelman 18:31, May 2, 2010
@The mortal veil: The only way to be sure is provoke their death and let God decide? I know you were addressing Sean Sheep, but that is a ridiculous statement. Your "solution" provides no certainty, only gets someone out of your hair. The only way for you to be sure would be to kill yourself. I'm not suggesting you do it, but ending a person's life doesn't do anything for the rest of us. It only answers the question of whether anything happens after death for them.
Perhaps I'm thick - that statement just sounded incredibly pompous. It certainly illustrates the kind of thinking Sean Sheep is talking about. How do so many people with zero evidence their religion is more right than any other hold such absolute views? It makes no sense.
Kris2000 19:02, May 2, 2010
I´ve skimmed through it. I found it to be rather trite.
Left Behind is a pretty big franchise, with movie adaptations, computer games and whatnot.
However, it´s not really SF or fantasy, but rather preachy religious fundamentalist propaganda disguised as scifi.
It has an interesting premise, but buries it deep under heaps of questionable moral lecturing. I´d recommend The Langoliers instead.
DanVader228 19:04, May 2, 2010
The atrocities of religious institutions could be laid out by the thousands. However, there are benefits for people to be a part of a religious community. No matter the creed that they subscribe to; or the limits to which they push their dedication. For every car-bomber or child molester there are hundreds of devout, peaceful believers. I don't think that generalizing is a sound, scientific strategy.
I am not personally religious. I don't attend church. I don't believe anything written in religious texts. I think fundamentalists are dangerous. But dismissing it completely based off of generalizations is just a poor argument. Like I said, all paths to knowledge and Truth. That means reading "Left Behind" or the Koran or attending Catholic Mass or speaking with a Born-again Christian in order to gain some perspective, and hopefully free yourself from bitterness and judgment. You don't have to automatically subscribe to any of it, but there could be a kernel of Truth wrapped in a giant turd package.
The mortal veil 19:50, May 2, 2010 edit
I have a problem with weapons pointed at me. i have a problem with anybody that has a weapon in my presence. Pompous,no. I am a frail old man in a world full of dangerous people. I would like to remain frail and alive. Removing such people also diminishes global warming, provides oxygen to the rest of us. John Donne wrote that every man's death diminishes me. He was wrong. But I will tell you of man whose death diminished me. The last survivor of Hiroshima died in the 1st month of 2010. Children die because political consideration prevent the eradication of polio. Save your tears for the 13% of Ugandan children who are HIV positive. I do not have time to cry for murderers no matter what perverted version of god or what flag they represent. I shall leave to God and hope he rapidly receives such persons. After all Justice delayed is justice denied.
Annied 21:06, May 2, 2010
Sean: i have thoroughly read your argument and I am quite familiar with all of your references including the earlier biblical reference to the biblical hero who acted as a pimp, prostituting his wifes and daughters. Read the Red Tent for a great reference on this material. I have read this as voraciously as I have read about quantum physics.
The mistake you are making is that you are equating religion with God, spirtuality, and Faith. This is a mistake and not consistent with how you would look at anything else, so I dare say Sean Sheep, you are letting your bias control an aspect of your thought process, the very thing you are accusing "beleivers" of doing. Afterall, there are plenty of faithless religious people, the faithless are not only atheist.
Beleif/Faith is something you do not seem to understand, or at least it appears that way in your above arguments in my opinion. So on this subject, your credibility is shot. To me you are looking at something that is multi-dimensional in a very two-dimensional way. You are not trying to discover the source, you are only interested in discovering the effects from a source you know nothing about. So to someone who HAS Faith, your argument makes no sense. Just as someone who speaks to you from a position of faith makes no sense to you.
Take the schroedingers cat theory and apply it here. It says the same thing. We are all living examples of our beleifs, for some/for many we are victims of our beleifs. It is a very easy trap to fall into. If your beleif is the source of your experience and you think it is the other way around, you my friend are trapped in a very shroedingers cat way.
For all of us, It is blinding arrogance and the epitomy of stupidity to think one can know all the answers. And one answer that you don't know can change your beleif and all of your future experiences.
Afterall, relativism is just another codified set of assumptions that you must buy into to beleive in relativism. Sounds like another religion in a way, call it what you want, but until you discover what Faith means, you really will not understand how different it is from religion and science. And until you open your mind to all possibilities you are subjecting yourself to the exact same entrappment that you do seem to have studied and studied well.
Destinedjourney 21:41, May 2, 2010
I actually think that Sean is doing the opposite of what you are saying Annied. He is not equating religion with God, spirituality and faith. His criticism, and mine, is that "religious" people seem to label themselves and others as spiritual only if one adheres to man made religious beliefs. This organized religion is dictated by man made rules and laws. They are only as good as the people who do the organizing. If you can believe that Moses and Jesus and Buddha, and Mohammed and other prophets were divinely inspired than so be it. Given that most of the New Testament was not written until 50 years or later after Jesus' death and that Christianity was not recognized or established until the 4th century AD when a group of men got together and hammered out agreements about what they would and wouldn't believe, it makes it very hard for me to live my life according to their rules. Being raised a catholic, I was told by nuns at my school that it was too bad I would never be in heaven with my mother because she was methodist....these are the kind of man made religious rules that, btw, are still being modified today according to so called religious experts' whims, which I'm sorry, are just nonsense. @Lion of Dharma, I have worried that my children will be treated differently because I have never had them baptized. Having children does make you have to really think hard about what is important to impart to them. I have never, never, worried that they will suffer eternal damnation because someone didn't sprinkle water on their foreheads when they were months old. I hope to raise them as spiritual, caring members of the human family. Books like Left Behind which would judge me and threaten my family with being separated in whatever afterlife there may be are terribly insulting.
and like I said earlier, I do recognize that you and Hurley's Hummer who have expressed your faith on this blog are not the closed minded religious zealots who I am talking about. Unfortunately, too many so called religious faithful do not share your open mindedness.
Lionofdharma 21:46, May 2, 2010
@destinedjourney: spiritual, caring members of the human family — I like the sound of that.
Sean Sheep 22:57, May 2, 2010
@Annied
I have heard many times before the argument that "you can only understand faith if you have it", and I find it exasperating.
I have also heard the claim that everyone has beliefs, even if that is simply a belief in methodological realism, instead of a belief in God. I do not agree with that. I think we hold working hypotheses which we recognise have a varying degree of truth . In everyday life we use such hypotheses: we hypothesise that when we flick a switch, the light will come on; we hypothesise that when we leave our house it will still be there when we return. If it were not so, we could not live our lives. However, these are only pragmatic hypotheses: if challenged, we would admit that the bulb might habe blown, and the light may not come on; and there is always the possibility that our house will be blown away by a tornado before we get home. We admit that the hypotheses could be wrong.
I do not think that there is anything other than 'working hypotheses'; a 'belief' is simply a working hypothesis which has got out of control. In other words, we do not allow ourselves the possibility that it can be wrong. In my world, everything is up for grabs, and nothing is certain. In fact, I have one certainty only: This is the only statement which can be assumed to be true without proof.
I take 'belief' to be a shorthand for the varying degrees of investment that we have in our hypotheses: we can take statements to be 90% true, 50% true or 20% true. No statement is 100% true; however, as shorthand, I am willing to "believe" provisionally in anything which I assess to be more than about 90% true. However, I accept the possibility that it could be wrong.
Faith, to me, is simply this degree of investment we have in our working hypotheses. I can have faith in a particular course of action; I can have faith that a particular person will act in some predicted manner, and I can have faith in a deity.
Note that none of this involves any reference to an organised religion.
Given what I have said above, I do not understand how you can claim I know all the answers. It is the exact opposite. My system of thinking requires me to accept that I know none of the answers.I can argue with you, and I can have opinions, and I can express them. Are they true, are they valid? Possibly, but only with varying degrees of likelihood.
The mortal veil 05:46, May 3, 2010 edit
ladies and gentlemen, i accept the contents of the Creed (Nicene or Apostle's), transubstantiation, the assumption of Mary, The immaculate Conception of Mary. Whatever else is the personal opinion of some one who i may or may not agree with. the Bible is open to interpretation. The problems of translation alone are considerable. My "faith" is purely intellectual. Morality is a separate matter.
Annied 18:33, May 3, 2010
@Sean: I have heard your argument before too, yet I don't find it the least bit exasperating. Why, because i recognize it for what it is, your beleif different perhaps than my beleif.
I understand what you are trying to do with this one unproveable assumption you have decided to accept. You understand the power of beleifs and the dangers and limitations of them. So you are trying to get away from any beleif (or certainty).
You understand that if you choose with certainty you run the risk of not being open to all possibilities (everything is up for grabs). It is a noble pursuit indeed - for what, I have no idea because you certainly can't be looking for answers.
But nonetheless, you have chosen to beleive that it is ok to have one assumption you can not prove: Everything is up for grabs and nothing is certain. and of this you claim to be certain. Although how can you be certain if nothing is certain.
I recognize the convenience of this beleif system, i just cannot tell you what you are hoping to find, because finding answers is of the table. And rightfully so, we as humans cannot know all the answers.
Yet, you have chosen a codied system for yourself, much like a religion and you have decided to limit yourself to only considering the things that are up for grabs that have no certainty. So now you are not considering all possibilities because you have taken those possibilities with certainty off the table.
How do you know everything is up for grabs? How do you know nothing is certain? you don't because you do not know the answers and even if you consider an answer you will not consider it an answer at all at least not by 10%.
This is a codified beleif that has limited the possibilities for you. I know you think not, because you are both considering all possibilities and the not-possibility at the same time (nothing is certain-except of course your one certain assumption) It has the possibility of being a very free and open way of considering. But what it is really is sytem of non-beleif so this in and of itself is a limitation you have agreed to. Very similar to an organized religion.
It sounds to be that you beleive: 1. It is ok to have one assumption that needs no proof. You must then agree that someone else may also have a different assumption that needs no proof.
2. Everything is up for grabs and nothing is certain.
3. You have no answers.
4. Yet, Organized Religion is one possibility that should be outlawed and not "up for grabs".
Interesting paradigm, yet yours is also constructed by man.
Annied 20:42, May 3, 2010
I also want to say, in case it did not sound like it above, that I do not think anyones post including the original post is wrong. Quite the contrary, I find this to be a fun enlightening debate. I appreciate everyones willingness to share their beleifs or thoughts and how they arrived at them, I find this to be a great learning experience. Lost seems to be a medium to discuss these interesting subjects, one of the many reasons I love Lost. I have alot of respect for all of you and whatever your thought may be...I just get caught up in the debate for the intellectual stimulation. Thank you for this opportunity.
Destinedjourney 20:47, May 3, 2010
I think it's great that you feel this way Annied. I enjoy a good debate as well. When I said Lost is about religion in ways I did not mean that it IS a religion. Lost uses so many religious allegories and explores the themes that religions address, which is part of what makes it so compelling.
Now if we really want to get a heated discussion let's talk politics - - NOT!!
Annied 20:56, May 3, 2010
Ha Ha - no poltics! I really enjoy your thoughtful perspectives. I don't often get the opportunity to explore different ideas that span mythology, physics, religious beleifs, fate vs. free will etc portrayed on a medium that makes it fun to talk about. I am grateful that there are some really incredible minds on here to learn from - whatever the subject maybe. I feel like it is a gift, even if I do get carried away once in a while. :)
DanVader228 01:17, May 4, 2010
Well stated Annied. I was once of the mind to dismiss all semblance of faith from my life. I was jaded and arrogant. However, I could not make a strong enough case to identify as an atheist. I found out, as you did, that either extreme was impossible to prove rationally. An argument against God possesses the exact same measure of faith and assumption, and lacks all of the same "evidence". So neither was an attractive alternative to the other.
So I was at another crossroad, unable to make a strong case for myself. The end result was realizing that there is value in having faith; if for no other purpose than the positive impact that it has on peoples' lives (when issued in moderation). Now I identify as agnostic; basically I believe there probably is a God. I just don't believe anything that anyone has ever said about Him/Her. Maybe it was the cheap way out, but I've rid myself of disillusion and anger, while avoiding all the pitfalls of fundamentalism or hypocrisy.
The same argument that I believe gives credit to the idea of Faith, allows me to better tolerate the idea of religious institution. As stated before, I think fundamentalism is dangerous. However, having faith or following a religion do not require proof of their value. One can incorporate, sparingly, ideas presented in a religious fashion, and can arguably measure the impact.
If the case against religion is based on a perceived negative impact on its followers and society at large; why can a case not be made to the contrary. That the millions of people who find peace, happiness, love, understanding, and an increased quality to their lives are living proof of its success. I suppose either way you cut it, it ends up sounding like a generalization. The point is, if one argument holds sway; then the other is intrinsically true.
The short story is that if faith or religion work for people, then there is no real argument against it. Measurable proof lies in their success.
That doesn't imply that we should all jump on board blindly. As I said, moderation is key. The same goes for any creed you follow; science included. When pushed to an extreme the idea becomes ridiculous at best; dangerous at worst.
Annied 01:38, May 4, 2010
Thank you DanVader: I really enjoy your posts as well. I especially like how you are illustrating that Faith in an entity other than yourself can deliver different possible ideas than you/yourself maybe able to conjure up. I think some call it inspiration, but it is at least another way to discover what, as you say, you will incorporate to whatever degree. And I could not agree more that if "one argument holds sway; then the other is intrinsically true".
I also got alot of meaning from your point above:
"Even the most enlightened or educated person needs to accept the mystical or unbelievable in order to broaden their perspective and eliminate their own personal biases."
Good stuff!
Mittelman 20:33, May 6, 2010
Wow. Too much to respond to here. Wish I hadn't just lost my home computer. Seems one point of view is overly represented on this blog.
"Even the most enlightened or educated person needs to accept the mystical or unbelievable in order to broaden their perspective and eliminate their own personal biases."
Nope. Everyone should accept there are things we don't know, absolutely, but to say everyone should accept mystical things is ridiculous. There is no evidence whatsoever of anything mystical. Does that mean we know everything? No! How could it? But by saying everyone should accept things for which there is no evidence, you're not eliminating your personal biases - you're reinforcing them! You should accept there may not be anything mystical. I'm not saying there absolutely is no mystical aspect to reality, I'm saying we don't know. No one should say absolutely there isn't anything mystical anymore than people should say there is.
"I was once of the mind to dismiss all semblance of faith from my life. I was jaded and arrogant. However, I could not make a strong enough case to identify as an atheist. I found out, as you did, that either extreme was impossible to prove rationally."
Hmmm. So anyone who can't find a way to believe, to have faith, is jaded and arrogant? See how that's another definitive statement? People have beliefs for different reasons. I tend more toward the Sean Sheep school of everything being up for grabs because it makes sense to me. It obviously doesn't make sense to some people. How can we exist in a world where both of these things are true? I don't know, but it seems we do. Personally, I think we should be open to either possibility. People are not in control of their own minds completely. I don't believe what I believe out of choice or out of coercion, but a bit of both. I was indoctrinated into a lot of beliefs as a child, like altruism, which were forced on my brain. I still think they're good ideas, but that's because I was a victim of brainwashing. I can't ever know whether these ideas are really, intrinsically "good" (if there is such a thing). It doesn't cause me to say people who aren't altruistic are bad. I certainly think they make life harder, but that's my bias - something I can try to see, but not something I will ever be able to rise above. I have biases, and recognizing that is a lifelong struggle. Every time I think I've overcome it, I'm wrong. It's a constant balancing act.
Besides, shouldn't the idea you can't prove one side or the other rationally push you toward the middle rather than to one of the irrational sides?
"The point is, if one argument holds sway; then the other is intrinsically true."
That statement is not even wrong. It's rhetoric which translates to nothing. Personally I don't think that argument against religion has any strength, so I avoid it; but saying religion is wrong because of its evils (perceived or otherwise) is short-sighted, imo, just as saying the opposite is, as well. The problem is not with religion but dogma. Religion tends to produce powerful dogma, which is why opponents of religion jump on that argument. But the best argument is still against the unrelenting dogma and the stranglehold it implies. This is across the board and should apply to everything, not just religion. It produces these arguments about how people who reject faith are arrogant. Some of us just have no faith. I don't try to avoid it, I'm just into evidence. So I guess I should say I have weak faith, because I do have a bit of faith in evidence. But I have zero faith in things for which I have seen zero evidence.
Like the mystical aspect of life. Many times, things which we once thought mystical get explained without using supernatural explanations. Does that mean there aren't any supernatural explanations? Of course not. But it should at least imply there is no arrogance in saying the jury is out on whether there is anything supernatural. Wait-and-see is not arrogance.
Talking about "Jesus did thus and such at this specific time and date" or "Moses led the Israelites through the desert for forty years" is certainly arrogant. I will not respect someone saying those things, because there is zero evidence for them. Jesus may have existed, Moses probably did not. But I could be wrong on both those counts and have no problem, because I'm not going to get in someone's face and tell them they're arrogant (which this does not constitute, at least from my perspective).
However, my lack of belief is arrogance? No, sorry. My lack of belief is something I think about every day, something which is part of my personal growth. Believing a man walked on water? That's not just untrue, but demonstrably so. It's never happened, and I don't have to respect it as a belief until someone shows me some evidence it could happen in some other way than being a trick. It's a childish belief people have every right to hold, but it's not arrogant of me to say it's not true. At the same time, I'm not running up to people telling them it's not true. If someone asks me my opinion, I'll tell them. Other than that, who cares?
And The mortal veil, stop. You don't have guns pointed at you, and if you do you have no way of knowing the religion of those holding them. Don't believe the hype. You're probably not in danger from Muslim terrorists anymore than the rest of us. A fundamentalist with a bomb is a fundamentalist with a bomb, regardless of religion. Remember, the former president of the USA was a fundamentalist Christian (George W., in case someone was wondering), and he took us to war against "evildoers". Dropped some pretty big bombs on them. When what you wish for is the end of the world, you're dangerous, no matter to whom you sing when you worship, or whether you worship at all.
Perhaps if we all stopped telling each other we're idiots, we could just listen to each other. I'd promise not to mention I don't believe in God or gods when we're discussing poetry, and others can remember not to praise the Lord when I finally catch a fly ball in a pick-up game - a true miracle if it ever were to happen!
The mortal veil 05:39, May 7, 2010 edit
I am a self-professed idiot. It is my profound pleasure to find that in your world view, I remain one. Let us pick the person described by both Jews and Christians as Being The Most Dangerous Man Alive, Spinoza. Read him.
Mittelman 06:51, May 7, 2010
Just reread what I wrote. If you find I implied you were an idiot, or that I was speaking to you alone in any spot but the place I addressed you, I can't see it. I do see where I said we - all of us, including myself - should stop calling each other idiots. If you think I find you an idiot because I don't respect your beliefs, you're putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. The two things are not mutually exclusive. If you think they are, perhaps that's the problem there: you can't be cool with people whose beliefs you don't respect. Well, that's your right, I guess, but I have to wonder why you wouldn't try understanding. I'm not asking you to talk to the kids with guns, just to listen to someone other than yourself.
And why would you assume I haven't read Spinoza? If I were inclined to be insulted...damn.
The mortal veil 19:12, May 7, 2010 edit history
I do not go around asking for respect. I just ask that I am left alone to voice my unpleasant opinions. I have so many unpopular opinions that I qualify as an idiot to all possible factions. I refer to Spinoza because he is an historical figure that lived a life in which he managed to offend every political/religious faction and every strata of society. I wish that I had the heroic virtue of that mad philosopher. As St. Isidore writes: "I believe what is impossible". My duty is to serve God because God has bought me with His suffering just as God's Chosen People are the Jews. It is a matter of contract. It has nothing to do with respect, it is simply a matter of property. No man may justly own another human because we are the property of God. (This last phrase comes the academic scandal of mid- 19th England, the defection of the leading intellect in the Anglican church to the Roman church. This thought belongs to John Henry Newman). It is not the silliness of Lewis or Tolkien: no cute animals, no hobbits. It is a fundamentally different view of the world.
Beelzebubbles101 19:56, May 7, 2010
I don't think it's right to brainwash children into religion. Should leave it till they're 18 or so and have a enough knowledge and a little life experience to have some chance of making an informed decision on their own. We have the very sensible concept of "age of consent" for sexual matters - that kids under a certain age are not able to fully think through the consequences and make an informed decision. Choosing or not choosing a religion is just as big a decision in your life, and it should be left until they are of a suitable age. Most religions would probably suffer a severe decline if the followers weren't indoctrinated from day one. "You want me to believe WHAT? That's insane. Who dreamed up this fairytale?"
Mittelman 23:46, May 7, 2010
@The mortal veil: "I have so many unpopular opinions that I qualify as an idiot to all possible factions."
Gotcha. Now I understand you: a person who finds his/her identity in being the eternal rebel. So I see there's no point in addressing you further (I will, though, because I love pointless stuff), since you have no desire to discuss, just to piss everyone off. Rather childish, but that's just, like, you know, my opinion, man.
As to the whole "God bought me with his suffering", I've heard it. Was raised a Christian and continue to study it. Problem here is, when someone actually makes the kind of sacrifice you're talking about, they do it to free others. It's not a purchase which has been made. And if it is, then it's not a gift, nor any kind of sacrifice. Besides, even the most excruciating pain is not a sacrifice if the person going through it knows it serves a greater purpose and that they will survive.
Like this: let's say I have a debt. Without my knowledge someone pays it off. I keep trying to pay on it and the creditor won't let me because it shows paid. I do not acknowledge payment, but they show the debt paid. Whether I choose to acknowledge it or not, I no longer owe anything.
Or, is original sin the problem? Because then you have to wonder why God punishes everyone for a decision which was not our own. So now we're responsible for our ancient ancestors sins? Except they didn't exist. Hmmmm.
Have fun with your windmills!
Mittelman 23:47, May 7, 2010
Beelzebubbles: right on. Totally agree. Age of consent for everything else, why not religion? I would've refused to go to church as a kid if I had been allowed.
Destinedjourney 23:55, May 7, 2010
@Mittleman and Beelzebubbles, I promised myself I would stay off this blog anymore but now you raise the issue of children and since I like your opinions, I would appreciate more of them. My dilemma, when I had children, was that how could I give my children a choice if I didn't expose them as children to the upbringing and rituals that are so much a part of a religious family's life? I felt that if I did not expose them to the teachings that are so predominant at a young age, they would not have had the whole experience of religion to either choose for or against. I compromised by finding a methodist mother's day out program and having them go for about 3 year to sunday school there. About the most they got out of it was when I asked my son, then about 4, if he knew what Easter really was (i.e. not just hunting for eggs filled with candy). He said yes, it was when Jesus died and 3 days later came back normal - I figured that was close enough. As soon as they scattered to different schools and didn't have the same friends as in sunday school they lost interest and I stopped forcing them. I do still make them go to a christmas church service with the threat that they can't get any presents if they don't appreciate the meaning. But it is hard when they don't have the ritual. What do you think?
Beelzebubbles101 00:23, May 8, 2010
@Destinedjourney - thanks. But I would never claim to be able to offer any practical advice on raising children. I don't have any yet. In a couple of years maybe ! Everyone just does the best they can, or at least they should be. I guess I will teach my kids that some people believe this and some people believe that, like liking or not liking different kinds of food and drink. And there are some kinds that should wait unitl they're older. Like whiskey LOL
Mittelman 02:05, May 8, 2010
Yes, Destinedjourney, thank you. Have to side with Beelzebubbles101 in saying I don't presume to know how to answer you. The question is a difficult one. Personally, I think the problem is the way brains form. Obviously our brains never stop forming connections, but the child's brain does it like triple time. They form connections they don't need, and those die, which is fine. An overly stressed brain, however, becomes flooded with cortisol, that stress hormone which causes adults to gain weight around the middle. In children it causes them to stop making those conections, which is bad. Obviously.
Raising your children in the fire-and-brimstone type church exposes them to so much fear and stress that it seems clear to me it has the same effect on the brain. Many fundamentalist churches basically tell their young people they are filthy, horrible sinners who deserve hell. They also tell them they are fighting a war against real enemies who are invisible. Some of these children really believe it. Who's to tell a five year old who thinks she's at war she's not? I shudder to think of all the kids with PTSD running around who've never actually been to war.
Obviously I have a bias! I was raised in a number of churches like this, and I've seen it in churches all over the USA. In person. But you have a good point. Perhaps you should expose them to many religions? That's just the default pluralist answer. I think it's good you're seriously thinking about it rather than simply forcing them every week for eighteen years; but I couldn't begin to give advice, other than to plead on behalf of your children you don't bring them to a place which will tell them they are evil little buggers who deserve to burn eternally.
I've already got a feeling you'd never do that.
Lionofdharma 02:11, May 8, 2010
I plan on not exposing my future kids to religion. I think it might be valuable to teach them about different religions in an age-appropriate manner and on a very superficial level. I see that more as teaching them about different cultures rather than trying to indoctrinate them into any one religion.
Mittelman 05:10, May 8, 2010
Lionofdharma's right on, and in far fewer words than I could manage.
The mortal veil 11:13, May 8, 2010 edit
I was a scholar of religion for my whole life. i was in profound opposition to it. I do not attend mass nor do i give financial support to it. i do not support pedophiles. If mr lionofdharma does not plan to expose his children that they will not understand Moby Dick Which is direct response against the Biblical God. Also algebra, presocratic philosophy, most of Western art to 1700, the writings of Hesse, Graham Greene, the 8 fold path of the Buddha, Kant, the early Fitche, William James. I am not telling anybody to go church. Far from it. Be a rebel, doubt. Skip the school that does not permit prayer. Maybe you can find a place where there is free access to books. look at Mortimer J. Adler's List of Great Books. Read Prisig's objections to the list (the Chicago program) in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintence. The hell with conformity, decide for yourself. I am a rebel. But do you expect that I grant you anymore than the space to expel your carbon dioxide and the freedom to say what you please. Tolerance, yes. Respect, no. I seek not to convince; I seek only that there are places to read for one's self and the freedom to express one's view. It does not matter if find the view disheartening, I have the right to it.
Lionofdharma 12:25, May 8, 2010
I'm Ms. Lionofdharma, actually. And I didn't say that I wouldn't expose my kids to religion at all; I said that I would not attempt to indoctrinate them to any one religion, but that I think it would probably be of value to give them some sort of superficial knowledge about the history and basic tenets of different religions -- kind of like what you'd find in a wikipedia article, but age-appropriate for kids. I figure I'm not going to know exactly what I want to do until I actually have kids; this is merely speculation. At this point I have no ties with any religion, and I'm completely against organized religion. I want my future kids to be able to make their own decisions (as adults, of course) in regard to whether they want religion to be a part of their lives.
Also, any good teacher is going to make sure to impart his/her students with basic knowledge of the tenets of any sort of religion that is salient to the topic at hand. Plus, I'm going to have some smart kids, dammit!
Lionofdharma 12:25, May 8, 2010
double post
The mortal veil 13:24, May 8, 2010 edit history
Madam, Thomas Jefferson, an obscure Virginian of the 18th century did not believe that blacks were the intellectual equals of whites. He did believe that the pope and the catholic church were the enemies of civil society. For the former, see his amazement at the work of Rittenhouse, a black scientist of the period. Mr. Jefferson was outspoken on the issue of the divinity of Christ (lack of divinity) and the diabolic nature of Catholicism. Yet on his tombstone, he ordered written only three things author of an obscure document written in July, 1776 (endowed by their Creator...), the statute allowing religion freedom in Virginia (even to those hated Papists), and founder of the University of Virginia. If you live in the US, you might apply a bit of thought to Mr. Jefferson's example. The sacrifice of personal prejudice and the importance of learning (greater than being President). Also the sacrifice of personal opinion made by both Hamilton and Madison in The Federalist Papers. I believe you need to plan ahead as Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Hamilton, and Mr. Madison. Oh, let me tie to this LOST--Juilet Burke. As in Edmund Burke, a brief biography and his views on established religion are well worth considering. Also speaking of floating islands and eggs, try a sour satirist by the name of Swift. As with Lost, his protagonist is a doctor, Gulliver's Travels is a book well worth your time. There are plenty of eggs and two theories as to how crack them. This is just the beginning... I do not live in the United States. I regret this. and is more, every secret confinement, every restraint on our liberty is another victory for our enemies.
Finally, Lincoln suspended civil liberties. He derived no joy from this. After Lee's surrender, he ordered the Union band to play Dixie. "Malice toward none... charity for all." Victors are rarely so generous. It is all about character. Bill Clinton was wrong.
Lionofdharma 13:29, May 8, 2010
@ the mortal veil: Um, did you mean to post your comment above in this blog? If so, how on earth does your comment have anything to do with the topic at hand?
Just Sayin' 13:45, May 8, 2010
Interesting discussion. All of you have my admiration for being able to articulate your perspectives. Please forgive me, if I may not be quite as articulate. Also, I recognize this may be a bit off topic, however, after reading many of your thoughts, it has inspired me to share my thoughts. Here is my attempt to provide a personal perspective.
There are merits of all perspectives expressed and we are all entitled to our personal beliefs. One can disagree with anothers belief and still admire and respect another's perspective. A person of faith and a person of science will live out their belief in the way they live their lives.
We enrich our personal lives when we open ourselves to a variety of perspectives. All of us base our beliefs on what we personally experience and incorporate into our lives. We incorporate what we personally believe. And by opening our minds to recieve a variety of perspectives we give ourselves a greater range of options. Our beliefs are played out in the manner in which we live our lives and guide us as we face free will in our choices.
Some of us are judgemental in choosing a right and a wrong way in choosing our beliefs. However,it may not be up to each individual to judge right and wrong when it comes to personal beliefs. All of us will experience the consequences of our beliefs, regardless as to whether our beliefs are right or wrong.
The differences in our beliefs may come down to whether we base our beliefs on faith or in science. Personally, I feel that if your beliefs are based in science or faith, the very existence and witness of Jesus and his faith can be inspirational. But only if one is open to his perspective.
Whether you believe or do not believe in Jesus, there may still be something we can glean from his example. Jesus offers forgiveness even when we find it difficult to forgive ourselves. The very existence of Jesus is an acknowlegement that we all experience flaws within ourselves. It is an unequivical fact, that none of us are perfect and therefore it may be beneficial for us to be more forgiving of others even when they may not be forgiving of our flaws. The point given all of us, is that it is better to be forgiving vs. judgemental as we all have our personal flaws. There may be a greater personal peace in being forgiving vs. judgemental.
The manner in which Jesus lived his life can also be beneficial. Jesus gave his love to ALL people in spite of their flaws. My personal belief is that this kind of love could be beneficial to all whether our belief is based in faith or science. To me it becomes a matter of free will in the choices we face throughout our lives. We choose how we love one another and we choose how we forgive one another. Those choices are important whether your beliefs are based in science or faith.
My perspective regarding organized religion, are in line with the fact that religion over the years has been organized by none other than man and all of our flaws. Therefore, by its very nature it is flawed from the beginning and there should be no surprise in this dynamic.
The laws of religion are not perfect and when one takes these laws in their literal terms, we are in fact choosing to live in conflict with the the very example of Jesus. A forgiving and loving man open to all people regardless of their personal beliefs. Jesus had a profound belief that all mankind can find their way through the grace of a higher being.
Once again, it comes down to our free will and the choices we make in our lives journey. We benefit ourselves and others in our forgiveness and the manner in which we love one another. This is true whether your beliefs are based in faith or science.
Bringing all of this back to LOST - It does seem to me that the LOST series does provide several examples of this perspective.
Destinedjourney 14:19, May 8, 2010
Thanks for all the opinions. Not having kids doesn't mean you can't give advice, since as young adults you are where my kids are going to be in the not so distant future. Speaking of the little buggers, couldn't get my computer time away from them after posting last night. @Lion of D, of course your children will be smart - mine are geniuses : ) @Mortal, believe it or not you have helped me in realizing that there is great literature out there that as long as my children are exposed to they will have the benefit of many great thinkers on the subject of religion and just life in general. I realize now this is what @Sean Sheep was talking about when he posted elsewhere that art/poetry are a type of worship or religious expression. @Just Sayin, you're right, Lost is an example of this as well.
I had naively believed when I had children that they will innately be predisposed to do the right thing. I am seeing, instead, that a world view as well as inner reflection must be encouraged. Ya'll have inspired me to work harder on this. Don't get me wrong, they are GREAT kids and will probably save the world some day, hah! And to people like @Annied and @Hurley'sHummer, please don't worry. While I don't believe that Jesus was the divine personification of God, I do believe that there is a god within all of us which Jesus hoped we would respect. If everyone did live according to his teachings (and not the interpretations by man of those teachings), the world would be a better place. This is what I tell my children...and then they roll their eyes and say "oh mom, we know" because of course they know everything and I know nothing!!!!!!!!
Mittelman 17:35, May 8, 2010
But you don't tolerate other views, The mortal veil! You would try to dispatch terrorists to God! Admitting you would fail for frailty doesn't come close to tolerance. Admitting paedophiles are horrid creatures isn't anything other than having a drop of humanity left in you. And, apparently I wasn't that far off about the windmills, if your last post is an example. You were in full-on Don Quixote mode there.
I never said you should respect views with which you don't agree. I said you have a hard time tolerating those with which you vehemently disagree. It's clear you do. I don't respect your beliefs and I've said as much - but with respect, whether you ask for it or not, because I'm a halfway decent human. That's being reasonable. I'm willing to hear your side if you can lose the vitriol.
Oh, and you should read more carefully. I actually said you have every right to hold your beliefs.
Mittelman 17:45, May 8, 2010
Lionofdharma has it right again: any lit teacher worth his/her salt would give enough background on assigned materials for the students to understand. Also there's this reall cool thing called the Internet. It's got lots of information for kids wanting to understand the deeper aspects of whatever stories they're reading.
And saying one needs to understand religion to study algebra? So that was my problem in school? Wow. I'm callng my dad. He got on my case for not applying myself, when all along it was his fault for failing to expose me to Islam.
Mittelman 18:02, May 8, 2010
Just Sayin': "We benefit ourselves and others in our forgiveness and the manner in which we love one another. This is true whether your beliefs are based in faith or science."
Agreed. This encourages people of differing beliefs and backgrounds to discuss. Personally, I think it's important to expose oneself to this kind of diversity, especially among people who can be reasonable regardless of where the discussion goes (notwithstanding a little snarky humor...).
In fact, a lot of recent neuroscience shows the plasticity of our brains is positively affected by frequent encounters with beliefs with which we don't agree. Looks like debate is healthy!
HorribleEyes 18:16, May 8, 2010
I've heard it said that extremists of any kind are never a good idea. I'm Christian, but I practice tolerance. I have always been taught it was not my job to judge, and I am no better than anyone else. Self-righteousness is also never a good idea...in religion or science. I wish to offend no one, just stating my opinion.
The mortal veil 18:21, May 8, 2010 edit
L.dharma:My tirade above was a crash course in the Anglo-Saxon view of modern european history. Quite a relevant matter for looking into the education of Doctor Linus. Juilet (Edmund) Burke will tell you that jefferson, madison, hamilton, and burke are the central thinkers of the Angolo-Saxon model in more than 210 years of mod eor hx.
The mortal veil 18:38, May 8, 2010 edit history
Mittelman: 1.That tall redhaired violinist T jefferson stated that my right to be a troublemaker came from God: endowed by their Creator (july 1776) 2)Algebra is Islamic, so is much of St. Thomas Aquinas' world view: he ripped off islamic scolarship as well as jewish scholarship, often paragraphs taken directly from their "pagan" authors. Let's not even consider the chapters of bryzantine theology that crept in; there is historical justification for that. If you ever studied philosophy, you got the same problem with your dad. Aquinas is another example of everything converging. (recall the book jacob was reading as Locke fell). St. Thomas is the official theologian of the Roman Catholic Church. Who says the Vatican is not open to diversity. There is that plagiarism. "We steal the best and condemn the rest"
Mittelman 17:05, May 9, 2010
The mortal veil, that was Jefferson's opinion. While I feel he is important to study as an historical figure, I give his opinion about so-called spiritual matters very little weight since he - like everyone else who talks about "god-given rights" - provides no evidence. I don't think we have any, so I don't expect anyone to provide it - but the fact he offers none is still an important point.
Algebra is not Islamic. It was invented by Muslims, but it is just a mathematical tool; it has no religion itself, and one need not understand Islam to grasp its concepts. My sister was a whiz at it, and calling her knowledge of Islam slight would be putting it mildly.
Talking about stealing in regard to philosophers has as much relevance as talking about candy-making techniques in reference to architects. Philosophy is just a search for knowledge (yes, literally the "love of wisdom", I know), a place where ideas from throughout human cultures can, in your words, converge. Trust me, my advisor in college was an Aquinas expert, so I've had my fill and love to bash the man; but he simply learned from many sources. You agree that's different from stealing, yes? To say he stole flies in the face of your convergence argument, anyway.
Here's a question for your fuzzy mind: if everything converges, why would one ever necessarily need knowledge of an idea's source to understand the idea itself? If one wishes to be an expert in some idea I'd understand; but laypeople can stick to the ideas themselves to catch the gist, if not the full depth.
Sean Sheep 17:17, May 9, 2010
@Mittelman
The origin of 'algebra' is Al-Kitāb al-mukhtaṣar fī hīsāb al-ğabr wa’l-muqābala by al-Khwārizmī.
In the book, al-Khwārizmī does not use anything that we would regard as algebraic notation; indeed most of the methods used to solve his quadratic equations are geometric and linguistic. The development of symbolic algebra (i.e. algebra as most people would recognise it)really only came to fruition in the late middle ages, and some would say that it was only with Descartes that algebra actually became a mathematical tool as opposed to a descriptive device.
sorry; I re-read.I appear to be just agreeing with you.
The mortal veil 17:58, May 9, 2010 edit
@Mr. sheep you forgot to mention Leonardo of Pisa's work which he "borrowed" from both Islamic and Byzantine sources. Aquinas lived in the late middle ages. His work was meant to replace Augustine's theology (415 AD); Augustine did not know Greek either. His work smells of Plotinus (and his Pseudo-Platonism) and Persian dualism filtered through other cults. Also you seem to ignore St. Severio or Boethius: the author of seminal the Consolation of Philosophy as precursor to our Islamic colleague. Also there is alot of linguistic algebra in Boole, Peirce, Russell, whitehead....
Dante was two generations younger than Aquinas. 1100 is the beginning of the end of the Middle Ages. A single after Dante (e.g., 1350), the Greek language came back to Florence.
@Mittelman: the "everything converges" phrase was pure irony. The origin of ideas is quite relevant. His ignorance of greek and the absence of the actual texts (i.e. the Greek Bible and Plato and Aristotle without the layers of varnish) make much of what he wrote defective. That argument was 1st made by Erasmus around 1500.
I am a Catholic, but I am not uncritical. Very little converges. Very few things are both true and valid. the crack: We steal the best and condemn the rest was ironic.
Mittelman 17:33, May 10, 2010
Very few things are both true and valid? Logical positivism is beyond old news, Don Q. You seem to continue drawing from an outdated deck.
The mortal veil 19:06, May 10, 2010 edit history
The last 30 years of American history have certainly vindicated you. Erosion of the Bill of Rights is not new. Wilson and FDR were guilty of it. But we have had a vindication of Nixon's view of the presidency has been vindicated. Going back a bit further, if these free- to - choose abortion rights activists are so interested in freedom of choice, why has no one proposed a national vote on the question--leave God out of it. He is not a resident of the USA. Let there be a vote. You can also add one about abolishing the first ten ammendments (the Bill of Rights). Since it has already happened, why not formalize it. Your deck is marked with the lies of a world where a few do the thinking. My deck does not include Hitler, Mao, Lenin, or Franco as its kings. I am sure that the american people would make the same deal as The Grand Inquistor offer. Abortion on whim for free ESPN and the right to own thermonuclear devices (for home security -- we cannot discard the second ammendment). Now I am dealing from deck. My hands feel dirty.
The mortal veil 19:35, May 10, 2010 edit
please do not regard the grand inquistor as that cardinal that Dostoyevsky wrote about. It used to be Dick Clark. Now I am not sure if its vince mcmahan or simon crowell. Of course, the grammatical error in the last line was intentional;dregs as in what I deposit in the septic tank of human history. Let me more specific: Julius Groucho Marx was a far better thinker than Karl. George Carlin is a better model than Bill Cosby. I would take those 7 dirty words over 1984's political and social cant. I hate my chains. How about you, Mr Alpert. Do not blame religion or government; the right thing is to simply walk away. Jacob AND MIB remind me of the Who's lyric "new boss, same as the old boss.
Sean Sheep 19:40, May 10, 2010
@The Mortal Veil
Wow, we are finally talking the same language. Fibonacci, in Liber Abaci (1202) did certainly draw on Islamic Sources; these came via Spain and via Arab traders ito Venice. Baghdad in the 8th century was a centre of learning that kept the Greek candle of learning alight for centuries; renaissance in western Europe would never have happened without latin translations of arabic translations of greek texts.
many people know Fibonacci (Leonardo of Pisa) through his rabbits; as pair of rabbits takes one year to mature, then breeds every year to give another pair of rabbits. How many pairs of rabbits do we have after 1,2,3,4, etc years? This gives the answer 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21, etc, the ratio of successive terms lead to the golden ratio 1.61803399, found in nature, art, sculpture, architecture, and A4 paper. The erms in the sequnce is found in sunflowers, pineapples and pine cones. One of the interesting facts about this ratio is that 1/1.61803399 = 0.61803399
Mittelman 19:59, May 10, 2010
@The mortal veil: "Your deck is marked with the lies of a world where a few do the thinking."
Okay, I was having a little fun at your weird little statements, but now you've gone too far. My deck is stacked with lies? First off, I don't even know what deck you're talking about, since I've only reacted to your statements rather than made any of my own. I don't necessarily buy into a "side" in any debate, I'm not shilling for a point of view.
I don't see the problems as things we can solve simply by "walk[ing] away". My world isn't so black and white that I know any "right" answer.
One reason a national vote on abortion is an idiotic idea is the people shouldn't have the "right" to vote to take away the "rights" of others. It's what's happened in my home state of California on the issue of same-sex marriage. Another reason there hasn't been a national vote on abortion rights is that's not how our system of governance works. It's a representational government.
I'm just getting mad now, so unless this is going anywhere, I'm done. I keep forgetting you're in this just to piss people off rather than learn anything.
The mortal veil 21:48, May 10, 2010 edit history
I note below that Annied has asked for truce. So be it.
Annied 22:05, May 10, 2010
Ok, I am going to try to call a truce between you people on here, and I admit I may be partially to blame for this blog turning into a rant about how smart and well read we all are. But now there are personal insults flying around about peoples beleifs and political leanings and I beleive we are all more enlightened then to "go there".
I apologize to Hurleys Heros for taking a somewhat condescending tone and for anyone I may have offended.
Sean Sheep 22:25, May 10, 2010
@Annied
Aw shucks, and just when I understood something that @The Mortal Veil said; and he mentioned my favourite mathematician of the middle ages.
Mittelman 23:25, May 10, 2010
@Annied: Smart and well-read? I thought we were just talking about ideas. That can certainly get complicated. The reason I started to get more personal with The mortal veil is how absolutely pompous he started sounding. Anyone who thinks they are so right that they would "dispatch [terrorists] to God" isn't listening to any side but their own.
I really wish, rather than calling a truce (which, IMO, only has bearing in war when people are actually being wounded physically, instead of in their pride), you would answer some of my criticisms of your arguments. I try to be as open-minded as I can be, but stop short of being so open-minded my brain falls out of my head, as they say. Do you like DanVader's comments simply because you agree with them? I notice he hasn't answered any of my criticisms, either. All good, this blog is so far down the list most people aren't checking it; but here you are, so could you possibly add a little? How is it everyone open-minded must believe in supernatural things, or at least stay open to that possibility? I mean, are you open to the possibility of fairies? I'm not saying all religious belief is analogous to believing in fairies, so please don't misunderstand me. I'm asking: where does one draw the line between ideas for which there is no evidence which one must also be open to, and those one can say "I'll believe it when there's any evidence to support that idea"? The idea of "the supernatural" is certainly a more complex idea than that of fairies, but both have the same amount of evidence in their favor - i.e., none.
I'm not talking about things like love, because that is subjective, and also question-begging (e.g., "what is love?" or "does love exist?" etc.). I'm talking about real evidence, concrete evidence. Not anthropic principle stuff, either. None of this circumstantial stuff. I'm not saying you need to provide evidence if you don't have any. I'm asking why it's arrogant of me to take no stance on a question at all which has no evidence in its favor.
Mittelman 23:31, May 10, 2010
@The mortal veil: Mad and angry are interchangeable terms in American Standard English. Don't know which you speak, since you keep flip-flopping on whether you're from the USA or not. You are and then you're also not, so I can't get it straight. Too bad my memory's not much better than it is, or I'd be able to remember more of what you wrote before you edited your response. I'm not into truces regarding these kinds of discussions, mostly because I'm in the minority being attacked most of the time. I'm a nonbeliever, second-class citizens in the USA. I know, whah whah whah. Not trying to cry, and I don't want special consideration - just saying I don't back down from this stuff because I'm always expected to demure to people who start off calling me names, then want a truce.
Mittelman 23:34, May 10, 2010
@HurleysHeroes: I do want to apologize to you, however, since we are all to blame for hijacking your original topic. Personally I think things were getting interesting for a second, till Mr. Veil decided his "piss all sides off" agenda was more important than dialog; but the original hijacking was all of us, and I apologize for my part in that.
Lionofdharma 23:39, May 10, 2010
**cough**cough**Iamopentothepossibilityoffairies**cough**cough**
Lionofdharma 23:41, May 10, 2010
Wait, what? I didn't say anything.
Annied 00:03, May 11, 2010
@Mittleman: I apologize if I have offended you somehow. I have re-read your comments above and I am not sure what it is that I haven't or you would like for me to respond to. You and Mr. Veil seem to have been heading down a political path, not sure I am qualified to argue in this arena unless the topic is a little more specific and even then not sure I am interested or want to go there on a Lost blog. Lost is alot of things but what the USA is or isn't, not sure I see a relationship.
Yes, I like Dan Vaders argument because it sounds like we agree and I like the way he is articulating his argument. I like Sean Sheeps argument, and we do not agree but I like arguing with him nonetheless and I like some of the arguements you have made above (especially the ones I agree with - just kidding) but the tail end of the debate is where you lost me...To be perfectly honest, i really enjoyed the debate and think it is liberating for all views to be considered up until there were blatant insults and then it just seemed a bit redundant and unfortuneate at that point.
Ask me anything you would like, I love these debates but from your comments above I am not sure what it is you would like for me to respond to.
do I beleive in the possibilities of fairies: Yes. do I beleive that in order to be open-minded you must beleive in supernatural occurances - not necessarily, depending on your view of open-mindedness.
Destinedjourney 00:04, May 11, 2010
@Lion, I am clapping ; D and I think I am seeing a flicker!
Lionofdharma 00:09, May 11, 2010
Hee, me too. Wait, what do you mean those are really lightning bugs? Pshaw.
Destinedjourney 00:13, May 11, 2010
Did I forget to mention that the protagonist of Left Behind was a pilot? But seriously, @Mittleman, I think you brought up awhile ago about Texas taking out Jefferson (and putting in Phyllis Schafly might I add) in the social studies curriculum. I live in Texas, do you, or are you concerned because of the impact Texas' spending has on decisions made by other states? I also lived in Oklahoma my senior year in high school (way back in the dark ages). Would you believe that out of 5 students who took the english advanced placement exam (which in itself was a disgrace given it was a class of over 300), there was a question re: pick a book that was written prior to the 20th century and discuss why it is still relevant today, and I was the only one who did NOT pick - you guessed it - the Bible. (I picked The Scarlett Letter). Exposure to literature is so, so, important and good teachers, like the one I had in my high school prior to that, outside of Chicago, can make all the difference. Anyway, forgive the digression.
Annied 00:15, May 11, 2010
@Middlemen: I went to your first post and re-read it and really appreciated it the first time I read it and found we were almost saying the same thing:
I like this especially:
Like the mystical aspect of life. Many times, things which we once thought mystical get explained without using supernatural explanations. Does that mean there aren't any supernatural explanations? Of course not. But it should at least imply there is no arrogance in saying the jury is out on whether there is anything supernatural. Wait-and-see is not arrogance
I totally agree with this statement. We make a mistake if we say that because one mystical thing turns out not to be mystical than there are not mystical things, yet it can also be true that some mystical things just haven't been explained or "proven" yet making them un-mystical.
My "bias" is that Faith and Science or two very different things and that with discernment either or both can be used in the pursuit of discovery. If I am disciplined enough to beleive in all possibilities either process has the potential of selecting the possibilities that I choose to beleive in and then it just becomes a system of finding supporting evidence for my own beleifs system. Which doesn't do much in the way of advancement.
SmellsLikeCarrots 00:25, May 11, 2010
All books are evil, invented by the MiB to cloud or minds
Mittelman 00:59, May 11, 2010
@Annied: Obviously this subject is too emotional for me to be anywhere near objective. I admitted that somewhere up there. Since I have no computer at home any longer I can't give very good responses unless I'm at work. I will try to respond well when I get home...although I have to use my stupid iPhone, and my thumbs get tired.
Basically, the part of what I wrote you quoted about mysticism is my main point: things we have no definitive evidence on require no conclusions. So, God: believe or don't, doesn't matter to me. It's when people start saying "If you don't believe this about God, you're wrong" that I get lost. Does that make sense? I'll explain better later.
Annied 01:06, May 11, 2010
That makes perfect sense to me, I am ALL about that. Who are we to say what God is about? Who are we to say what beleifs are right and wrong?" I keep seeing the same themes showing up in both of our arguments. The job we are trying to do as humans is not the job we are qualified to do, nor meant to do and when we start doing this about anything, let alone God is where "we fall from grace" in other words, we slide down the slippery slope of limited thinking, limited understanding etc.
Mittelman 03:05, May 11, 2010
@Destinedjourney: I don't live in Texas, but I'm interested for the other reason you mentioned: the effect these textbooks will have on other states. That and the fact I think revisionist history is ridiculous. I don't know why people who actually believe a thing feel it serves their purpose to make up evidence in its favor.
I agree about the power of literature. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the imagination to critical thinking. It also helps make one a flexible and well-rounded person.
Mittelman 04:04, May 11, 2010
@Annied: I reread everything and I'm not sure I agree about insults. Certainly a heated exchange, colorful and sarcastic - but I don't find the insults. Everyone has different definitions, true. I was more frustrated originally by the cavalier way with which you and DanVader had been discussing nonbelievers. I'm over it now, but then The mortal veil started and, you gotta admit, a lot of that stuff borders the surreal.
And he admits he likes to piss off both sides, which is no way to dialog. What we should avoid, unless we're defending ourselves, is talking about our beliefs by belittling those of others. Like I said, I will give my opinion when asked, no problem; but I'm not going to start telling someone they're wrong from the jump. Something has to be directed at me - even indirectly, as in the discussion between you and DanVader.
The common thing to do in discussions about faith and science is to choose a side. I generally head for the middle at that point, because I see a bit of both; but just as often I'm in the I don't know camp, which is a third option completely distinct from the middle: in this case a wishy-washy both/and I just don't get.
My question really was: how is it arrogant to say I don't know? And you've basically answered me by saying it's not. Cool. But I really do mean what I said in that portion you quoted. I don't find there to be any evidence for the supernatural, so I don't have beliefs about it. Everyone else is free to imagine what they want about it, I just wish they would admit they were imagining. I love imagination, as I said to Destinedjourney above. I just find it more productive to use our imaginations on ourselves than on the outside world.
Religion claims to try helping with self-discovery, but it's generally a set of rules and little else. The arts, on the other hand, can be more than that. They are flexible and powerful enough to teach us about ourselves, to help us see things we had never seen before - and without, if we allow it, separating us from each other. It doesn't force dogma on us which conflicts with reality, even though it can take us to places which don't - and possibly couldn't - exist. I wish we'd use it more often as a tool like this rather than simply for entertainment. It's for this reason I love Lost so much. It's as perfect a distillation of all the humanities as we've ever seen in a primetime drama.
As for the fairies...once again, everyone's entitled to use her/his imagination as he/she sees fit. Me, I'd rather just be surprised should I ever happen to see one! This is why
Mittelman 04:09, May 11, 2010
Sorry for that last part. The sentence fragment was supposed to go elsewhere. Grrrrr.
Annied 06:29, May 11, 2010
@Mittleman: I am truely sorry if any of my comments were insulting to you or anyone else. It was not my intention to discuss non-beleivers in a cavalier way as I respect both non-beleivers and beleivers point of view. Sean and I were having an extended discussion on our talk page and on other blogs and perhaps that was carried over, I hope that was not my tone but sometimes in posts it comes across differently than intended. I am surprised tht it was taken this way and cannot find any references I made to non-beleivers that was 'cavalier' but again, my apologies, not my intention at all. How is soemthing in my comment to DanVder directly or indirectly said to you? again, i dont see it, dont get where you are coming from with this.
As for your comments above about Imagination. there is a blog from "Mistimus: Mind blowing symbols in plain sight" that I think you will find to be an interesting and well researched piece delving into mysticism and imagination. You may like it, I found it to be very artfully discussed.
As far as fairies: I guess I should have said that I beleive in the possibilities of Fairies existing before and perhaps in the future, I too should be quite surprised if I were to see one. but then again I beleive in Jedi knights also ;)
Lionofdharma 06:39, May 11, 2010
Fairies are awesome. 'Nuff said.
The mortal veil 08:49, May 11, 2010 edit
@mittelman: I will do you the honor of conceding defeat. In this manner, you need not consider yourself, a person of the second class. I am an American who lives outside the US for reasons that have nothing to do with politics. For the sake of peace, I shall not open any of my newer decks. I have more than one: reproductive endocrinology, the north American response to European pyscho-analytic theories, and an attempt at the synthesis of scientific and theological aspects of the singular and collective aspects of anthropology. This work is availble in scientific jornals in the case of the first "deck". The other two "decks" are copyrighted. They have ISBN numbers and EAN numbers. Of course, I have stuck to the old decks because they do not infringe on my own copyrights or those of the journals that have published my work. I also have a patent which I will not discuss. Now you have all the information to find me.
The mortal veil 09:03, May 11, 2010 edit history
@mittelman: I am an American who lives outside the US for reasons that have nothing to do with politics. For the sake of peace, I shall not open any of my newer decks. I have more than one: reproductive endocrinology, the north American response to European pyscho-analytic theories, and an attempt at the synthesis of scientific and theological aspects of the singular and collective aspects of anthropology. This work is available in scientific journals in the case of the first "deck". The other two "decks" are copyrighted. They have ISBN numbers and EAN numbers. Of course, I have stuck to the old decks because they do not infringe on my own copyrights or those of the journals that have published my work. I also have a patent which I will not discuss. Now you have all the information to find me. my work is a matter of public record.
Sean Sheep 09:32, May 11, 2010
What have I missed here by sleeping? Wonderful debate.
I just think that what I am hearing is the continuation of a debate about people who believe in X, and say that you cannot understand anything unless you believe in X, because X is the be all and end all of everything, and people who say that nothing is certain, and 100% belief in anything cannot be valid, as nothinbg is certain, and in any case, total belief in something, including X, just limits your viewpoint.
However, there is a third way, which actually I think that most people adopt. Many people hold "working hypotheses" about all sorts of stuff, many of which are contradictory if they were fully worked out. Let me give you one example: I am a commited vegetarian and respect animal rights but I wear leather shoes. (Even I wonder about how I can do this at times). Hypocritical, well, maybe, and I have had this argument with many people. The point is, I am not alone here; many people hold amazingly contradictory views. George Bush was a committed Christian, yet his reaction to the Twin Towers was not "turn the other cheek", but to declare war on terrorism. Now don't get me wrong here, I am not making judgements, I am pointing out that we all hold contradictory views in our heads simultaneously. These are "working hypotheses" about the world which work well for parts of our world, and we hold onto them because they appear to work for us. The problem comes when someone claims that a view is so all-encompassing that it works for everything (and, even sometimes, for everyone) I for one, find such a view very difficult to swallow. I cannot see how any view, which is the product of human intelligence, could actually be so good that it could explain, account for, or be a model of reality.
It seems to me that the History of Religion should provide us with a few lessons here. Very early peoples had loads of Gods that worked in very specific circumstances; one was for the sea, another was for the sun, etc. When monotheism was invented, there was hell to pay in ancient Egypt. King Tut's dad had a really difficult time convincing his followers; they built a new city in the desert to celebrate this idea, and within 30 years it was derelict, and they had gone back to the pantheon of gods they had before. You can see the birth pangs of monotheism in the Pentateuch; all this "I am a jealous god" stuff is a dire warning to believe in one god only. The stress here on all of this, means that people really found this a very very difficult idea. Is is totally counterintuitive. Now that does not mean it is wrong, it just means that it is not obviously true. If you think about the Catholic Faith, it had to invent loads of gods for specific circumstances (called saints), who have powers in specific areas (there is even a saint of Lost causes and Beatles songs - Hey Jude)
What this says to me is that people need a lot of convincing that a single world view can provide them with all the intellectual and spiritual sustenance they need. This is reinfored by the fact that when I look around, I cannot think of any single person who lives their lives according to the rules laid out for them by the religion that they profess to adhere to. Even those who are strict religious adherents sometimes have to compromise their principles. They may regard it as sin, and may feel guilt, and may decide afterwards to atone for these "sins"; the problem is that human life is a messy business, and it is not possible to encapsulate it in any set of rules, laws and regulations. We have a real problem in Western Society with "do not covet thy neighbours ox"; the whole of advertising on TV is based on encouraging us to compare our lot with other people on the screen, and encouraging us to want what they have. However, do I find any religious groups campaigning to have advertising abolished?
People take pragmatic views on what is possible, and often limit the extent of their world views so that they do not cause major conflicts. This is why I wear leather shoes. Plastic makes my feet sweat, and smell; it becomes unpleasant, and I put my principles to the back of my mind every morning when I get dressed. Hypocritical, but pragmatic, just like Western Society, and no different to anyone else. We all make compromises, and this is why no all-encompassing view can be taken seriously.
These are all the reasons why I think that any attempt to hijack thinking into an all-encompassing "the answer is plain, if only you believed in X", just cannot be the answer.
Lionofdharma 09:38, May 11, 2010
Wow, could this get any more ridiculous? Pompous blowhards for the win. I'm certain that there are multiple users on Lostpedia who have been published in scientific journals. Big frickin' deal.
Sean Sheep 10:02, May 11, 2010
@Lionofdharma
I was thinking of publshing an article about my sweaty feet. What do you think?
The mortal veil 10:02, May 11, 2010 edit
I remind you of the prohibition of the use of copyrighted materials on this site.
Lionofdharma 10:21, May 11, 2010
Yes, I'm sure that the International Journal of Perspiration would accept that if well written and researched, SS. I hear that perspiration of the extremities is quite the hot topic in the field as of late.
Lionofdharma 10:21, May 11, 2010
double post
Destinedjourney 14:46, May 11, 2010
I think you've brought it back to Lost here, @SS, in that despite anyone's fervent belief or faith in one way, nothing is absolute and perfect. When looking at Ben, Locke, Jack, Kate, Sawyer, etc. each one has dealt with life's blows according to a framework of what they believe is right and just. It may take some uncovering to get at their motivations and justifications, but once we do, we get an understanding of the difficult choices they have faced. Locke's blind faith only got him so far. Jack's science couldn't explain the reality of what he was experiencing.
Beyond that, Lost is about free will when it comes to choices. Not Jacob's pretense of choice, when he has stacked the decks. The choice is how we perceive our experiences and act upon them. Lost has emphasized memory and memory is subjective. We rationalize and conveniently forget that which doesn't fit into our beliefs. Ben killed his father, he was evil, but to Ben, he remembers a cruel upbringing and a way to redeem himself by becoming a leader. Could he have chosen to behave differently given the same circumstances? Of course. Maybe that's what he did in the FS? It doesn't change what happened, but it does change how we respond to what happened and the ultimate effect it has on us.
Sean Sheep 15:20, May 11, 2010
@DestinedJourney
I keep coming back to the idea that Lost is about memory and consciousness. The idea that each ep used to open with an eye, which was the viewpoint of each person, the fact that we have centric episodes, and the idea that we had flashbacks, all said to me that we were seeing POV TV.
Each person's POV may well be different to another's; you could well argue that one person's POV was their unique universe, just as the flash-sideways could simply be a constructive interpretation of memories in a different way.
In real life, I argue that all that we can do is to observe the world, use our senses, and try to make sense out of those sense impressions; we interpret, and we construct models of what we think is reality. What we are seeing in Lost is precisely that, and there are discrepancies and contradictions because each person believes and sees different things. Locke was a believer, Jack was a scientist. They totally disagreed about the island, what it was, and how to deal with it. Now Jack's world view has changed; he believes that he has a destiny, that the island wants him to do something. It does not mean he is right, any more than it means that the MiB has been acting as Christian. We as outside observers also have no idea what is "real", what is "constructed"; it could be that Christian was resurrected. It could be that Christian is a ghost. It could be that Christian never died at all, or it could be that MiB has been telling the truth, and Chrisitan was always MiB.
The issue here, is that there is no such thing as "truth"; all is interpretation, all is memory, all is construction, and we have to construct our own interpretations just as we are doing now. I firmly believe that the FST is actually just that, a construction, but this construction is somehow different. Possibly it is deliberate rather than accidental, "collaborative" rather than individual. The OT may have been accidental, haphazard or happenstance, in that it is is the type of reality construction that we come across in our lives, the individual construction of reality, where each person on their own tries to make sense of their environment. The most extreme example of this was Desmond, who seemed to be able to reconstruct the whole of reality, simply by revisiting his own memories.
Where there is a collaborative social construction of reality, all must agree, negotiate and collectively understand the phenomena. In order to amend reality under these circumstances, than Desmond's abilities could not function, as it is the collective understanding that holds sway, not that of the individual.
The multiverse provides the basis for all this, and the workings of individual consciousness provides the mechanism for choice. Each person's sequence of choices selects their unique route through the different spacetime manifolds of the multiverse. However, this sets everyone apart, journeying alone along their own pathway, separated from others, making their own decisions, unaffected by, and not affecting any other individual. The Island has made their worlds collide. They have created a community of selves, and created the means for a collective journey throught the multiverse. That may what we are now witnessing in the FST.
Destinedjourney 16:37, May 11, 2010
This is totally getting off the topic of this blog, but I wanted to clarify one thing you say @Sean, "...than Desmond's abilities could not function, as it is the collective understanding that holds sway, not that of the individual." If I understand you, I disagree because it seems Desmond is the only one who can put it all together and then share that view so that each of the others sees what has happened simultaneously and similarly. Otherwise, they continue to work at odds. It reminds me of this : www.xecu.net/schaller/management/abilene.pdf which is from organizational theory. I was fortunate many years ago to attend a workshop given by Jerry Harvey, a professor at George Washington University, who authored "The Abilene Paradox," which explores people's mismanagement of agreements as the crux of many problems. This is more related to how we communicate with each other vs. perceptions, but the losties could certainly take a lesson in better communication!
Ron Fett 16:41, May 11, 2010
I didn't even bother with the book. I just watched the movie. I didn't like it at all.
Sean Sheep 16:50, May 11, 2010
@DestinedJourney
What I love about this place is the variety of experiences people bring to the debates. The Abilene Paradox is going on currently as I speak on the TV between the political parties in Britain. Everybody is going along with a ludicrous situation, and people are telling themselves "welll, this is democracy"
You are correct in that a lot of what has been going on in Lost can be explained by this; the bomb is a case in point. No one thought it was a good idea, but they went along with it. Going to talk to Locke was the worst idea possible.
About Desmond. What I was saying is that in an individual (solipsistic-type) construction of reality, Desmond appeared to have the ability to reconstruct his path through the spacetime continuum. However, if the construction were genuinely social, genuinely collaborational, that would not work, as he would have to change everyone else's meomories as well as his own. That might work, but it would require him to get all of the Losties together and do it collaboratively. he just could not do this on his own.
Mittelman 19:25, May 11, 2010
@Annied: Like I said, being a nonbeliever in this world means you are constantly insulted, so when it comes to these discussions I am a raw nerve from the get-go. Totally my deal, nothing to do with you. I was just rubbed the wrong way by how you and DanVader seemed to be patting each other on the back by putting nonbelievers down and calling us arrogant. You didn't say it, DanVader did, but you quoted it and said "Good stuff!" - and, since he's not been back to comment, I've directed my remaining questions to you. Nothing you said was directed at me, I know, but I felt belittled and reacted accordingly. As I said, I'm over it now. I have strong reactions, and apologize if they came off as angry etc.
"Belief" gets thrown around a lot, so I have a question for you: what is the difference between your belief in the possibility of fairies existing, your belief in the supernatural, and your belief in Jedi? I know, you're joking to an extent; but I want to understand. Obviously the word belief means different things to you depending on the thing about which you hold beliefs. Right? If it doesn't, I'm exceedingly confused. Not that you're to blame for that - I'm almost always confused! But I wouldn't mind some clarification if you've got it to give.
I read the blog you mentioned but couldn't finish before I had to leave work, then had no time to pick it back up at home. I totally agree it was very interesting and hope to get back to it today. I think he/she is correct in saying the writers have been hiding many "keys" to the mystery right in front of us.
Mittelman 20:02, May 11, 2010
The mortal veil, I am a second-class citizen in the USA by virtue of not-believing. There are laws on the books in a number of states barring me from ever holding public office. In Texas (sorry, Destinedjourney, not trying to bash your state, just low-hanging fruit, as it were) a person must "admit belief in a supreme being" in order to run for public office. This means I could admit belief in The Great and All-Powerful Pink Astronaut, who orbits the earth on his Scooty-puff Jr. and controls all the universe with his magic candy cane, and (assuming anyone would vote for me) I could be elected. But if I simply say, "No, the idea of a supreme being makes no sense to me," I am barred from running at all. This is the very definition of second-class. You can also Google "George H.W. Bush atheist citizen" and read what you find there. His opinion is shared by many. These are just some examples.
However: do not concede to me. I wasn't trying to win, just have a discussion. Were I trying to win I would especially be uninterested in a victory by concession. I have no problem losing, and I'll admit it's all me when I do lose. But this wasn't a debate for me, it was a discussion. My passion for the subject may come across as anger or something like it, and I apologize for that. I stand by what I said, though. In a pluralist society it is important to be tolerant of and respectful toward people with whom you don't agree. Not to say you can't be vehement, and it's obvious to all I love sarcasm - it just needs to remain within some realm of respect.
I have never published, have no books or anything in the public record which might help you understand my perspective. For a person who likes to run counter to authority etc., you make numerous appeals to authority...which is a logical fallacy, in case that's outside anthropological endocrinology or whatever. Like many name-droppers and such you seem to be involved in a bunch of disparate fields. I am an not an expert in anything, so I guess I'll concede defeat to you in that arena. You know, the arena you said includes a small number of people doing all the thinking for everyone else...
Seriously, I'm just confused by you. But, as I said, I'm mostly confused in general, so don't lose too much sleep over it.
The mortal veil 20:38, May 11, 2010 edit
I defend your right to be an atheist. Appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy. It is a fair tactic. Personal attack is a fair tactic. Ad baculum (appeal to beat you physically) is not. Begging the question: the bible is true because God wrote, it says so inside is a no-no. Coming in third is secundum quid. Sadists are those who inflict pain. Dentists hurt me. therefore, dentists are sadists. I have no choice but to try to work at many things. I had no idea that there existed anyone else with my surname until I was in my mid-forties. No brothers, no sisters, just me. As I was told in high school, I was told that my foreign parents and my low socio-economic status should prohibit my success. I was an idiot to disbelieve these people. Of course, they were right. I am surprised I survived this long. I would suggest Barker's Elements of Logic. People that talk about Brittany Spears or Sandra Bullock are name droppers. People that speak of Dante, Einstein et alia. are people talking about ideas. Finally, remember the fable about the day the hound did not catch the hare. The dog explained: "For me it was just a day's work, but for the rabbit it was his life. I am that rabbit.
.
Please see my pseudo- mea culpa. The cocaine filled Mary statues, the false priests (both the Spanish and The African one), the sacrifice of her favored son by Mrs. Hawking and Faraday's Christ-like figure lying on the ground, the inability of jacob to save himself from Ben's knife. He was so powerful outside his home in the shoe against Richard. All this points to Across the Sea. Darlton got the name right. Woman is the very latest (historical) a Celtic witch (but she would never speak Latin). She of the female guided Celt culture in which property and power from mother to daughter would never use the masculine language of Latin. Let us go back to the male God. The woman that was made first was called Lilth (see the name in most work on Jewish scripture). She was replaced by a part of Adam called Eve. Adam accepts the male GOD and then the female emerges from him. God never addresses Eve: HE calls her WOMAN. Sin came into the world through Woman. But God has made a creature separate from from creation: Mary the only sinless one, the vessel for the male God who has no father or mother, but "is one in substance with Father" (Nicene Creed). Mary asks for a personal favor: it is Christ's first miracle. The remark can be taken in a variety of ways: WOMAN, WHAT DO YOU WANT OF ME? the usual meaning is that Mary has redeemed her sex by her life. Christ is granting forgiveness to the sex, but not parity. She is the vessel, the conduit to GOD.
This box uses wikitext-style input
Destinedjourney 21:26, April 30, 2010
I'm sorry to say I did. In my defense, I read it to try to understand people who believed vehemently in the way that the authors of Left Behind believe, to see what it was that I wasn't getting. I don't want to offend anyone so apologies if I do. This book is one in a series which presents a version of the apocalypse. People who disappear are those who accepted Jesus. Those remaining become either followers of a new leader (who does try to present himself as interested in the good but quickly becomes evident to be the devil come again - -guess you could find parallel to MIB), or they go underground in a way and band together against this evil. Not being a believer, I thought it would be good if I could at least understand how people who do believe accept this stuff, but the writing was so poor that I could hardly finish the book. Very, very, cookie cutter style characterizations.
Okay, now all the people who liked this can throw stones
Destinedjourney 21:27, April 30, 2010
MIght I add that,if I remember correctly, the authors even go so far as to have Jewish scholars convert in order to be saved once they are shown the light. Okay, shouldn't have gotten my started....
Mittelman 21:40, April 30, 2010
No, Destinedjourney, you're not alone. Although, I must admit you're a better person than I am. I couldn't make it through more than a few chapters, and I quickly put those out of my head. Not written with a lot of style or imagination. I think the kind of story the writers of Lost are trying to tell may in a sense be apocalyptic literature, which could account for some parallels with common Christian themes.
Annied 21:46, April 30, 2010
I know this is going to be considered inflamatory too. I am Christian and have a deep faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. I read the bible as a book of wisdom but certianly not the infallible word of God (was raised Catholic- so there you go!) I have to agree with Destined. Thee writers have rich material to work with here, and this series could not be more poorly written and uncreative. And don't try to pass this off as non-fiction or that they received inspiration because the Jesus I know would be embarassed by this books depiction of Christians in all their self-rightous splendor. He fought against these very types - remember the Pharissees? don't get me started. I actually find the book insulting to "beleivers" and non-beleivers.
BUT I do think there ae some parallels to the LOST story and the Left Behind Series was on Ben's book shelve beleive it or not..I was shocked, so if you beleive as I do that they draw from the books/literature they show in Lost, then I think there are a few parallels that come from that book.
Spoilerhater 22:24, April 30, 2010
I didn't read the original series but i unfortunatley read the Left behind kids series all 40 books thats right 40 books but only because i have a rule
Annied 22:37, April 30, 2010
WOW! 40 books for kids, that is pretty scary indoctrinazation (is that a word)
Sorry, don't mean to offend anyone, both posts are just my own personal opinion obviously.
Hurley's Hummer 01:10, May 1, 2010
"Left Behind" does have some parallels with LOST much like any other book referenced in the show.
In my eyes the book is Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins attempt to try and convert people over to Christanity. Which like Annied said is atrosious(sp?) and the Jesus I know would be appaled by these writings. I too am a Christian but I do not let my religion dictate the way I feel about others, Lahaye and Jenkins try and tell a story that if you don't change your ways you will be not accepted by Christ, which is crap!! It is a story about the Rapture, which if you have ever seen or heard Tim Lahaye speak he is about the most un-believable man of God I have ever heard speak. I can't believe a word he says, just something about him.
@Annied - The book is VERY insulting to believers and non-believers alike. "was raised Catholic- so there you go!" That's some funny stuff. Some in the Catholic religion namely the ones who are supposed to be the most religious turn there back on children (you know what I'm talking about). That's why I am not and never will be a Catholic, just can't trust some of those Catholics.
@Destined - No stones being thrown here, you know your entitled to believe whatever you want. That's what makes us human.
Evanathsma 17:34, May 1, 2010
Just awful. I read the whole series, because I'm a fan of apocalypse fiction, but the whole thing was obvious and contrived and patronizing. Ugh. Just awful.
Destinedjourney 17:41, May 1, 2010
@Annied and Hurley's Hummer, I am so glad to know that there are people like you who can have their beliefs but be rational and not rabid about them. I was raised Catholic and like most who were, we either are totally turned off in our adulthood or continued in traditional, organized religion buying into the church, which is okay if it works for you. What I don't like is when people, like these authors, tell me that my way is wrong and I'm going to the devil. Guess I'll be in good company! That's another thing I like about Lost, it makes one question beliefs and be open to new ideas.
Sean Sheep 18:51, May 1, 2010
I would really be devastated if Lost turned out to be some Fundamental Christian epic.I personally find all this 'rapture' stuff quite bizarre. The people who claim it to be true insist that we should read the bible literally, but when it comes to this stuff, it seems to me that they just let their imaginations and their interpretation of the text run riot.
Anyway,...
I cannot believe that the writers of Lost would alienate a huge proportion of their audience by having a 'rapture' type ending.
Annied 19:53, May 1, 2010
Destined and HH and it seems like everyone who commented on this poor guys post: totally agree! HH, I always love love your comments, so true. Don't either of you get me started on the Catholic church. ;)
In all seriousness, there is something so beautiful in almost all religions. The problem is when people think it is something instituted by God..all religions are instituted by man. Jesus, Budda and Mohammad etc. their spirtuality exceeded any confines of something called religion. Religion is like trying to build a latter to reach God, it is never going to get there, but if it helps you (and only you - does one need to worry about) if it helps you better communicate with God, then it serves a valuable purpose. It is the extreme view, of any religion, that you are not going to xyz when you die unless you belong to our group; it is this where i take issue. And find this series of books and this type of thinking both harmful and insulting.
I hate to say it, but to try to relate Lost to this series trivilizes all we are learning from Lost. I have read many of the books/literature they reference on Lost and there doesn't seem to be one book that really encompasses the storyline. If I HAD to pick one, I would think it might be closest to the Stand, but really it is its own story. It has alot to offer people from different perspectives so if it is more meaningful to one person that it be about "the rapture" and if it is more meaningful to another that it be deeply rooted in Egyptian mythology then they have brigded alot of gaps and they have done something I don't think i have seen done before. And THIS is yet another reason why I LOVE lost!
The mortal veil 22:45, May 1, 2010 edit
Please remember that the American concept of freedom of religion permits not only believers and non- believers, but also freedom of religion allows criticism of religion. I am a Catholic, yet I apologize my stupidity in attending services Conducted by pedophiles. I am ashamed of my Church. I do not find anything of value in the theology Of the Baptist Church (or pick any christian founded after 1500 AD with the exception of a few splinter groups of Catholics and Orthodox). I believe in the actual presence of Christ. We feed on the flesh of God incarnate. I do not want to do violence to any person. I am not anti-semitic. Quite the contrary, Hatred of Jews equals in my mind a hatred of Christ. I do not mean people harm because of their sexual orientation. I do not think most people freely choose their sexual orientation. HOWEVER I think that God need not bother with coming with fire and brimstone. I am sure that we can destroy ourselves. In no way do I endorse Left Behind, CS Lewis, Tolkien, or Pullman. I like my religion Straight. This is a parable: let us discussits meaning. No lions, no hobbits, no disappearing airplane passengers. Want to speak of GOD? Then say it up front. lost is not about religion. It is a story that stands or falls on its artistic merits.
Sean Sheep 23:44, May 1, 2010
This is where I disagree with almost everyone on this blog. Religions, that is, organised religions are not beautiful; they are intrinsically misguided in their aims, and ultimately stultifying to the intellect.
I can see why you think a quest to understand god, the 'transcendental' aspect of religion might be a worthwhile ambition; however that is not the main purpose of religions; they are about control, and they are about ways of shorthanding the thinking process. Every religion, per se, will be based on an assumption, which you need to accept on 'faith'. You need to buy into the religion; to have that faith ; to believe. To do this you need to suspend your disbelief, and that can only mean you must suspend your critical faculties in respect of that particular assumption.
For some, it is the assumption that a particular 'revered' text has been dictated to a messenger by a supreme being;for others, it is the assumption that there is an individual, or group of individuals who have the ability to control & shape our lives. None of these assumptions can be submitted to rational argument or scrutiny; you either accept, or you don't.
What then goes wrong, is that in working through the logic of these assumptions, we then end up with differences of interpretation; for example whether Jesus Christ can be wholly divine and wholly human, or whether he has to be a heterogeneous mix of the whole; or whether dialogue with the supreme being can only be achieved through the offices of a religious organisation whose authority cannot be called into question, or whether the individual is able to commune with the supreme being without any outside assistance, because the individual is responsible only to their conscience and the supreme being.
As an outside observer, the distinctions between such viewpoints strike me as pointless nit-picking; however, in both cases I cited, these factional arguments within the Christian Church caused one side to brand the other as 'heretics', and use the differences of opinion to kill, maim and torture. Once you strike a pose where you claim your side is backed by the Supreme Being, there is no argument with that. Interestingly, both sides in the WW1 trenches had priests of the same denomination blessing theor troops and telling them that God was on their side.
I have no idea whether or not God exists, but if he does, I will tell you this: he does not want any organised religion to fight wars on his behalf, let alone kill, maim and torture on points of logical and philosophical pedantry. Religions are dangerous, because they remove from people the right to question and think for oneself; they demand obedience, and they demand stances which run counter to other religions, this creating conflict. What is worse, they are allowed to do it to children, and they are allowed to do it from a very young age.
You can have a four year old child who is labelled as a Catholic, Muslim or Jew. If an organisation was to profess that it was going to indoctrinate children to be a Communist from the age of 4 there would be a public outcry; however, religions are allowed to do just that.
And before you tell me, yes, I know that religions provide moral codes. However, religions also supply examples of conduct in their stories which codify behaviour which is questionable to say the least for example this one. At least one 'holy book' says that a man should not commit adultery, but it is OK for him to go and have sex with his female slaves.see this reference
I think religions should be outlawed.
Destinedjourney 00:53, May 2, 2010
Lost is not about religion, and yet I think it is. @Hurley's Heroes, I doubt you meant for this blog to lead to this, but really, I think Lost has so many elements of religious faith it isn't funny. Why do people turn to religion? To give them answers to unanswerable questions. That then leads to faith. You have to believe just because you do....With Lost I see how myths become answers to explain that which we can't fathom. Faith in a mystery is held until science achieves a rational explanation. Our capacity to believe is only as great as our imagination. The shame is when one person's way to believe, understand, have faith, answer the questions....is deemed better then another person's.
I once told a silly story on a blog of @Sean Sheep's about how my dog came to understand the mystery of being given treats when he barked at my neighbor in their back yard. My point was just that, if you can only imagine the world at the level of a dog, then who is to say that it is not totally real to him? Why should we presume to think that our intelligence is such that just because we don't understand it, there isn't another answer out there?
Hurley's Hummer 00:59, May 2, 2010
@Sean - Your absolutely entitled to your own opinion. But to say religions should be outlawed is ridiculous. Your obviously a man of science, but to say what you did, just isn't right on any level brotha!!!
DanVader228 01:59, May 2, 2010
Lost isn't about anything. It's just Lost. Most of the themes and characterizations are pretty universal. Even when it parallels other literature; those books are usually full of universal themes, themselves. Reaching all the way back to Homer or the Greek Pantheon.
As far as the Sidebar Discussion: There's absolutely no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. That's why fundamental-theists and fundamental-atheists are equally misguided. Everything should be based on personal experience and your own understanding of the universe. All paths to knowledge and Truth. Even the most enlightened or educated person needs to accept the mystical or unbelievable in order to broaden their perspective and eliminate their own personal biases.
If Jesus existed; he was the anit-fundamentalist. He was a radical, free thinker. Whether he was the Son of God. Or simply the world's most famous and powerful philosopher.
Outlawing religion would do nothing. There are stupid people everywhere. They span all religions and ideologies. Every political party. Nothing will stop them from being stupid. And nothing will stop them from wanting to kill each other. Religion is just a cheap target.
Hurley's Hummer 02:10, May 2, 2010
@DanVader - very true statement about everything being based on your own experiences and understanding of the universe, which by the way in our lifetime will never be fully understood.
Annied 02:19, May 2, 2010
I am with Hurley's Hummer on this - outlawed is a strong word. Especially for a man of science who beleives in all possibilities and the pursuit of finding these possibilities - no search for truth wether it is Religion or not should be outlawed IMO. Has Religion been abused and misguided - absolutely, has science - absolutely, I will give you the Atom Bomb. Yeah, it is great to study atomic structure and what you can do with it, but here it has been used for the ultimate destructive power. There is science out there that is being funded and researched all over the globe for destructive purposes, this you cannot deny and I beleive it is the same with religion. it is rather an unfortuneate trap for those who exploit the power, the hold, religion has on many. But I beleive having a strong enough opinion either way to the point where you are closed-minded to one or the other is a mistake.
I am really enjoying this debate, I respect both science and Faith.
Lionofdharma 02:21, May 2, 2010
I consider myself a spiritual person, but I do not associate myself with any religion. Perhaps that will change in the future, but I what I highly doubt is that I will ever be involved in organized religion again. I feel like spirituality is such a private thing and that there are so many corrupt religious institutions out there that preach intolerance and guilt among other things. I don't know... it's an area I feel very conflicted about. What I do know is that I don't want to force any type of religion on my future kids. There is soooo much of that out there, and I think personal religiosity is something that everybody should determine for themselves.
Mittelman 06:09, May 2, 2010
Outlawed is a strong word; but we've outlawed things less dangerous than religion. Just sayin'.
I work in a library. Forty books is a lot of indoctrinazation (not a word, no, but I like it!). Remember, most of these kids picking up this drivel can barely read. Not the way to make a lifelong reader, but one hell of a way to scare them into line.
There isn't a forty volume set of books for kids about the theory of evolution in our library. Once again, just sayin'.
Basing everything on personal experience etc. is also dangerous. It's what fundamentalists of all stripes essentially do. A broad view says "I know some things, but I can't possibly know everything - in fact it's more likely that I, left to myself, would laze around till I starved, let alone invent calculus. So I'll listen to other ideas, even the ones with which I vehemently disagree. I will do my best to engage other people as though they're serious and intelligent, and I'll try to change my perspective when someone else actually makes sense."
At the same time, it's supremely dangerous to speak of archaic and willfully ignorant ideas in the same terms as those which have mountains of evidence in their favor. When religious ideas don't match up with reality, we don't have to act as though they do. We can respect others right to believe it's wrong to depict Muhammad, or Jesus walked on water, or the Buddha was born from a lotus flower without respecting that they believe it. But respect doesn't mean nodding dully and saying "Yes" when you mean "No".
I'd say we owe it to children to be honest, which is why I find equating false things with verifiable ones more dangerous than anything else. Ideas are not equal.
Tell that to the Texas State Board of Education, though, and they'll tell you where you can go. In fact, some members probably already believe you're going there. Yeah, I know, they're not relativists - but they are the ones who are revising textbooks which will be used in a number of other states, simply because that's how those states afford to buy their books. They piggyback. And so the Texas State Board of Education is deciding for all those children that Thomas Jefferson is not worth learning about, and Intelligent Design is on equal-footing evidence-wise with evolution. Neat.
Regardless, I think we can safely say the ideas represented in the Left Behind books are not things which are "paths to knowledge and truth." As Sean Sheep says, they are "intrinsically misguided in their aims, and ultimately stultifying to the intellect." More than that, they scare little kids and cause them to stay up late freaking the hell out - which is not cool at all.
Someone should teach that controversy: treating your children like people and telling them what's what versus scaring them silly. That would be a nice change.
The mortal veil 06:19, May 2, 2010 edit history
Mr. Sheep. I am a Catholic, and I am ashamed of my religion. I do not attend mass or contribute to the Church financially. I believe in the the contents of the Apostle's Creed and the "real presence" of Christ. I am proud of the intellectual achievements of my faith; however, the problem I have is simpler. I belong to a faith full of leaders who are pedophiles. One bad apple does spoil the barrel. Religion should not be outlawed. The criminals within any particular religion deserve severe punishment. I critize only my faith. But agree with you about the "guns in hands and God on our side" lie. I could go on for hours debating philosophy. But your case is proven up to the point of outlawing religion. That I cannot endorse. Freedom to think stupid thoughts is every person's right. The freedom to commit crimes is not. The motive in 99% of cases is important to understand in order to determine punishment. The devil, God, or patriotism are not mitigating factors.
Sean Sheep 07:44, May 2, 2010
@The Mortal Veil
I do not base my argument on one or two 'bad apples', nor do I base my argument on one or two events, such as the heresies of Catholicism, nor am I limiting my arguments to one faith. see here for a quite damning set of evidence.
Rather, I am saying that the very act of organising religious activity causes events such as these. The main purpose of a religion is not to help you to believe in God, or any other Supreme Being or Beings, you can decide to do that (or not) pretty much on your own; the main purposes are firstly to provide you with a codified set of assumptions about what the world is, and the way that it works, which you must buy into in order to become a 'believer'; secondly to provide you with a set of moral imperatives, and codes of behaviour, by which you must live your life, and thirdly to organise collective acts of worship where those with like beliefs can pursue their activity safe in the comforting knowledge that there are others who think the same. There is a fourth aspect, which anyone who has experienced particularly spectacular versions of football matches where their team ultimately triumphs in the face of adversity, lived through a great collective event such as the death of Diana or the destruction of the Twin Towers, or witnessed a spectacular musical performance, such as a production of Aida set within the backdrop of the Son-et-Lumiere of the Pyramids. This aspect is the ecstasy experienced when the intellect and or internal 'spirit' is lifted up to a realm which appears 'other worldly'. Such things might have a 'spiritual dimension' to them, but their explanation could equally be more mundane: see Timothy Leary's book called "The Politics of Ecstasy" this describes 8 levels of consciousness, the 5th of which is The Neurosomatic Circuit (Zen-Yoga Mind-Body-Connexion). Now while I don't buy this for one minute, to me Leary's explanation of the 'religious experience' is as good as any that I have heard from any religious adherent. I know that people have epiphanies, I know that some claim to be 'born again', and I know that eastern mystics can attain mental states which put the connection between their mind and their bodily senses into a state where they see visions, do not suffer physical pain, or they can perform events which, in the normal course of events, seem miraculous. However, for every event that you can name where someone has done one of these things as a result of religious activity, someone has don this through an act of fear, aggression, bravery, humanity or just sheer force of will. The woman who lifted a car to save her son did not do this because of some divine belief, she did it in an adrenaline-fuelled rush.
Organised religion is not necessary to attain ecstasy, but it is a method of control which has been used since the dawn of time. Stonehenge got built, not by the believers in one god, but by a society which was heavily into ancestor-worship, and animism. The labour involved in hewing stones by hand from the Mountains of Wales, and then lugging them half way across the English countryside was phenomenal. The people did not do that because their ancestors were telling them to do it, but because they believed their priests and mystics who told them it was a good idea. (they also got to participate in drunken orgies as a reward, but that's another story) The 'mystics' had secret knowledge which they used to control the population. The priests at Stonehenge used the device partly to work out celestial events, and decide when to plant crops, when to harvest, when feasts should be held, but also as a temple where the population could witness a ritualised performance, and wonder at how the priests knew such stuff. How ironic it that Stonehenge, actually gets built not by the people who actually possess the knowledge to build it, but by the people who are then subjugated, as a result of its use. They effectively built the means of their own enslavement.
The history of religion is littered with such stuff. You can of course argue, that it's just people who behave in this manner, and you can't blame god. I'm not blaming god. Religion, is simply a man-made concept, and as such suffers from the same sorts of organisational flaws that any man-devised idea has. The problem with religion, organised religion that is, is the claims it makes for itself: the claim to speak on behalf of god, the claim for ultimate truth, and the claim that if you do not follow the religion, you will be eternally damned. It is these absolutes which are dangerous, because they are extremist views, all of them. They do not allow for the possibility that the religion could jut have got it wrong. That idea in itself is very dangerous, especially when people begin to act on the assumption that if all the non-believers are going to hell anyway, we might as well rid ourselves of them now.
I think every person of faith, should take a long hard look at the religion that they subscribe to and ask themselves: what if, just what if, they have all got it wrong? Just think back over the course of history: if people who believed so ardently (for example the Jownestown cult) could have got is so wrong, then it is not the ardency of belief that makes you correct; equally, if you are a Christian, and ardently believe that Jesus Christ is the literal son of God, then how can you account for the fact that for every person like you, there is an ardent Muslim who believes in the same god, but is equally convinced that Jesus Christ was simply a prophet, and not the son of God. I am not trying to debate religious point here, I am simply saying that these were all believers in the 'same' god, and they can't both be right. If religion does have a monopoly on truth, then surely there would be only one religion, and it would be so obvious that we would be forced to believe it. To believe in any one religion, brings with it the belief that every religion apart from the one you have chosen to believe in must have it wrong. However, that is what everyone must think. Therefore, just ask yourself this question: "Why would my religion be any different from all the others out there?"
The mortal veil 16:09, May 2, 2010 edit history
I have posted my reply twice. To quote shakespeare "I offend as to make offense a skill". (henry IV part 1, actI, scene 2. As these inquisitors, witch hunters, sacificers of human life, I can assure that I would attempt (and, of course, fail,for frail old man that I am I'd fail) to dispatch them to God for judgment. Perhaps they are right. However, the only way to be sure is provoke their death and let God decide. This concept that we are judged after death is the subject of St. Jude's brief letter in the New Testament. If they are right, they have nothing to complain about; their 15 dark eyed virgins await them.
Mittelman 18:31, May 2, 2010
@The mortal veil: The only way to be sure is provoke their death and let God decide? I know you were addressing Sean Sheep, but that is a ridiculous statement. Your "solution" provides no certainty, only gets someone out of your hair. The only way for you to be sure would be to kill yourself. I'm not suggesting you do it, but ending a person's life doesn't do anything for the rest of us. It only answers the question of whether anything happens after death for them.
Perhaps I'm thick - that statement just sounded incredibly pompous. It certainly illustrates the kind of thinking Sean Sheep is talking about. How do so many people with zero evidence their religion is more right than any other hold such absolute views? It makes no sense.
Kris2000 19:02, May 2, 2010
I´ve skimmed through it. I found it to be rather trite.
Left Behind is a pretty big franchise, with movie adaptations, computer games and whatnot.
However, it´s not really SF or fantasy, but rather preachy religious fundamentalist propaganda disguised as scifi.
It has an interesting premise, but buries it deep under heaps of questionable moral lecturing. I´d recommend The Langoliers instead.
DanVader228 19:04, May 2, 2010
The atrocities of religious institutions could be laid out by the thousands. However, there are benefits for people to be a part of a religious community. No matter the creed that they subscribe to; or the limits to which they push their dedication. For every car-bomber or child molester there are hundreds of devout, peaceful believers. I don't think that generalizing is a sound, scientific strategy.
I am not personally religious. I don't attend church. I don't believe anything written in religious texts. I think fundamentalists are dangerous. But dismissing it completely based off of generalizations is just a poor argument. Like I said, all paths to knowledge and Truth. That means reading "Left Behind" or the Koran or attending Catholic Mass or speaking with a Born-again Christian in order to gain some perspective, and hopefully free yourself from bitterness and judgment. You don't have to automatically subscribe to any of it, but there could be a kernel of Truth wrapped in a giant turd package.
The mortal veil 19:50, May 2, 2010 edit
I have a problem with weapons pointed at me. i have a problem with anybody that has a weapon in my presence. Pompous,no. I am a frail old man in a world full of dangerous people. I would like to remain frail and alive. Removing such people also diminishes global warming, provides oxygen to the rest of us. John Donne wrote that every man's death diminishes me. He was wrong. But I will tell you of man whose death diminished me. The last survivor of Hiroshima died in the 1st month of 2010. Children die because political consideration prevent the eradication of polio. Save your tears for the 13% of Ugandan children who are HIV positive. I do not have time to cry for murderers no matter what perverted version of god or what flag they represent. I shall leave to God and hope he rapidly receives such persons. After all Justice delayed is justice denied.
Annied 21:06, May 2, 2010
Sean: i have thoroughly read your argument and I am quite familiar with all of your references including the earlier biblical reference to the biblical hero who acted as a pimp, prostituting his wifes and daughters. Read the Red Tent for a great reference on this material. I have read this as voraciously as I have read about quantum physics.
The mistake you are making is that you are equating religion with God, spirtuality, and Faith. This is a mistake and not consistent with how you would look at anything else, so I dare say Sean Sheep, you are letting your bias control an aspect of your thought process, the very thing you are accusing "beleivers" of doing. Afterall, there are plenty of faithless religious people, the faithless are not only atheist.
Beleif/Faith is something you do not seem to understand, or at least it appears that way in your above arguments in my opinion. So on this subject, your credibility is shot. To me you are looking at something that is multi-dimensional in a very two-dimensional way. You are not trying to discover the source, you are only interested in discovering the effects from a source you know nothing about. So to someone who HAS Faith, your argument makes no sense. Just as someone who speaks to you from a position of faith makes no sense to you.
Take the schroedingers cat theory and apply it here. It says the same thing. We are all living examples of our beleifs, for some/for many we are victims of our beleifs. It is a very easy trap to fall into. If your beleif is the source of your experience and you think it is the other way around, you my friend are trapped in a very shroedingers cat way.
For all of us, It is blinding arrogance and the epitomy of stupidity to think one can know all the answers. And one answer that you don't know can change your beleif and all of your future experiences.
Afterall, relativism is just another codified set of assumptions that you must buy into to beleive in relativism. Sounds like another religion in a way, call it what you want, but until you discover what Faith means, you really will not understand how different it is from religion and science. And until you open your mind to all possibilities you are subjecting yourself to the exact same entrappment that you do seem to have studied and studied well.
Destinedjourney 21:41, May 2, 2010
I actually think that Sean is doing the opposite of what you are saying Annied. He is not equating religion with God, spirituality and faith. His criticism, and mine, is that "religious" people seem to label themselves and others as spiritual only if one adheres to man made religious beliefs. This organized religion is dictated by man made rules and laws. They are only as good as the people who do the organizing. If you can believe that Moses and Jesus and Buddha, and Mohammed and other prophets were divinely inspired than so be it. Given that most of the New Testament was not written until 50 years or later after Jesus' death and that Christianity was not recognized or established until the 4th century AD when a group of men got together and hammered out agreements about what they would and wouldn't believe, it makes it very hard for me to live my life according to their rules. Being raised a catholic, I was told by nuns at my school that it was too bad I would never be in heaven with my mother because she was methodist....these are the kind of man made religious rules that, btw, are still being modified today according to so called religious experts' whims, which I'm sorry, are just nonsense. @Lion of Dharma, I have worried that my children will be treated differently because I have never had them baptized. Having children does make you have to really think hard about what is important to impart to them. I have never, never, worried that they will suffer eternal damnation because someone didn't sprinkle water on their foreheads when they were months old. I hope to raise them as spiritual, caring members of the human family. Books like Left Behind which would judge me and threaten my family with being separated in whatever afterlife there may be are terribly insulting.
and like I said earlier, I do recognize that you and Hurley's Hummer who have expressed your faith on this blog are not the closed minded religious zealots who I am talking about. Unfortunately, too many so called religious faithful do not share your open mindedness.
Lionofdharma 21:46, May 2, 2010
@destinedjourney: spiritual, caring members of the human family — I like the sound of that.
Sean Sheep 22:57, May 2, 2010
@Annied
I have heard many times before the argument that "you can only understand faith if you have it", and I find it exasperating.
I have also heard the claim that everyone has beliefs, even if that is simply a belief in methodological realism, instead of a belief in God. I do not agree with that. I think we hold working hypotheses which we recognise have a varying degree of truth . In everyday life we use such hypotheses: we hypothesise that when we flick a switch, the light will come on; we hypothesise that when we leave our house it will still be there when we return. If it were not so, we could not live our lives. However, these are only pragmatic hypotheses: if challenged, we would admit that the bulb might habe blown, and the light may not come on; and there is always the possibility that our house will be blown away by a tornado before we get home. We admit that the hypotheses could be wrong.
I do not think that there is anything other than 'working hypotheses'; a 'belief' is simply a working hypothesis which has got out of control. In other words, we do not allow ourselves the possibility that it can be wrong. In my world, everything is up for grabs, and nothing is certain. In fact, I have one certainty only: This is the only statement which can be assumed to be true without proof.
I take 'belief' to be a shorthand for the varying degrees of investment that we have in our hypotheses: we can take statements to be 90% true, 50% true or 20% true. No statement is 100% true; however, as shorthand, I am willing to "believe" provisionally in anything which I assess to be more than about 90% true. However, I accept the possibility that it could be wrong.
Faith, to me, is simply this degree of investment we have in our working hypotheses. I can have faith in a particular course of action; I can have faith that a particular person will act in some predicted manner, and I can have faith in a deity.
Note that none of this involves any reference to an organised religion.
Given what I have said above, I do not understand how you can claim I know all the answers. It is the exact opposite. My system of thinking requires me to accept that I know none of the answers.I can argue with you, and I can have opinions, and I can express them. Are they true, are they valid? Possibly, but only with varying degrees of likelihood.
The mortal veil 05:46, May 3, 2010 edit
ladies and gentlemen, i accept the contents of the Creed (Nicene or Apostle's), transubstantiation, the assumption of Mary, The immaculate Conception of Mary. Whatever else is the personal opinion of some one who i may or may not agree with. the Bible is open to interpretation. The problems of translation alone are considerable. My "faith" is purely intellectual. Morality is a separate matter.
Annied 18:33, May 3, 2010
@Sean: I have heard your argument before too, yet I don't find it the least bit exasperating. Why, because i recognize it for what it is, your beleif different perhaps than my beleif.
I understand what you are trying to do with this one unproveable assumption you have decided to accept. You understand the power of beleifs and the dangers and limitations of them. So you are trying to get away from any beleif (or certainty).
You understand that if you choose with certainty you run the risk of not being open to all possibilities (everything is up for grabs). It is a noble pursuit indeed - for what, I have no idea because you certainly can't be looking for answers.
But nonetheless, you have chosen to beleive that it is ok to have one assumption you can not prove: Everything is up for grabs and nothing is certain. and of this you claim to be certain. Although how can you be certain if nothing is certain.
I recognize the convenience of this beleif system, i just cannot tell you what you are hoping to find, because finding answers is of the table. And rightfully so, we as humans cannot know all the answers.
Yet, you have chosen a codied system for yourself, much like a religion and you have decided to limit yourself to only considering the things that are up for grabs that have no certainty. So now you are not considering all possibilities because you have taken those possibilities with certainty off the table.
How do you know everything is up for grabs? How do you know nothing is certain? you don't because you do not know the answers and even if you consider an answer you will not consider it an answer at all at least not by 10%.
This is a codified beleif that has limited the possibilities for you. I know you think not, because you are both considering all possibilities and the not-possibility at the same time (nothing is certain-except of course your one certain assumption) It has the possibility of being a very free and open way of considering. But what it is really is sytem of non-beleif so this in and of itself is a limitation you have agreed to. Very similar to an organized religion.
It sounds to be that you beleive: 1. It is ok to have one assumption that needs no proof. You must then agree that someone else may also have a different assumption that needs no proof.
2. Everything is up for grabs and nothing is certain.
3. You have no answers.
4. Yet, Organized Religion is one possibility that should be outlawed and not "up for grabs".
Interesting paradigm, yet yours is also constructed by man.
Annied 20:42, May 3, 2010
I also want to say, in case it did not sound like it above, that I do not think anyones post including the original post is wrong. Quite the contrary, I find this to be a fun enlightening debate. I appreciate everyones willingness to share their beleifs or thoughts and how they arrived at them, I find this to be a great learning experience. Lost seems to be a medium to discuss these interesting subjects, one of the many reasons I love Lost. I have alot of respect for all of you and whatever your thought may be...I just get caught up in the debate for the intellectual stimulation. Thank you for this opportunity.
Destinedjourney 20:47, May 3, 2010
I think it's great that you feel this way Annied. I enjoy a good debate as well. When I said Lost is about religion in ways I did not mean that it IS a religion. Lost uses so many religious allegories and explores the themes that religions address, which is part of what makes it so compelling.
Now if we really want to get a heated discussion let's talk politics - - NOT!!
Annied 20:56, May 3, 2010
Ha Ha - no poltics! I really enjoy your thoughtful perspectives. I don't often get the opportunity to explore different ideas that span mythology, physics, religious beleifs, fate vs. free will etc portrayed on a medium that makes it fun to talk about. I am grateful that there are some really incredible minds on here to learn from - whatever the subject maybe. I feel like it is a gift, even if I do get carried away once in a while. :)
DanVader228 01:17, May 4, 2010
Well stated Annied. I was once of the mind to dismiss all semblance of faith from my life. I was jaded and arrogant. However, I could not make a strong enough case to identify as an atheist. I found out, as you did, that either extreme was impossible to prove rationally. An argument against God possesses the exact same measure of faith and assumption, and lacks all of the same "evidence". So neither was an attractive alternative to the other.
So I was at another crossroad, unable to make a strong case for myself. The end result was realizing that there is value in having faith; if for no other purpose than the positive impact that it has on peoples' lives (when issued in moderation). Now I identify as agnostic; basically I believe there probably is a God. I just don't believe anything that anyone has ever said about Him/Her. Maybe it was the cheap way out, but I've rid myself of disillusion and anger, while avoiding all the pitfalls of fundamentalism or hypocrisy.
The same argument that I believe gives credit to the idea of Faith, allows me to better tolerate the idea of religious institution. As stated before, I think fundamentalism is dangerous. However, having faith or following a religion do not require proof of their value. One can incorporate, sparingly, ideas presented in a religious fashion, and can arguably measure the impact.
If the case against religion is based on a perceived negative impact on its followers and society at large; why can a case not be made to the contrary. That the millions of people who find peace, happiness, love, understanding, and an increased quality to their lives are living proof of its success. I suppose either way you cut it, it ends up sounding like a generalization. The point is, if one argument holds sway; then the other is intrinsically true.
The short story is that if faith or religion work for people, then there is no real argument against it. Measurable proof lies in their success.
That doesn't imply that we should all jump on board blindly. As I said, moderation is key. The same goes for any creed you follow; science included. When pushed to an extreme the idea becomes ridiculous at best; dangerous at worst.
Annied 01:38, May 4, 2010
Thank you DanVader: I really enjoy your posts as well. I especially like how you are illustrating that Faith in an entity other than yourself can deliver different possible ideas than you/yourself maybe able to conjure up. I think some call it inspiration, but it is at least another way to discover what, as you say, you will incorporate to whatever degree. And I could not agree more that if "one argument holds sway; then the other is intrinsically true".
I also got alot of meaning from your point above:
"Even the most enlightened or educated person needs to accept the mystical or unbelievable in order to broaden their perspective and eliminate their own personal biases."
Good stuff!
Mittelman 20:33, May 6, 2010
Wow. Too much to respond to here. Wish I hadn't just lost my home computer. Seems one point of view is overly represented on this blog.
"Even the most enlightened or educated person needs to accept the mystical or unbelievable in order to broaden their perspective and eliminate their own personal biases."
Nope. Everyone should accept there are things we don't know, absolutely, but to say everyone should accept mystical things is ridiculous. There is no evidence whatsoever of anything mystical. Does that mean we know everything? No! How could it? But by saying everyone should accept things for which there is no evidence, you're not eliminating your personal biases - you're reinforcing them! You should accept there may not be anything mystical. I'm not saying there absolutely is no mystical aspect to reality, I'm saying we don't know. No one should say absolutely there isn't anything mystical anymore than people should say there is.
"I was once of the mind to dismiss all semblance of faith from my life. I was jaded and arrogant. However, I could not make a strong enough case to identify as an atheist. I found out, as you did, that either extreme was impossible to prove rationally."
Hmmm. So anyone who can't find a way to believe, to have faith, is jaded and arrogant? See how that's another definitive statement? People have beliefs for different reasons. I tend more toward the Sean Sheep school of everything being up for grabs because it makes sense to me. It obviously doesn't make sense to some people. How can we exist in a world where both of these things are true? I don't know, but it seems we do. Personally, I think we should be open to either possibility. People are not in control of their own minds completely. I don't believe what I believe out of choice or out of coercion, but a bit of both. I was indoctrinated into a lot of beliefs as a child, like altruism, which were forced on my brain. I still think they're good ideas, but that's because I was a victim of brainwashing. I can't ever know whether these ideas are really, intrinsically "good" (if there is such a thing). It doesn't cause me to say people who aren't altruistic are bad. I certainly think they make life harder, but that's my bias - something I can try to see, but not something I will ever be able to rise above. I have biases, and recognizing that is a lifelong struggle. Every time I think I've overcome it, I'm wrong. It's a constant balancing act.
Besides, shouldn't the idea you can't prove one side or the other rationally push you toward the middle rather than to one of the irrational sides?
"The point is, if one argument holds sway; then the other is intrinsically true."
That statement is not even wrong. It's rhetoric which translates to nothing. Personally I don't think that argument against religion has any strength, so I avoid it; but saying religion is wrong because of its evils (perceived or otherwise) is short-sighted, imo, just as saying the opposite is, as well. The problem is not with religion but dogma. Religion tends to produce powerful dogma, which is why opponents of religion jump on that argument. But the best argument is still against the unrelenting dogma and the stranglehold it implies. This is across the board and should apply to everything, not just religion. It produces these arguments about how people who reject faith are arrogant. Some of us just have no faith. I don't try to avoid it, I'm just into evidence. So I guess I should say I have weak faith, because I do have a bit of faith in evidence. But I have zero faith in things for which I have seen zero evidence.
Like the mystical aspect of life. Many times, things which we once thought mystical get explained without using supernatural explanations. Does that mean there aren't any supernatural explanations? Of course not. But it should at least imply there is no arrogance in saying the jury is out on whether there is anything supernatural. Wait-and-see is not arrogance.
Talking about "Jesus did thus and such at this specific time and date" or "Moses led the Israelites through the desert for forty years" is certainly arrogant. I will not respect someone saying those things, because there is zero evidence for them. Jesus may have existed, Moses probably did not. But I could be wrong on both those counts and have no problem, because I'm not going to get in someone's face and tell them they're arrogant (which this does not constitute, at least from my perspective).
However, my lack of belief is arrogance? No, sorry. My lack of belief is something I think about every day, something which is part of my personal growth. Believing a man walked on water? That's not just untrue, but demonstrably so. It's never happened, and I don't have to respect it as a belief until someone shows me some evidence it could happen in some other way than being a trick. It's a childish belief people have every right to hold, but it's not arrogant of me to say it's not true. At the same time, I'm not running up to people telling them it's not true. If someone asks me my opinion, I'll tell them. Other than that, who cares?
And The mortal veil, stop. You don't have guns pointed at you, and if you do you have no way of knowing the religion of those holding them. Don't believe the hype. You're probably not in danger from Muslim terrorists anymore than the rest of us. A fundamentalist with a bomb is a fundamentalist with a bomb, regardless of religion. Remember, the former president of the USA was a fundamentalist Christian (George W., in case someone was wondering), and he took us to war against "evildoers". Dropped some pretty big bombs on them. When what you wish for is the end of the world, you're dangerous, no matter to whom you sing when you worship, or whether you worship at all.
Perhaps if we all stopped telling each other we're idiots, we could just listen to each other. I'd promise not to mention I don't believe in God or gods when we're discussing poetry, and others can remember not to praise the Lord when I finally catch a fly ball in a pick-up game - a true miracle if it ever were to happen!
The mortal veil 05:39, May 7, 2010 edit
I am a self-professed idiot. It is my profound pleasure to find that in your world view, I remain one. Let us pick the person described by both Jews and Christians as Being The Most Dangerous Man Alive, Spinoza. Read him.
Mittelman 06:51, May 7, 2010
Just reread what I wrote. If you find I implied you were an idiot, or that I was speaking to you alone in any spot but the place I addressed you, I can't see it. I do see where I said we - all of us, including myself - should stop calling each other idiots. If you think I find you an idiot because I don't respect your beliefs, you're putting words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. The two things are not mutually exclusive. If you think they are, perhaps that's the problem there: you can't be cool with people whose beliefs you don't respect. Well, that's your right, I guess, but I have to wonder why you wouldn't try understanding. I'm not asking you to talk to the kids with guns, just to listen to someone other than yourself.
And why would you assume I haven't read Spinoza? If I were inclined to be insulted...damn.
The mortal veil 19:12, May 7, 2010 edit history
I do not go around asking for respect. I just ask that I am left alone to voice my unpleasant opinions. I have so many unpopular opinions that I qualify as an idiot to all possible factions. I refer to Spinoza because he is an historical figure that lived a life in which he managed to offend every political/religious faction and every strata of society. I wish that I had the heroic virtue of that mad philosopher. As St. Isidore writes: "I believe what is impossible". My duty is to serve God because God has bought me with His suffering just as God's Chosen People are the Jews. It is a matter of contract. It has nothing to do with respect, it is simply a matter of property. No man may justly own another human because we are the property of God. (This last phrase comes the academic scandal of mid- 19th England, the defection of the leading intellect in the Anglican church to the Roman church. This thought belongs to John Henry Newman). It is not the silliness of Lewis or Tolkien: no cute animals, no hobbits. It is a fundamentally different view of the world.
Beelzebubbles101 19:56, May 7, 2010
I don't think it's right to brainwash children into religion. Should leave it till they're 18 or so and have a enough knowledge and a little life experience to have some chance of making an informed decision on their own. We have the very sensible concept of "age of consent" for sexual matters - that kids under a certain age are not able to fully think through the consequences and make an informed decision. Choosing or not choosing a religion is just as big a decision in your life, and it should be left until they are of a suitable age. Most religions would probably suffer a severe decline if the followers weren't indoctrinated from day one. "You want me to believe WHAT? That's insane. Who dreamed up this fairytale?"
Mittelman 23:46, May 7, 2010
@The mortal veil: "I have so many unpopular opinions that I qualify as an idiot to all possible factions."
Gotcha. Now I understand you: a person who finds his/her identity in being the eternal rebel. So I see there's no point in addressing you further (I will, though, because I love pointless stuff), since you have no desire to discuss, just to piss everyone off. Rather childish, but that's just, like, you know, my opinion, man.
As to the whole "God bought me with his suffering", I've heard it. Was raised a Christian and continue to study it. Problem here is, when someone actually makes the kind of sacrifice you're talking about, they do it to free others. It's not a purchase which has been made. And if it is, then it's not a gift, nor any kind of sacrifice. Besides, even the most excruciating pain is not a sacrifice if the person going through it knows it serves a greater purpose and that they will survive.
Like this: let's say I have a debt. Without my knowledge someone pays it off. I keep trying to pay on it and the creditor won't let me because it shows paid. I do not acknowledge payment, but they show the debt paid. Whether I choose to acknowledge it or not, I no longer owe anything.
Or, is original sin the problem? Because then you have to wonder why God punishes everyone for a decision which was not our own. So now we're responsible for our ancient ancestors sins? Except they didn't exist. Hmmmm.
Have fun with your windmills!
Mittelman 23:47, May 7, 2010
Beelzebubbles: right on. Totally agree. Age of consent for everything else, why not religion? I would've refused to go to church as a kid if I had been allowed.
Destinedjourney 23:55, May 7, 2010
@Mittleman and Beelzebubbles, I promised myself I would stay off this blog anymore but now you raise the issue of children and since I like your opinions, I would appreciate more of them. My dilemma, when I had children, was that how could I give my children a choice if I didn't expose them as children to the upbringing and rituals that are so much a part of a religious family's life? I felt that if I did not expose them to the teachings that are so predominant at a young age, they would not have had the whole experience of religion to either choose for or against. I compromised by finding a methodist mother's day out program and having them go for about 3 year to sunday school there. About the most they got out of it was when I asked my son, then about 4, if he knew what Easter really was (i.e. not just hunting for eggs filled with candy). He said yes, it was when Jesus died and 3 days later came back normal - I figured that was close enough. As soon as they scattered to different schools and didn't have the same friends as in sunday school they lost interest and I stopped forcing them. I do still make them go to a christmas church service with the threat that they can't get any presents if they don't appreciate the meaning. But it is hard when they don't have the ritual. What do you think?
Beelzebubbles101 00:23, May 8, 2010
@Destinedjourney - thanks. But I would never claim to be able to offer any practical advice on raising children. I don't have any yet. In a couple of years maybe ! Everyone just does the best they can, or at least they should be. I guess I will teach my kids that some people believe this and some people believe that, like liking or not liking different kinds of food and drink. And there are some kinds that should wait unitl they're older. Like whiskey LOL
Mittelman 02:05, May 8, 2010
Yes, Destinedjourney, thank you. Have to side with Beelzebubbles101 in saying I don't presume to know how to answer you. The question is a difficult one. Personally, I think the problem is the way brains form. Obviously our brains never stop forming connections, but the child's brain does it like triple time. They form connections they don't need, and those die, which is fine. An overly stressed brain, however, becomes flooded with cortisol, that stress hormone which causes adults to gain weight around the middle. In children it causes them to stop making those conections, which is bad. Obviously.
Raising your children in the fire-and-brimstone type church exposes them to so much fear and stress that it seems clear to me it has the same effect on the brain. Many fundamentalist churches basically tell their young people they are filthy, horrible sinners who deserve hell. They also tell them they are fighting a war against real enemies who are invisible. Some of these children really believe it. Who's to tell a five year old who thinks she's at war she's not? I shudder to think of all the kids with PTSD running around who've never actually been to war.
Obviously I have a bias! I was raised in a number of churches like this, and I've seen it in churches all over the USA. In person. But you have a good point. Perhaps you should expose them to many religions? That's just the default pluralist answer. I think it's good you're seriously thinking about it rather than simply forcing them every week for eighteen years; but I couldn't begin to give advice, other than to plead on behalf of your children you don't bring them to a place which will tell them they are evil little buggers who deserve to burn eternally.
I've already got a feeling you'd never do that.
Lionofdharma 02:11, May 8, 2010
I plan on not exposing my future kids to religion. I think it might be valuable to teach them about different religions in an age-appropriate manner and on a very superficial level. I see that more as teaching them about different cultures rather than trying to indoctrinate them into any one religion.
Mittelman 05:10, May 8, 2010
Lionofdharma's right on, and in far fewer words than I could manage.
The mortal veil 11:13, May 8, 2010 edit
I was a scholar of religion for my whole life. i was in profound opposition to it. I do not attend mass nor do i give financial support to it. i do not support pedophiles. If mr lionofdharma does not plan to expose his children that they will not understand Moby Dick Which is direct response against the Biblical God. Also algebra, presocratic philosophy, most of Western art to 1700, the writings of Hesse, Graham Greene, the 8 fold path of the Buddha, Kant, the early Fitche, William James. I am not telling anybody to go church. Far from it. Be a rebel, doubt. Skip the school that does not permit prayer. Maybe you can find a place where there is free access to books. look at Mortimer J. Adler's List of Great Books. Read Prisig's objections to the list (the Chicago program) in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintence. The hell with conformity, decide for yourself. I am a rebel. But do you expect that I grant you anymore than the space to expel your carbon dioxide and the freedom to say what you please. Tolerance, yes. Respect, no. I seek not to convince; I seek only that there are places to read for one's self and the freedom to express one's view. It does not matter if find the view disheartening, I have the right to it.
Lionofdharma 12:25, May 8, 2010
I'm Ms. Lionofdharma, actually. And I didn't say that I wouldn't expose my kids to religion at all; I said that I would not attempt to indoctrinate them to any one religion, but that I think it would probably be of value to give them some sort of superficial knowledge about the history and basic tenets of different religions -- kind of like what you'd find in a wikipedia article, but age-appropriate for kids. I figure I'm not going to know exactly what I want to do until I actually have kids; this is merely speculation. At this point I have no ties with any religion, and I'm completely against organized religion. I want my future kids to be able to make their own decisions (as adults, of course) in regard to whether they want religion to be a part of their lives.
Also, any good teacher is going to make sure to impart his/her students with basic knowledge of the tenets of any sort of religion that is salient to the topic at hand. Plus, I'm going to have some smart kids, dammit!
Lionofdharma 12:25, May 8, 2010
double post
The mortal veil 13:24, May 8, 2010 edit history
Madam, Thomas Jefferson, an obscure Virginian of the 18th century did not believe that blacks were the intellectual equals of whites. He did believe that the pope and the catholic church were the enemies of civil society. For the former, see his amazement at the work of Rittenhouse, a black scientist of the period. Mr. Jefferson was outspoken on the issue of the divinity of Christ (lack of divinity) and the diabolic nature of Catholicism. Yet on his tombstone, he ordered written only three things author of an obscure document written in July, 1776 (endowed by their Creator...), the statute allowing religion freedom in Virginia (even to those hated Papists), and founder of the University of Virginia. If you live in the US, you might apply a bit of thought to Mr. Jefferson's example. The sacrifice of personal prejudice and the importance of learning (greater than being President). Also the sacrifice of personal opinion made by both Hamilton and Madison in The Federalist Papers. I believe you need to plan ahead as Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Hamilton, and Mr. Madison. Oh, let me tie to this LOST--Juilet Burke. As in Edmund Burke, a brief biography and his views on established religion are well worth considering. Also speaking of floating islands and eggs, try a sour satirist by the name of Swift. As with Lost, his protagonist is a doctor, Gulliver's Travels is a book well worth your time. There are plenty of eggs and two theories as to how crack them. This is just the beginning... I do not live in the United States. I regret this. and is more, every secret confinement, every restraint on our liberty is another victory for our enemies.
Finally, Lincoln suspended civil liberties. He derived no joy from this. After Lee's surrender, he ordered the Union band to play Dixie. "Malice toward none... charity for all." Victors are rarely so generous. It is all about character. Bill Clinton was wrong.
Lionofdharma 13:29, May 8, 2010
@ the mortal veil: Um, did you mean to post your comment above in this blog? If so, how on earth does your comment have anything to do with the topic at hand?
Just Sayin' 13:45, May 8, 2010
Interesting discussion. All of you have my admiration for being able to articulate your perspectives. Please forgive me, if I may not be quite as articulate. Also, I recognize this may be a bit off topic, however, after reading many of your thoughts, it has inspired me to share my thoughts. Here is my attempt to provide a personal perspective.
There are merits of all perspectives expressed and we are all entitled to our personal beliefs. One can disagree with anothers belief and still admire and respect another's perspective. A person of faith and a person of science will live out their belief in the way they live their lives.
We enrich our personal lives when we open ourselves to a variety of perspectives. All of us base our beliefs on what we personally experience and incorporate into our lives. We incorporate what we personally believe. And by opening our minds to recieve a variety of perspectives we give ourselves a greater range of options. Our beliefs are played out in the manner in which we live our lives and guide us as we face free will in our choices.
Some of us are judgemental in choosing a right and a wrong way in choosing our beliefs. However,it may not be up to each individual to judge right and wrong when it comes to personal beliefs. All of us will experience the consequences of our beliefs, regardless as to whether our beliefs are right or wrong.
The differences in our beliefs may come down to whether we base our beliefs on faith or in science. Personally, I feel that if your beliefs are based in science or faith, the very existence and witness of Jesus and his faith can be inspirational. But only if one is open to his perspective.
Whether you believe or do not believe in Jesus, there may still be something we can glean from his example. Jesus offers forgiveness even when we find it difficult to forgive ourselves. The very existence of Jesus is an acknowlegement that we all experience flaws within ourselves. It is an unequivical fact, that none of us are perfect and therefore it may be beneficial for us to be more forgiving of others even when they may not be forgiving of our flaws. The point given all of us, is that it is better to be forgiving vs. judgemental as we all have our personal flaws. There may be a greater personal peace in being forgiving vs. judgemental.
The manner in which Jesus lived his life can also be beneficial. Jesus gave his love to ALL people in spite of their flaws. My personal belief is that this kind of love could be beneficial to all whether our belief is based in faith or science. To me it becomes a matter of free will in the choices we face throughout our lives. We choose how we love one another and we choose how we forgive one another. Those choices are important whether your beliefs are based in science or faith.
My perspective regarding organized religion, are in line with the fact that religion over the years has been organized by none other than man and all of our flaws. Therefore, by its very nature it is flawed from the beginning and there should be no surprise in this dynamic.
The laws of religion are not perfect and when one takes these laws in their literal terms, we are in fact choosing to live in conflict with the the very example of Jesus. A forgiving and loving man open to all people regardless of their personal beliefs. Jesus had a profound belief that all mankind can find their way through the grace of a higher being.
Once again, it comes down to our free will and the choices we make in our lives journey. We benefit ourselves and others in our forgiveness and the manner in which we love one another. This is true whether your beliefs are based in faith or science.
Bringing all of this back to LOST - It does seem to me that the LOST series does provide several examples of this perspective.
Destinedjourney 14:19, May 8, 2010
Thanks for all the opinions. Not having kids doesn't mean you can't give advice, since as young adults you are where my kids are going to be in the not so distant future. Speaking of the little buggers, couldn't get my computer time away from them after posting last night. @Lion of D, of course your children will be smart - mine are geniuses : ) @Mortal, believe it or not you have helped me in realizing that there is great literature out there that as long as my children are exposed to they will have the benefit of many great thinkers on the subject of religion and just life in general. I realize now this is what @Sean Sheep was talking about when he posted elsewhere that art/poetry are a type of worship or religious expression. @Just Sayin, you're right, Lost is an example of this as well.
I had naively believed when I had children that they will innately be predisposed to do the right thing. I am seeing, instead, that a world view as well as inner reflection must be encouraged. Ya'll have inspired me to work harder on this. Don't get me wrong, they are GREAT kids and will probably save the world some day, hah! And to people like @Annied and @Hurley'sHummer, please don't worry. While I don't believe that Jesus was the divine personification of God, I do believe that there is a god within all of us which Jesus hoped we would respect. If everyone did live according to his teachings (and not the interpretations by man of those teachings), the world would be a better place. This is what I tell my children...and then they roll their eyes and say "oh mom, we know" because of course they know everything and I know nothing!!!!!!!!
Mittelman 17:35, May 8, 2010
But you don't tolerate other views, The mortal veil! You would try to dispatch terrorists to God! Admitting you would fail for frailty doesn't come close to tolerance. Admitting paedophiles are horrid creatures isn't anything other than having a drop of humanity left in you. And, apparently I wasn't that far off about the windmills, if your last post is an example. You were in full-on Don Quixote mode there.
I never said you should respect views with which you don't agree. I said you have a hard time tolerating those with which you vehemently disagree. It's clear you do. I don't respect your beliefs and I've said as much - but with respect, whether you ask for it or not, because I'm a halfway decent human. That's being reasonable. I'm willing to hear your side if you can lose the vitriol.
Oh, and you should read more carefully. I actually said you have every right to hold your beliefs.
Mittelman 17:45, May 8, 2010
Lionofdharma has it right again: any lit teacher worth his/her salt would give enough background on assigned materials for the students to understand. Also there's this reall cool thing called the Internet. It's got lots of information for kids wanting to understand the deeper aspects of whatever stories they're reading.
And saying one needs to understand religion to study algebra? So that was my problem in school? Wow. I'm callng my dad. He got on my case for not applying myself, when all along it was his fault for failing to expose me to Islam.
Mittelman 18:02, May 8, 2010
Just Sayin': "We benefit ourselves and others in our forgiveness and the manner in which we love one another. This is true whether your beliefs are based in faith or science."
Agreed. This encourages people of differing beliefs and backgrounds to discuss. Personally, I think it's important to expose oneself to this kind of diversity, especially among people who can be reasonable regardless of where the discussion goes (notwithstanding a little snarky humor...).
In fact, a lot of recent neuroscience shows the plasticity of our brains is positively affected by frequent encounters with beliefs with which we don't agree. Looks like debate is healthy!
HorribleEyes 18:16, May 8, 2010
I've heard it said that extremists of any kind are never a good idea. I'm Christian, but I practice tolerance. I have always been taught it was not my job to judge, and I am no better than anyone else. Self-righteousness is also never a good idea...in religion or science. I wish to offend no one, just stating my opinion.
The mortal veil 18:21, May 8, 2010 edit
L.dharma:My tirade above was a crash course in the Anglo-Saxon view of modern european history. Quite a relevant matter for looking into the education of Doctor Linus. Juilet (Edmund) Burke will tell you that jefferson, madison, hamilton, and burke are the central thinkers of the Angolo-Saxon model in more than 210 years of mod eor hx.
The mortal veil 18:38, May 8, 2010 edit history
Mittelman: 1.That tall redhaired violinist T jefferson stated that my right to be a troublemaker came from God: endowed by their Creator (july 1776) 2)Algebra is Islamic, so is much of St. Thomas Aquinas' world view: he ripped off islamic scolarship as well as jewish scholarship, often paragraphs taken directly from their "pagan" authors. Let's not even consider the chapters of bryzantine theology that crept in; there is historical justification for that. If you ever studied philosophy, you got the same problem with your dad. Aquinas is another example of everything converging. (recall the book jacob was reading as Locke fell). St. Thomas is the official theologian of the Roman Catholic Church. Who says the Vatican is not open to diversity. There is that plagiarism. "We steal the best and condemn the rest"
Mittelman 17:05, May 9, 2010
The mortal veil, that was Jefferson's opinion. While I feel he is important to study as an historical figure, I give his opinion about so-called spiritual matters very little weight since he - like everyone else who talks about "god-given rights" - provides no evidence. I don't think we have any, so I don't expect anyone to provide it - but the fact he offers none is still an important point.
Algebra is not Islamic. It was invented by Muslims, but it is just a mathematical tool; it has no religion itself, and one need not understand Islam to grasp its concepts. My sister was a whiz at it, and calling her knowledge of Islam slight would be putting it mildly.
Talking about stealing in regard to philosophers has as much relevance as talking about candy-making techniques in reference to architects. Philosophy is just a search for knowledge (yes, literally the "love of wisdom", I know), a place where ideas from throughout human cultures can, in your words, converge. Trust me, my advisor in college was an Aquinas expert, so I've had my fill and love to bash the man; but he simply learned from many sources. You agree that's different from stealing, yes? To say he stole flies in the face of your convergence argument, anyway.
Here's a question for your fuzzy mind: if everything converges, why would one ever necessarily need knowledge of an idea's source to understand the idea itself? If one wishes to be an expert in some idea I'd understand; but laypeople can stick to the ideas themselves to catch the gist, if not the full depth.
Sean Sheep 17:17, May 9, 2010
@Mittelman
The origin of 'algebra' is Al-Kitāb al-mukhtaṣar fī hīsāb al-ğabr wa’l-muqābala by al-Khwārizmī.
In the book, al-Khwārizmī does not use anything that we would regard as algebraic notation; indeed most of the methods used to solve his quadratic equations are geometric and linguistic. The development of symbolic algebra (i.e. algebra as most people would recognise it)really only came to fruition in the late middle ages, and some would say that it was only with Descartes that algebra actually became a mathematical tool as opposed to a descriptive device.
sorry; I re-read.I appear to be just agreeing with you.
The mortal veil 17:58, May 9, 2010 edit
@Mr. sheep you forgot to mention Leonardo of Pisa's work which he "borrowed" from both Islamic and Byzantine sources. Aquinas lived in the late middle ages. His work was meant to replace Augustine's theology (415 AD); Augustine did not know Greek either. His work smells of Plotinus (and his Pseudo-Platonism) and Persian dualism filtered through other cults. Also you seem to ignore St. Severio or Boethius: the author of seminal the Consolation of Philosophy as precursor to our Islamic colleague. Also there is alot of linguistic algebra in Boole, Peirce, Russell, whitehead....
Dante was two generations younger than Aquinas. 1100 is the beginning of the end of the Middle Ages. A single after Dante (e.g., 1350), the Greek language came back to Florence.
@Mittelman: the "everything converges" phrase was pure irony. The origin of ideas is quite relevant. His ignorance of greek and the absence of the actual texts (i.e. the Greek Bible and Plato and Aristotle without the layers of varnish) make much of what he wrote defective. That argument was 1st made by Erasmus around 1500.
I am a Catholic, but I am not uncritical. Very little converges. Very few things are both true and valid. the crack: We steal the best and condemn the rest was ironic.
Mittelman 17:33, May 10, 2010
Very few things are both true and valid? Logical positivism is beyond old news, Don Q. You seem to continue drawing from an outdated deck.
The mortal veil 19:06, May 10, 2010 edit history
The last 30 years of American history have certainly vindicated you. Erosion of the Bill of Rights is not new. Wilson and FDR were guilty of it. But we have had a vindication of Nixon's view of the presidency has been vindicated. Going back a bit further, if these free- to - choose abortion rights activists are so interested in freedom of choice, why has no one proposed a national vote on the question--leave God out of it. He is not a resident of the USA. Let there be a vote. You can also add one about abolishing the first ten ammendments (the Bill of Rights). Since it has already happened, why not formalize it. Your deck is marked with the lies of a world where a few do the thinking. My deck does not include Hitler, Mao, Lenin, or Franco as its kings. I am sure that the american people would make the same deal as The Grand Inquistor offer. Abortion on whim for free ESPN and the right to own thermonuclear devices (for home security -- we cannot discard the second ammendment). Now I am dealing from deck. My hands feel dirty.
The mortal veil 19:35, May 10, 2010 edit
please do not regard the grand inquistor as that cardinal that Dostoyevsky wrote about. It used to be Dick Clark. Now I am not sure if its vince mcmahan or simon crowell. Of course, the grammatical error in the last line was intentional;dregs as in what I deposit in the septic tank of human history. Let me more specific: Julius Groucho Marx was a far better thinker than Karl. George Carlin is a better model than Bill Cosby. I would take those 7 dirty words over 1984's political and social cant. I hate my chains. How about you, Mr Alpert. Do not blame religion or government; the right thing is to simply walk away. Jacob AND MIB remind me of the Who's lyric "new boss, same as the old boss.
Sean Sheep 19:40, May 10, 2010
@The Mortal Veil
Wow, we are finally talking the same language. Fibonacci, in Liber Abaci (1202) did certainly draw on Islamic Sources; these came via Spain and via Arab traders ito Venice. Baghdad in the 8th century was a centre of learning that kept the Greek candle of learning alight for centuries; renaissance in western Europe would never have happened without latin translations of arabic translations of greek texts.
many people know Fibonacci (Leonardo of Pisa) through his rabbits; as pair of rabbits takes one year to mature, then breeds every year to give another pair of rabbits. How many pairs of rabbits do we have after 1,2,3,4, etc years? This gives the answer 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21, etc, the ratio of successive terms lead to the golden ratio 1.61803399, found in nature, art, sculpture, architecture, and A4 paper. The erms in the sequnce is found in sunflowers, pineapples and pine cones. One of the interesting facts about this ratio is that 1/1.61803399 = 0.61803399
Mittelman 19:59, May 10, 2010
@The mortal veil: "Your deck is marked with the lies of a world where a few do the thinking."
Okay, I was having a little fun at your weird little statements, but now you've gone too far. My deck is stacked with lies? First off, I don't even know what deck you're talking about, since I've only reacted to your statements rather than made any of my own. I don't necessarily buy into a "side" in any debate, I'm not shilling for a point of view.
I don't see the problems as things we can solve simply by "walk[ing] away". My world isn't so black and white that I know any "right" answer.
One reason a national vote on abortion is an idiotic idea is the people shouldn't have the "right" to vote to take away the "rights" of others. It's what's happened in my home state of California on the issue of same-sex marriage. Another reason there hasn't been a national vote on abortion rights is that's not how our system of governance works. It's a representational government.
I'm just getting mad now, so unless this is going anywhere, I'm done. I keep forgetting you're in this just to piss people off rather than learn anything.
The mortal veil 21:48, May 10, 2010 edit history
I note below that Annied has asked for truce. So be it.
Annied 22:05, May 10, 2010
Ok, I am going to try to call a truce between you people on here, and I admit I may be partially to blame for this blog turning into a rant about how smart and well read we all are. But now there are personal insults flying around about peoples beleifs and political leanings and I beleive we are all more enlightened then to "go there".
I apologize to Hurleys Heros for taking a somewhat condescending tone and for anyone I may have offended.
Sean Sheep 22:25, May 10, 2010
@Annied
Aw shucks, and just when I understood something that @The Mortal Veil said; and he mentioned my favourite mathematician of the middle ages.
Mittelman 23:25, May 10, 2010
@Annied: Smart and well-read? I thought we were just talking about ideas. That can certainly get complicated. The reason I started to get more personal with The mortal veil is how absolutely pompous he started sounding. Anyone who thinks they are so right that they would "dispatch [terrorists] to God" isn't listening to any side but their own.
I really wish, rather than calling a truce (which, IMO, only has bearing in war when people are actually being wounded physically, instead of in their pride), you would answer some of my criticisms of your arguments. I try to be as open-minded as I can be, but stop short of being so open-minded my brain falls out of my head, as they say. Do you like DanVader's comments simply because you agree with them? I notice he hasn't answered any of my criticisms, either. All good, this blog is so far down the list most people aren't checking it; but here you are, so could you possibly add a little? How is it everyone open-minded must believe in supernatural things, or at least stay open to that possibility? I mean, are you open to the possibility of fairies? I'm not saying all religious belief is analogous to believing in fairies, so please don't misunderstand me. I'm asking: where does one draw the line between ideas for which there is no evidence which one must also be open to, and those one can say "I'll believe it when there's any evidence to support that idea"? The idea of "the supernatural" is certainly a more complex idea than that of fairies, but both have the same amount of evidence in their favor - i.e., none.
I'm not talking about things like love, because that is subjective, and also question-begging (e.g., "what is love?" or "does love exist?" etc.). I'm talking about real evidence, concrete evidence. Not anthropic principle stuff, either. None of this circumstantial stuff. I'm not saying you need to provide evidence if you don't have any. I'm asking why it's arrogant of me to take no stance on a question at all which has no evidence in its favor.
Mittelman 23:31, May 10, 2010
@The mortal veil: Mad and angry are interchangeable terms in American Standard English. Don't know which you speak, since you keep flip-flopping on whether you're from the USA or not. You are and then you're also not, so I can't get it straight. Too bad my memory's not much better than it is, or I'd be able to remember more of what you wrote before you edited your response. I'm not into truces regarding these kinds of discussions, mostly because I'm in the minority being attacked most of the time. I'm a nonbeliever, second-class citizens in the USA. I know, whah whah whah. Not trying to cry, and I don't want special consideration - just saying I don't back down from this stuff because I'm always expected to demure to people who start off calling me names, then want a truce.
Mittelman 23:34, May 10, 2010
@HurleysHeroes: I do want to apologize to you, however, since we are all to blame for hijacking your original topic. Personally I think things were getting interesting for a second, till Mr. Veil decided his "piss all sides off" agenda was more important than dialog; but the original hijacking was all of us, and I apologize for my part in that.
Lionofdharma 23:39, May 10, 2010
**cough**cough**Iamopentothepossibilityoffairies**cough**cough**
Lionofdharma 23:41, May 10, 2010
Wait, what? I didn't say anything.
Annied 00:03, May 11, 2010
@Mittleman: I apologize if I have offended you somehow. I have re-read your comments above and I am not sure what it is that I haven't or you would like for me to respond to. You and Mr. Veil seem to have been heading down a political path, not sure I am qualified to argue in this arena unless the topic is a little more specific and even then not sure I am interested or want to go there on a Lost blog. Lost is alot of things but what the USA is or isn't, not sure I see a relationship.
Yes, I like Dan Vaders argument because it sounds like we agree and I like the way he is articulating his argument. I like Sean Sheeps argument, and we do not agree but I like arguing with him nonetheless and I like some of the arguements you have made above (especially the ones I agree with - just kidding) but the tail end of the debate is where you lost me...To be perfectly honest, i really enjoyed the debate and think it is liberating for all views to be considered up until there were blatant insults and then it just seemed a bit redundant and unfortuneate at that point.
Ask me anything you would like, I love these debates but from your comments above I am not sure what it is you would like for me to respond to.
do I beleive in the possibilities of fairies: Yes. do I beleive that in order to be open-minded you must beleive in supernatural occurances - not necessarily, depending on your view of open-mindedness.
Destinedjourney 00:04, May 11, 2010
@Lion, I am clapping ; D and I think I am seeing a flicker!
Lionofdharma 00:09, May 11, 2010
Hee, me too. Wait, what do you mean those are really lightning bugs? Pshaw.
Destinedjourney 00:13, May 11, 2010
Did I forget to mention that the protagonist of Left Behind was a pilot? But seriously, @Mittleman, I think you brought up awhile ago about Texas taking out Jefferson (and putting in Phyllis Schafly might I add) in the social studies curriculum. I live in Texas, do you, or are you concerned because of the impact Texas' spending has on decisions made by other states? I also lived in Oklahoma my senior year in high school (way back in the dark ages). Would you believe that out of 5 students who took the english advanced placement exam (which in itself was a disgrace given it was a class of over 300), there was a question re: pick a book that was written prior to the 20th century and discuss why it is still relevant today, and I was the only one who did NOT pick - you guessed it - the Bible. (I picked The Scarlett Letter). Exposure to literature is so, so, important and good teachers, like the one I had in my high school prior to that, outside of Chicago, can make all the difference. Anyway, forgive the digression.
Annied 00:15, May 11, 2010
@Middlemen: I went to your first post and re-read it and really appreciated it the first time I read it and found we were almost saying the same thing:
I like this especially:
Like the mystical aspect of life. Many times, things which we once thought mystical get explained without using supernatural explanations. Does that mean there aren't any supernatural explanations? Of course not. But it should at least imply there is no arrogance in saying the jury is out on whether there is anything supernatural. Wait-and-see is not arrogance
I totally agree with this statement. We make a mistake if we say that because one mystical thing turns out not to be mystical than there are not mystical things, yet it can also be true that some mystical things just haven't been explained or "proven" yet making them un-mystical.
My "bias" is that Faith and Science or two very different things and that with discernment either or both can be used in the pursuit of discovery. If I am disciplined enough to beleive in all possibilities either process has the potential of selecting the possibilities that I choose to beleive in and then it just becomes a system of finding supporting evidence for my own beleifs system. Which doesn't do much in the way of advancement.
SmellsLikeCarrots 00:25, May 11, 2010
All books are evil, invented by the MiB to cloud or minds
Mittelman 00:59, May 11, 2010
@Annied: Obviously this subject is too emotional for me to be anywhere near objective. I admitted that somewhere up there. Since I have no computer at home any longer I can't give very good responses unless I'm at work. I will try to respond well when I get home...although I have to use my stupid iPhone, and my thumbs get tired.
Basically, the part of what I wrote you quoted about mysticism is my main point: things we have no definitive evidence on require no conclusions. So, God: believe or don't, doesn't matter to me. It's when people start saying "If you don't believe this about God, you're wrong" that I get lost. Does that make sense? I'll explain better later.
Annied 01:06, May 11, 2010
That makes perfect sense to me, I am ALL about that. Who are we to say what God is about? Who are we to say what beleifs are right and wrong?" I keep seeing the same themes showing up in both of our arguments. The job we are trying to do as humans is not the job we are qualified to do, nor meant to do and when we start doing this about anything, let alone God is where "we fall from grace" in other words, we slide down the slippery slope of limited thinking, limited understanding etc.
Mittelman 03:05, May 11, 2010
@Destinedjourney: I don't live in Texas, but I'm interested for the other reason you mentioned: the effect these textbooks will have on other states. That and the fact I think revisionist history is ridiculous. I don't know why people who actually believe a thing feel it serves their purpose to make up evidence in its favor.
I agree about the power of literature. It is impossible to overstate the importance of the imagination to critical thinking. It also helps make one a flexible and well-rounded person.
Mittelman 04:04, May 11, 2010
@Annied: I reread everything and I'm not sure I agree about insults. Certainly a heated exchange, colorful and sarcastic - but I don't find the insults. Everyone has different definitions, true. I was more frustrated originally by the cavalier way with which you and DanVader had been discussing nonbelievers. I'm over it now, but then The mortal veil started and, you gotta admit, a lot of that stuff borders the surreal.
And he admits he likes to piss off both sides, which is no way to dialog. What we should avoid, unless we're defending ourselves, is talking about our beliefs by belittling those of others. Like I said, I will give my opinion when asked, no problem; but I'm not going to start telling someone they're wrong from the jump. Something has to be directed at me - even indirectly, as in the discussion between you and DanVader.
The common thing to do in discussions about faith and science is to choose a side. I generally head for the middle at that point, because I see a bit of both; but just as often I'm in the I don't know camp, which is a third option completely distinct from the middle: in this case a wishy-washy both/and I just don't get.
My question really was: how is it arrogant to say I don't know? And you've basically answered me by saying it's not. Cool. But I really do mean what I said in that portion you quoted. I don't find there to be any evidence for the supernatural, so I don't have beliefs about it. Everyone else is free to imagine what they want about it, I just wish they would admit they were imagining. I love imagination, as I said to Destinedjourney above. I just find it more productive to use our imaginations on ourselves than on the outside world.
Religion claims to try helping with self-discovery, but it's generally a set of rules and little else. The arts, on the other hand, can be more than that. They are flexible and powerful enough to teach us about ourselves, to help us see things we had never seen before - and without, if we allow it, separating us from each other. It doesn't force dogma on us which conflicts with reality, even though it can take us to places which don't - and possibly couldn't - exist. I wish we'd use it more often as a tool like this rather than simply for entertainment. It's for this reason I love Lost so much. It's as perfect a distillation of all the humanities as we've ever seen in a primetime drama.
As for the fairies...once again, everyone's entitled to use her/his imagination as he/she sees fit. Me, I'd rather just be surprised should I ever happen to see one! This is why
Mittelman 04:09, May 11, 2010
Sorry for that last part. The sentence fragment was supposed to go elsewhere. Grrrrr.
Annied 06:29, May 11, 2010
@Mittleman: I am truely sorry if any of my comments were insulting to you or anyone else. It was not my intention to discuss non-beleivers in a cavalier way as I respect both non-beleivers and beleivers point of view. Sean and I were having an extended discussion on our talk page and on other blogs and perhaps that was carried over, I hope that was not my tone but sometimes in posts it comes across differently than intended. I am surprised tht it was taken this way and cannot find any references I made to non-beleivers that was 'cavalier' but again, my apologies, not my intention at all. How is soemthing in my comment to DanVder directly or indirectly said to you? again, i dont see it, dont get where you are coming from with this.
As for your comments above about Imagination. there is a blog from "Mistimus: Mind blowing symbols in plain sight" that I think you will find to be an interesting and well researched piece delving into mysticism and imagination. You may like it, I found it to be very artfully discussed.
As far as fairies: I guess I should have said that I beleive in the possibilities of Fairies existing before and perhaps in the future, I too should be quite surprised if I were to see one. but then again I beleive in Jedi knights also ;)
Lionofdharma 06:39, May 11, 2010
Fairies are awesome. 'Nuff said.
The mortal veil 08:49, May 11, 2010 edit
@mittelman: I will do you the honor of conceding defeat. In this manner, you need not consider yourself, a person of the second class. I am an American who lives outside the US for reasons that have nothing to do with politics. For the sake of peace, I shall not open any of my newer decks. I have more than one: reproductive endocrinology, the north American response to European pyscho-analytic theories, and an attempt at the synthesis of scientific and theological aspects of the singular and collective aspects of anthropology. This work is availble in scientific jornals in the case of the first "deck". The other two "decks" are copyrighted. They have ISBN numbers and EAN numbers. Of course, I have stuck to the old decks because they do not infringe on my own copyrights or those of the journals that have published my work. I also have a patent which I will not discuss. Now you have all the information to find me.
The mortal veil 09:03, May 11, 2010 edit history
@mittelman: I am an American who lives outside the US for reasons that have nothing to do with politics. For the sake of peace, I shall not open any of my newer decks. I have more than one: reproductive endocrinology, the north American response to European pyscho-analytic theories, and an attempt at the synthesis of scientific and theological aspects of the singular and collective aspects of anthropology. This work is available in scientific journals in the case of the first "deck". The other two "decks" are copyrighted. They have ISBN numbers and EAN numbers. Of course, I have stuck to the old decks because they do not infringe on my own copyrights or those of the journals that have published my work. I also have a patent which I will not discuss. Now you have all the information to find me. my work is a matter of public record.
Sean Sheep 09:32, May 11, 2010
What have I missed here by sleeping? Wonderful debate.
I just think that what I am hearing is the continuation of a debate about people who believe in X, and say that you cannot understand anything unless you believe in X, because X is the be all and end all of everything, and people who say that nothing is certain, and 100% belief in anything cannot be valid, as nothinbg is certain, and in any case, total belief in something, including X, just limits your viewpoint.
However, there is a third way, which actually I think that most people adopt. Many people hold "working hypotheses" about all sorts of stuff, many of which are contradictory if they were fully worked out. Let me give you one example: I am a commited vegetarian and respect animal rights but I wear leather shoes. (Even I wonder about how I can do this at times). Hypocritical, well, maybe, and I have had this argument with many people. The point is, I am not alone here; many people hold amazingly contradictory views. George Bush was a committed Christian, yet his reaction to the Twin Towers was not "turn the other cheek", but to declare war on terrorism. Now don't get me wrong here, I am not making judgements, I am pointing out that we all hold contradictory views in our heads simultaneously. These are "working hypotheses" about the world which work well for parts of our world, and we hold onto them because they appear to work for us. The problem comes when someone claims that a view is so all-encompassing that it works for everything (and, even sometimes, for everyone) I for one, find such a view very difficult to swallow. I cannot see how any view, which is the product of human intelligence, could actually be so good that it could explain, account for, or be a model of reality.
It seems to me that the History of Religion should provide us with a few lessons here. Very early peoples had loads of Gods that worked in very specific circumstances; one was for the sea, another was for the sun, etc. When monotheism was invented, there was hell to pay in ancient Egypt. King Tut's dad had a really difficult time convincing his followers; they built a new city in the desert to celebrate this idea, and within 30 years it was derelict, and they had gone back to the pantheon of gods they had before. You can see the birth pangs of monotheism in the Pentateuch; all this "I am a jealous god" stuff is a dire warning to believe in one god only. The stress here on all of this, means that people really found this a very very difficult idea. Is is totally counterintuitive. Now that does not mean it is wrong, it just means that it is not obviously true. If you think about the Catholic Faith, it had to invent loads of gods for specific circumstances (called saints), who have powers in specific areas (there is even a saint of Lost causes and Beatles songs - Hey Jude)
What this says to me is that people need a lot of convincing that a single world view can provide them with all the intellectual and spiritual sustenance they need. This is reinfored by the fact that when I look around, I cannot think of any single person who lives their lives according to the rules laid out for them by the religion that they profess to adhere to. Even those who are strict religious adherents sometimes have to compromise their principles. They may regard it as sin, and may feel guilt, and may decide afterwards to atone for these "sins"; the problem is that human life is a messy business, and it is not possible to encapsulate it in any set of rules, laws and regulations. We have a real problem in Western Society with "do not covet thy neighbours ox"; the whole of advertising on TV is based on encouraging us to compare our lot with other people on the screen, and encouraging us to want what they have. However, do I find any religious groups campaigning to have advertising abolished?
People take pragmatic views on what is possible, and often limit the extent of their world views so that they do not cause major conflicts. This is why I wear leather shoes. Plastic makes my feet sweat, and smell; it becomes unpleasant, and I put my principles to the back of my mind every morning when I get dressed. Hypocritical, but pragmatic, just like Western Society, and no different to anyone else. We all make compromises, and this is why no all-encompassing view can be taken seriously.
These are all the reasons why I think that any attempt to hijack thinking into an all-encompassing "the answer is plain, if only you believed in X", just cannot be the answer.
Lionofdharma 09:38, May 11, 2010
Wow, could this get any more ridiculous? Pompous blowhards for the win. I'm certain that there are multiple users on Lostpedia who have been published in scientific journals. Big frickin' deal.
Sean Sheep 10:02, May 11, 2010
@Lionofdharma
I was thinking of publshing an article about my sweaty feet. What do you think?
The mortal veil 10:02, May 11, 2010 edit
I remind you of the prohibition of the use of copyrighted materials on this site.
Lionofdharma 10:21, May 11, 2010
Yes, I'm sure that the International Journal of Perspiration would accept that if well written and researched, SS. I hear that perspiration of the extremities is quite the hot topic in the field as of late.
Lionofdharma 10:21, May 11, 2010
double post
Destinedjourney 14:46, May 11, 2010
I think you've brought it back to Lost here, @SS, in that despite anyone's fervent belief or faith in one way, nothing is absolute and perfect. When looking at Ben, Locke, Jack, Kate, Sawyer, etc. each one has dealt with life's blows according to a framework of what they believe is right and just. It may take some uncovering to get at their motivations and justifications, but once we do, we get an understanding of the difficult choices they have faced. Locke's blind faith only got him so far. Jack's science couldn't explain the reality of what he was experiencing.
Beyond that, Lost is about free will when it comes to choices. Not Jacob's pretense of choice, when he has stacked the decks. The choice is how we perceive our experiences and act upon them. Lost has emphasized memory and memory is subjective. We rationalize and conveniently forget that which doesn't fit into our beliefs. Ben killed his father, he was evil, but to Ben, he remembers a cruel upbringing and a way to redeem himself by becoming a leader. Could he have chosen to behave differently given the same circumstances? Of course. Maybe that's what he did in the FS? It doesn't change what happened, but it does change how we respond to what happened and the ultimate effect it has on us.
Sean Sheep 15:20, May 11, 2010
@DestinedJourney
I keep coming back to the idea that Lost is about memory and consciousness. The idea that each ep used to open with an eye, which was the viewpoint of each person, the fact that we have centric episodes, and the idea that we had flashbacks, all said to me that we were seeing POV TV.
Each person's POV may well be different to another's; you could well argue that one person's POV was their unique universe, just as the flash-sideways could simply be a constructive interpretation of memories in a different way.
In real life, I argue that all that we can do is to observe the world, use our senses, and try to make sense out of those sense impressions; we interpret, and we construct models of what we think is reality. What we are seeing in Lost is precisely that, and there are discrepancies and contradictions because each person believes and sees different things. Locke was a believer, Jack was a scientist. They totally disagreed about the island, what it was, and how to deal with it. Now Jack's world view has changed; he believes that he has a destiny, that the island wants him to do something. It does not mean he is right, any more than it means that the MiB has been acting as Christian. We as outside observers also have no idea what is "real", what is "constructed"; it could be that Christian was resurrected. It could be that Christian is a ghost. It could be that Christian never died at all, or it could be that MiB has been telling the truth, and Chrisitan was always MiB.
The issue here, is that there is no such thing as "truth"; all is interpretation, all is memory, all is construction, and we have to construct our own interpretations just as we are doing now. I firmly believe that the FST is actually just that, a construction, but this construction is somehow different. Possibly it is deliberate rather than accidental, "collaborative" rather than individual. The OT may have been accidental, haphazard or happenstance, in that it is is the type of reality construction that we come across in our lives, the individual construction of reality, where each person on their own tries to make sense of their environment. The most extreme example of this was Desmond, who seemed to be able to reconstruct the whole of reality, simply by revisiting his own memories.
Where there is a collaborative social construction of reality, all must agree, negotiate and collectively understand the phenomena. In order to amend reality under these circumstances, than Desmond's abilities could not function, as it is the collective understanding that holds sway, not that of the individual.
The multiverse provides the basis for all this, and the workings of individual consciousness provides the mechanism for choice. Each person's sequence of choices selects their unique route through the different spacetime manifolds of the multiverse. However, this sets everyone apart, journeying alone along their own pathway, separated from others, making their own decisions, unaffected by, and not affecting any other individual. The Island has made their worlds collide. They have created a community of selves, and created the means for a collective journey throught the multiverse. That may what we are now witnessing in the FST.
Destinedjourney 16:37, May 11, 2010
This is totally getting off the topic of this blog, but I wanted to clarify one thing you say @Sean, "...than Desmond's abilities could not function, as it is the collective understanding that holds sway, not that of the individual." If I understand you, I disagree because it seems Desmond is the only one who can put it all together and then share that view so that each of the others sees what has happened simultaneously and similarly. Otherwise, they continue to work at odds. It reminds me of this : www.xecu.net/schaller/management/abilene.pdf which is from organizational theory. I was fortunate many years ago to attend a workshop given by Jerry Harvey, a professor at George Washington University, who authored "The Abilene Paradox," which explores people's mismanagement of agreements as the crux of many problems. This is more related to how we communicate with each other vs. perceptions, but the losties could certainly take a lesson in better communication!
Ron Fett 16:41, May 11, 2010
I didn't even bother with the book. I just watched the movie. I didn't like it at all.
Sean Sheep 16:50, May 11, 2010
@DestinedJourney
What I love about this place is the variety of experiences people bring to the debates. The Abilene Paradox is going on currently as I speak on the TV between the political parties in Britain. Everybody is going along with a ludicrous situation, and people are telling themselves "welll, this is democracy"
You are correct in that a lot of what has been going on in Lost can be explained by this; the bomb is a case in point. No one thought it was a good idea, but they went along with it. Going to talk to Locke was the worst idea possible.
About Desmond. What I was saying is that in an individual (solipsistic-type) construction of reality, Desmond appeared to have the ability to reconstruct his path through the spacetime continuum. However, if the construction were genuinely social, genuinely collaborational, that would not work, as he would have to change everyone else's meomories as well as his own. That might work, but it would require him to get all of the Losties together and do it collaboratively. he just could not do this on his own.
Mittelman 19:25, May 11, 2010
@Annied: Like I said, being a nonbeliever in this world means you are constantly insulted, so when it comes to these discussions I am a raw nerve from the get-go. Totally my deal, nothing to do with you. I was just rubbed the wrong way by how you and DanVader seemed to be patting each other on the back by putting nonbelievers down and calling us arrogant. You didn't say it, DanVader did, but you quoted it and said "Good stuff!" - and, since he's not been back to comment, I've directed my remaining questions to you. Nothing you said was directed at me, I know, but I felt belittled and reacted accordingly. As I said, I'm over it now. I have strong reactions, and apologize if they came off as angry etc.
"Belief" gets thrown around a lot, so I have a question for you: what is the difference between your belief in the possibility of fairies existing, your belief in the supernatural, and your belief in Jedi? I know, you're joking to an extent; but I want to understand. Obviously the word belief means different things to you depending on the thing about which you hold beliefs. Right? If it doesn't, I'm exceedingly confused. Not that you're to blame for that - I'm almost always confused! But I wouldn't mind some clarification if you've got it to give.
I read the blog you mentioned but couldn't finish before I had to leave work, then had no time to pick it back up at home. I totally agree it was very interesting and hope to get back to it today. I think he/she is correct in saying the writers have been hiding many "keys" to the mystery right in front of us.
Mittelman 20:02, May 11, 2010
The mortal veil, I am a second-class citizen in the USA by virtue of not-believing. There are laws on the books in a number of states barring me from ever holding public office. In Texas (sorry, Destinedjourney, not trying to bash your state, just low-hanging fruit, as it were) a person must "admit belief in a supreme being" in order to run for public office. This means I could admit belief in The Great and All-Powerful Pink Astronaut, who orbits the earth on his Scooty-puff Jr. and controls all the universe with his magic candy cane, and (assuming anyone would vote for me) I could be elected. But if I simply say, "No, the idea of a supreme being makes no sense to me," I am barred from running at all. This is the very definition of second-class. You can also Google "George H.W. Bush atheist citizen" and read what you find there. His opinion is shared by many. These are just some examples.
However: do not concede to me. I wasn't trying to win, just have a discussion. Were I trying to win I would especially be uninterested in a victory by concession. I have no problem losing, and I'll admit it's all me when I do lose. But this wasn't a debate for me, it was a discussion. My passion for the subject may come across as anger or something like it, and I apologize for that. I stand by what I said, though. In a pluralist society it is important to be tolerant of and respectful toward people with whom you don't agree. Not to say you can't be vehement, and it's obvious to all I love sarcasm - it just needs to remain within some realm of respect.
I have never published, have no books or anything in the public record which might help you understand my perspective. For a person who likes to run counter to authority etc., you make numerous appeals to authority...which is a logical fallacy, in case that's outside anthropological endocrinology or whatever. Like many name-droppers and such you seem to be involved in a bunch of disparate fields. I am an not an expert in anything, so I guess I'll concede defeat to you in that arena. You know, the arena you said includes a small number of people doing all the thinking for everyone else...
Seriously, I'm just confused by you. But, as I said, I'm mostly confused in general, so don't lose too much sleep over it.
The mortal veil 20:38, May 11, 2010 edit
I defend your right to be an atheist. Appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy. It is a fair tactic. Personal attack is a fair tactic. Ad baculum (appeal to beat you physically) is not. Begging the question: the bible is true because God wrote, it says so inside is a no-no. Coming in third is secundum quid. Sadists are those who inflict pain. Dentists hurt me. therefore, dentists are sadists. I have no choice but to try to work at many things. I had no idea that there existed anyone else with my surname until I was in my mid-forties. No brothers, no sisters, just me. As I was told in high school, I was told that my foreign parents and my low socio-economic status should prohibit my success. I was an idiot to disbelieve these people. Of course, they were right. I am surprised I survived this long. I would suggest Barker's Elements of Logic. People that talk about Brittany Spears or Sandra Bullock are name droppers. People that speak of Dante, Einstein et alia. are people talking about ideas. Finally, remember the fable about the day the hound did not catch the hare. The dog explained: "For me it was just a day's work, but for the rabbit it was his life. I am that rabbit.
.
Please see my pseudo- mea culpa. The cocaine filled Mary statues, the false priests (both the Spanish and The African one), the sacrifice of her favored son by Mrs. Hawking and Faraday's Christ-like figure lying on the ground, the inability of jacob to save himself from Ben's knife. He was so powerful outside his home in the shoe against Richard. All this points to Across the Sea. Darlton got the name right. Woman is the very latest (historical) a Celtic witch (but she would never speak Latin). She of the female guided Celt culture in which property and power from mother to daughter would never use the masculine language of Latin. Let us go back to the male God. The woman that was made first was called Lilth (see the name in most work on Jewish scripture). She was replaced by a part of Adam called Eve. Adam accepts the male GOD and then the female emerges from him. God never addresses Eve: HE calls her WOMAN. Sin came into the world through Woman. But God has made a creature separate from from creation: Mary the only sinless one, the vessel for the male God who has no father or mother, but "is one in substance with Father" (Nicene Creed). Mary asks for a personal favor: it is Christ's first miracle. The remark can be taken in a variety of ways: WOMAN, WHAT DO YOU WANT OF ME? the usual meaning is that Mary has redeemed her sex by her life. Christ is granting forgiveness to the sex, but not parity. She is the vessel, the conduit to GOD.
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)