Adagio: plural of adage. Adage: memorable saying which holds some important fact of experience that is considered true by many.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Adagio
Sunday Morning
When I hear secular religion, I think of contradiction: how can anything secular be considered a religion and how can this definition be so open? Professor Smith cleared my confusion of the definition of secular religion in class on Wednesday. Secular religion does not mean that anything can be considered a religion, such as smoking weed. What differentiations secular religion from an obsession or habit and enables it to be compared with religion is that it offers an individual a concept of reality and motivation in life, without being selfish or harmful to the individual in nature. Wallace Stevens’ poem, Sunday Morning, can be considered secular religion because it exemplifies Stevens’ concept of reality, which is different than a traditional religious view of reality. Most traditional religion believers live their lives on Sunday morning with attending church to save their souls, but Stevens views soul-saving as having enjoyment, peace, and happiness for the body and mind such as staying at home on a Sunday morning while drinking coffee and eating oranges. So Stevens’ concept of reality is based off of living in the here-and-now only for the benefit gained from that moment’s experience whereas traditional believers live their lives for the benefit that they will gain in the afterlife. Yet Stevens does show a belief in a higher power because he mentions religious concepts in his poem, such as the “holy hush of ancient sacrifice” and “things to be cherished like the thought of heaven.” I feel that Stevens has this view because he does believe in a higher but a traditional religious belief did not seem to work for him, so he sought out another belief in life that was in tune with his mentality and concept of reality, which is what makes his poetry to be defined as secular religion.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Response to Annemarie's Blog
From Wednesday's class, I realized how difficult it can be to discuss secular religion...or religion in general I guess, in reference to art because art by itself is so interpretive. Discussion is especially hard when the item up for grabs is a work by Jackson Pollock. A few people seemed to think that Pollock's work has nothing to do with religion, secular or nonsecular but I beg to differ.
I really like what Annemarie had to say about symbols. One hard thing about discussing Pollock's work in a religious context was that people were trying to find a disintguishable picture in the chaos, which works at times but I think there's a different way to go about it and that's through symbols. Annemarie stated that art is the greatest symbol of all because it invokes a visual stimulation followed by a visual response in the individual. I completely aggree with this notion. While looking at Pollock's work it is not the title that matters or what one can decipher from mass of drips...but it is what the painting as a whole provides for viewers emotionally. For example, a viewer might not be able to distinguish one of Pollock's drip paintings but may be drawn to it becuase it may provide him/her relief from what is going on in the world at that moment. For example, when I look at Pollock's "No. IA" I get lost in it and feel as though I'm inside my brain instead of in reality. This provides a relief for me from the stress of life on earth and I get a sense of transcending reality...which is what religion provides for people.
So, to sum up I think an important thing to consider when looking at Pollock's paintings is to not expect something definit but to just focus on what it does for an individual's emotions and mental state.
I really like what Annemarie had to say about symbols. One hard thing about discussing Pollock's work in a religious context was that people were trying to find a disintguishable picture in the chaos, which works at times but I think there's a different way to go about it and that's through symbols. Annemarie stated that art is the greatest symbol of all because it invokes a visual stimulation followed by a visual response in the individual. I completely aggree with this notion. While looking at Pollock's work it is not the title that matters or what one can decipher from mass of drips...but it is what the painting as a whole provides for viewers emotionally. For example, a viewer might not be able to distinguish one of Pollock's drip paintings but may be drawn to it becuase it may provide him/her relief from what is going on in the world at that moment. For example, when I look at Pollock's "No. IA" I get lost in it and feel as though I'm inside my brain instead of in reality. This provides a relief for me from the stress of life on earth and I get a sense of transcending reality...which is what religion provides for people.
So, to sum up I think an important thing to consider when looking at Pollock's paintings is to not expect something definit but to just focus on what it does for an individual's emotions and mental state.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Secular religion within "Red"
I found the relationship between the old judge and Valentine an interesting one. I also found something religious in it. In the beginning of the film Valentine is seen as a romantic, constantly waiting for her boyfriend's phone call and tells him how much she misses him. Even though viewers only hear the boyfriend's voice, we get a sense that he is controlling, paranoid, and withdrawn from her in that he does not love Valentine as she much as she loves him and that he may be cheating on her. But she is oblivious to all of this because she is stuck in her idealized view of the world.
When she meets the judge she is surpised at his blunt personality and automatically judges him as a numb old man who is dead to the world without a care for humanity. In reality, he does have a care for humanity, etc. but the thing that differs he from Valentine is his acuteness to reality. When he spies on people, he is actually allowing himself to face the tragedies and hardships of life rather than attempting to cover them up in a soft, cotton blanket which Valentine does...she shields herself from the real unfairness and tragedies of life. When she returns Rita, the old judge asks what her motives were for doing such a thing: did she return it because she actually wanted to (seeing reality) or because she was afraid of the guilt (a shield from reality). This, I think is secular religion: living a raw life, without a barrier from anything. Lots of times religion provides people with a metaphysical, transcendent feeling but secular religion allows people to be humanitarians, to find identities while living life on earth and seeing it for what it is.
This relates to what Golding said in his article on Jackson Pollock in "Paths to the Absolute," Abstract Impressionists saw themselves as "belonging to the here and in a more self-concious way" (116).
When she meets the judge she is surpised at his blunt personality and automatically judges him as a numb old man who is dead to the world without a care for humanity. In reality, he does have a care for humanity, etc. but the thing that differs he from Valentine is his acuteness to reality. When he spies on people, he is actually allowing himself to face the tragedies and hardships of life rather than attempting to cover them up in a soft, cotton blanket which Valentine does...she shields herself from the real unfairness and tragedies of life. When she returns Rita, the old judge asks what her motives were for doing such a thing: did she return it because she actually wanted to (seeing reality) or because she was afraid of the guilt (a shield from reality). This, I think is secular religion: living a raw life, without a barrier from anything. Lots of times religion provides people with a metaphysical, transcendent feeling but secular religion allows people to be humanitarians, to find identities while living life on earth and seeing it for what it is.
This relates to what Golding said in his article on Jackson Pollock in "Paths to the Absolute," Abstract Impressionists saw themselves as "belonging to the here and in a more self-concious way" (116).
I felt that Jackson Pollock is a mix of both Jane Addams' religious style and his own unique belief system. Pollock is similar to Jane Addams in his intent to, through his belief system, reach the community and bridge the gap between rich and poor/people of different ethnic backgrounds. This is seen in his interest in anthropology and, as author Golding describes, his "attempt to resolve the clash and collision between Mexican and indigenous native American art with the mainstream of European modernsim" (118).
I see Pollock as definitely secular although he uses secular religion as an attempt to fulfill the holes in his life, which nonsecular religion (as a definition) provides such as an identity and comfort during tragedy.
Golding states that Pollock was not an intellectual but that his "reactions were visceral [feelings rather than reason] and he did his learning visually" (128). So, any sort of belief of Pollock's had to be something that he would relate to, which was visual/abstract are and Jungian symobls all of which can be interpreted according to one's own thoughts and feelings rather than reason. For example, when one looks at abstract are one says what comes first to mind, which may be what is in one's subconcious. Abstract art does not have to mean one thing, the title only suggests what the work meant to the artist.
From art, Pollock wished to find some sort of identity (such as skater's find with skateboarding). Golding describes this as a "dichotomy between the search for self and the longing to identify with an absolute- the greater than the self"' (116). This is where I see secular religion differing from nonsecular religion because in a nonsecular religion practitioners usually search for a personal identity but not an identity with a higher power because that crosses invisible status lines. For Pollock, his search for a personal identity failed. This is where I think secular religion fails in that people attempt to identify themselves with a higher being which they cannot achieve because they are only human, not gods.
I see Pollock as definitely secular although he uses secular religion as an attempt to fulfill the holes in his life, which nonsecular religion (as a definition) provides such as an identity and comfort during tragedy.
Golding states that Pollock was not an intellectual but that his "reactions were visceral [feelings rather than reason] and he did his learning visually" (128). So, any sort of belief of Pollock's had to be something that he would relate to, which was visual/abstract are and Jungian symobls all of which can be interpreted according to one's own thoughts and feelings rather than reason. For example, when one looks at abstract are one says what comes first to mind, which may be what is in one's subconcious. Abstract art does not have to mean one thing, the title only suggests what the work meant to the artist.
From art, Pollock wished to find some sort of identity (such as skater's find with skateboarding). Golding describes this as a "dichotomy between the search for self and the longing to identify with an absolute- the greater than the self"' (116). This is where I see secular religion differing from nonsecular religion because in a nonsecular religion practitioners usually search for a personal identity but not an identity with a higher power because that crosses invisible status lines. For Pollock, his search for a personal identity failed. This is where I think secular religion fails in that people attempt to identify themselves with a higher being which they cannot achieve because they are only human, not gods.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Beyond Institutional Religion
From reading chapters 4-6 of Hull House, I gained a better sense of who Addams is and what her concerns and goals in life are. These chapters are written after Addams is finished with her first years of college. Already she seems like the type of person who is more “hands-on” rather than strictly academic. She chastises the student who has more and more schooling and only plans to save the world rather than going out into the world, seeing the reality of it and actually doing humanitarian work.
I noticed that, at this point in Addams’s life, humanitarianism is firmly established as her religion, yet it is based in Christianity. I wonder then…it is my belief that religion does not have to be considered truly as institutional, that it goes beyond going to a place of worship, fellowshipping, and reading from a holy book…but does religion have to have some sort of base/root in an institutional religion? For example, social service acts as a religion to Addams because it gives her an identity and a motivation in life, but she reminds readers of her Christian humanitarian goals through Hull House, for example she writes sentences such as “I believe that there is a distinct turning among many young men and women toward this simple acceptance of Christ’s message,” “renaissance of the early Christian humanitarianism,” and “express in social service and in terms of action the spirit of Christ.” So I wonder if her goal was not rooted in Christianity, would social service still be considered a religion in her case and would her goals be the same? For an abstract thing to be considered a religion for someone, does it have to be rooted in a belief in a higher power?
I noticed that, at this point in Addams’s life, humanitarianism is firmly established as her religion, yet it is based in Christianity. I wonder then…it is my belief that religion does not have to be considered truly as institutional, that it goes beyond going to a place of worship, fellowshipping, and reading from a holy book…but does religion have to have some sort of base/root in an institutional religion? For example, social service acts as a religion to Addams because it gives her an identity and a motivation in life, but she reminds readers of her Christian humanitarian goals through Hull House, for example she writes sentences such as “I believe that there is a distinct turning among many young men and women toward this simple acceptance of Christ’s message,” “renaissance of the early Christian humanitarianism,” and “express in social service and in terms of action the spirit of Christ.” So I wonder if her goal was not rooted in Christianity, would social service still be considered a religion in her case and would her goals be the same? For an abstract thing to be considered a religion for someone, does it have to be rooted in a belief in a higher power?
The Calling to Social Service
Two things stood out to me while reading the first three chapters of Jane Addam’s “Hull House:” the story of how she was called into social service/her persona, and her relationship with her father.
Jane Addams describes herself as sensitive to the moral concerns of life. She noticed this about herself at an extremely young age. It seems that she as an extremely acute conscious and therefore very sensitive to disobedience and the evil side of life. Addams recalls her first encounter with poverty. She states that she had her “first sight of poverty [and] felt the curious distinction between the ruddy poverty of the country and that which even a small city presents in its shabbiest streets.” Addams was of course surprised at this because it was unlike anything she had ever seen before since her dad was a wealthy mill owner and ensured the stability and success of his family.
This reminds me of the early life of Siddhatta Gotama, before he became the Buddha and I realized that he and Addams shared similar callings in life. At his birth it was predicted that Gotama would either be the next ruler or a monk. Since his father wanted the former, he shielded Gotama from the harsh realities of life. One day Gotama was able to walk in the streets and was appalled at the poverty that he saw. Like Addams, he decided to do something about it…he did not try to save the world and eliminate poverty but he tried to work with it, which is what Addams did with Hull House. Hull House is a place to educate the poor and to provide shelter and company. So I guess I saw Addams as a 19th century Buddha of sorts.
I found the relationship that Addams had with her father an odd one. To me it seemed that, as a young girl, Addams treated her father like a religious figure, almost like her personal god because she was fearful of him and obeyed him in every way. Yet it seems that once she found her calling for social service she did not view her father is this strict sense anymore. Even though she always had her Christian faith it seemed that something was lacking, that an institutional religion could not solely fulfill her. When she was younger, she thought that her father would fill this void but she found out that social service was a better fulfillment. This just shows that religion is a multitude of things, not solely the idea of going to church and reading from a holy book.
Jane Addams describes herself as sensitive to the moral concerns of life. She noticed this about herself at an extremely young age. It seems that she as an extremely acute conscious and therefore very sensitive to disobedience and the evil side of life. Addams recalls her first encounter with poverty. She states that she had her “first sight of poverty [and] felt the curious distinction between the ruddy poverty of the country and that which even a small city presents in its shabbiest streets.” Addams was of course surprised at this because it was unlike anything she had ever seen before since her dad was a wealthy mill owner and ensured the stability and success of his family.
This reminds me of the early life of Siddhatta Gotama, before he became the Buddha and I realized that he and Addams shared similar callings in life. At his birth it was predicted that Gotama would either be the next ruler or a monk. Since his father wanted the former, he shielded Gotama from the harsh realities of life. One day Gotama was able to walk in the streets and was appalled at the poverty that he saw. Like Addams, he decided to do something about it…he did not try to save the world and eliminate poverty but he tried to work with it, which is what Addams did with Hull House. Hull House is a place to educate the poor and to provide shelter and company. So I guess I saw Addams as a 19th century Buddha of sorts.
I found the relationship that Addams had with her father an odd one. To me it seemed that, as a young girl, Addams treated her father like a religious figure, almost like her personal god because she was fearful of him and obeyed him in every way. Yet it seems that once she found her calling for social service she did not view her father is this strict sense anymore. Even though she always had her Christian faith it seemed that something was lacking, that an institutional religion could not solely fulfill her. When she was younger, she thought that her father would fill this void but she found out that social service was a better fulfillment. This just shows that religion is a multitude of things, not solely the idea of going to church and reading from a holy book.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Quakerism and Social Change
Within the article "The Meeting for Worship" I found a lot of connections to religion and social change. The article was about the Light Within. During this time Quakers sit in a circle silently to reflect on God's presence. They speak only if they have a revelation.
The goal of Quakerism is to experience fundamental truths during their quiet time. Once the truths have been contemplated they return to the outside world and apply the truths accordingly. This reminds me of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. In Allegory three men are fettered against a cave wall. One man is given the chance to escape the darkness of the cave and experience the light from the outside world. Once he has experienced all the truths, etc from the outside world he has to make a decision if he would like to stay in the light or if he should go back in the cave to tell the truths to his fellow cavedwellers.
This is the same task that Quaker's undertake. To them the outside world is considered to be the cave but during their quiet time they are allowed to seek the light and fundamental truths. Once they have received a revelation it is their choice whether they would like to apply these truths to the outside world. The truths represent religion and the outside world represents social change/our modern world. The Quakers call this process withdrawl and return.
There are two sides to this process. The negative side is that it takes one back to the sourcs of meaning and value. I see this as a person being stuck in the past. The positive side is that one can put meaning and value in the routine of life, which I took as applying religion to social change.
Basically, one can either be stuck in religion and take the Bible literally and thus being passive towards social change. Or one can go back and really understand the religion and take that meaning and return to modern society and apply the basic meaning of life that religion has in mind. For example, the article states that "without a deep awareness of the divine Spirit by which the world is united from within, social reformers can only prescribe external remedies" (68). This is similar to prescribing a depressed person medicine without ever counseling them. Quakers want to go to the root of the problem...find the remedy and then apply that to the overarching problem. The Quaker religion takes and active role in social change, they want to combine the two world...so the "two gradually merge until the lives of those who are most advanced the two become one" (63).
The goal of Quakerism is to experience fundamental truths during their quiet time. Once the truths have been contemplated they return to the outside world and apply the truths accordingly. This reminds me of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. In Allegory three men are fettered against a cave wall. One man is given the chance to escape the darkness of the cave and experience the light from the outside world. Once he has experienced all the truths, etc from the outside world he has to make a decision if he would like to stay in the light or if he should go back in the cave to tell the truths to his fellow cavedwellers.
This is the same task that Quaker's undertake. To them the outside world is considered to be the cave but during their quiet time they are allowed to seek the light and fundamental truths. Once they have received a revelation it is their choice whether they would like to apply these truths to the outside world. The truths represent religion and the outside world represents social change/our modern world. The Quakers call this process withdrawl and return.
There are two sides to this process. The negative side is that it takes one back to the sourcs of meaning and value. I see this as a person being stuck in the past. The positive side is that one can put meaning and value in the routine of life, which I took as applying religion to social change.
Basically, one can either be stuck in religion and take the Bible literally and thus being passive towards social change. Or one can go back and really understand the religion and take that meaning and return to modern society and apply the basic meaning of life that religion has in mind. For example, the article states that "without a deep awareness of the divine Spirit by which the world is united from within, social reformers can only prescribe external remedies" (68). This is similar to prescribing a depressed person medicine without ever counseling them. Quakers want to go to the root of the problem...find the remedy and then apply that to the overarching problem. The Quaker religion takes and active role in social change, they want to combine the two world...so the "two gradually merge until the lives of those who are most advanced the two become one" (63).
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
The Relationship between Religion and Social Change
I really do not think that the base of the relationship between religion and social change. Instead, I think it has more to do with how church responds to social change. I think that people or religious institutions can or cannot make religion coincide with social change. For example, the Catholic Church is still anti-contraceptives but our era almost requires it, especially the high rate of teenage pregnancy and AIDS (in reference to condoms only). Yet there are other churches that support the use of contraceptives. This is a good example: both religions use the Bible as a source for their information yet they take different points with social change.
In my opinion, religion is meant to respond to social change. The basic point of religion is to provide comfort, support, and advice for people. This will not work if people approach religion with a 19th century viewpoint. I think that each generation and each religious institution can approach the basic tenets of a religion but extract a whole new meaning that coincides with their lifestyle and the modern world around them. This is the same method that Margaret Fell used when establishing the Quaker religion. She looked as the basics of the Bible, only approached it with a different viewpoint. Instead of reading passages in a way that demeaned women, she interpreted them in a way that emphasized the importance of women.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Finding Rastafarian values in Bob Marley's album Exodus
Bob Marley's music is more than just a popular sound for people of all races, religions, and ages. His music conveys a Rastafarian attitude in four ways: (1) his lyrics connect Rastas directly with their faith since music is an integral part in Rastafaria, (2) his music pays tribute to important influences in religion, (3) his lyrics use Rasta terminology which makes it feel like the music is a Rasta's music, (4) the messages in the songs are directed towards Rastas; hen Rastas ilsten to it they are reminded of Rastafari's values.
Evidence pertaining to point #2:
In "So Much Things to Say" Marley sings that people (most probably Christians or anyone who is against the Rastafari faith) stole Marcus Garvey rights, turned their backs on Paul Boyle. Rastas consider Garvey to be a prophet. This serves to pay tribute to Garvey who is an importatn figure in the history of Rastafari. It also keeps him alive in a song so everytime a Rasta hears it, he will not forget his faith's past. This is much like the stories in the Qur'an of sinners not trusting the prophets but who turned their back to believe in another religion although Rastas would not call anyone of another faith as sinners.
Point #3:
In many of Bob Marley's songs Rasta terminology is used.
Downpressors- pressure is applied from a position of power to put down a victim. This word is used in the song "Guiltiness": woe to the downpressors, they'll eat the bread of sorrows.
It is also found in "Exodus": Jah come to break downpression, rule equality, wipe away transgression, set the captives [slaves] free.
In "Exodus" the phrase open your eyes and look within is used. This refers to the Rastafari approach to see life from the inside looking out. An individual must find truth within himself and then view reality from the eyes of this truth.
I and I- Iyaric," Divine within the individual. "Jamming" states that 'I and I will see you through.' This is the encouragement that Jah is with believers. This provides comfort and reassurance to Rastas.
~Rasta terminology is used in the lyrics to make the music feel like it is directed towards Rastas (much like hymns or Christian rock is for Christians), it is also meant to convey Rastafari messages to Rastas.
Point #4:
Many Rastafari messages are within each Bob Marley song:
"Exodus"-leave Babylon
"So Much Things to Say"-individuality
"Guiltiness"-no materialism
"Three Little Birds"-nature/pure/irie
"Punk Reggae Party"-no alcohol
"One Love"-obviously, one love
To bring the four points of Bob Marley's Exodus album together, his music in particular serves a similar purpose that the Bible/hymns do for Christians and that the Qur'an does for Muslims (since the Qur'an is more effective when it is recited rather than read). Marley's music is meant to be more than heard. Although it is true that the instruments and pure music mean as much as the lyrics (because an integral part in Rastafari is the music itself) Marley's lyrics are meant to evoke and sustain the Rastafari spirit in everyone...to either keep their Rastafari faith strong or to call them to the faith/practice.
Evidence pertaining to point #2:
In "So Much Things to Say" Marley sings that people (most probably Christians or anyone who is against the Rastafari faith) stole Marcus Garvey rights, turned their backs on Paul Boyle. Rastas consider Garvey to be a prophet. This serves to pay tribute to Garvey who is an importatn figure in the history of Rastafari. It also keeps him alive in a song so everytime a Rasta hears it, he will not forget his faith's past. This is much like the stories in the Qur'an of sinners not trusting the prophets but who turned their back to believe in another religion although Rastas would not call anyone of another faith as sinners.
Point #3:
In many of Bob Marley's songs Rasta terminology is used.
Downpressors- pressure is applied from a position of power to put down a victim. This word is used in the song "Guiltiness": woe to the downpressors, they'll eat the bread of sorrows.
It is also found in "Exodus": Jah come to break downpression, rule equality, wipe away transgression, set the captives [slaves] free.
In "Exodus" the phrase open your eyes and look within is used. This refers to the Rastafari approach to see life from the inside looking out. An individual must find truth within himself and then view reality from the eyes of this truth.
I and I- Iyaric," Divine within the individual. "Jamming" states that 'I and I will see you through.' This is the encouragement that Jah is with believers. This provides comfort and reassurance to Rastas.
~Rasta terminology is used in the lyrics to make the music feel like it is directed towards Rastas (much like hymns or Christian rock is for Christians), it is also meant to convey Rastafari messages to Rastas.
Point #4:
Many Rastafari messages are within each Bob Marley song:
"Exodus"-leave Babylon
"So Much Things to Say"-individuality
"Guiltiness"-no materialism
"Three Little Birds"-nature/pure/irie
"Punk Reggae Party"-no alcohol
"One Love"-obviously, one love
To bring the four points of Bob Marley's Exodus album together, his music in particular serves a similar purpose that the Bible/hymns do for Christians and that the Qur'an does for Muslims (since the Qur'an is more effective when it is recited rather than read). Marley's music is meant to be more than heard. Although it is true that the instruments and pure music mean as much as the lyrics (because an integral part in Rastafari is the music itself) Marley's lyrics are meant to evoke and sustain the Rastafari spirit in everyone...to either keep their Rastafari faith strong or to call them to the faith/practice.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Evidence of Rastafari-My Experience in Jamaica
One important thing to keep in mind while reading the Wikipedia entry on the Rastafari movement is allegory. In order to understand Rastafari one must understand it from a Rasta's point of view. If one does not, one will not fully comprehen the concepts. For example without an allegorical frame of mind it is hard to accept that Rastas believe that smoking pot results in Enlightenment.
Relating my experience to the article...
"Rastafari developed among an oppressed people who felt society had nothing to offer them except more sufferign"
Wikipedia states that the Rastafari movement emerged among the working class and peasant black people. It also states that there were confrontations between poor black Rastas and middle-class police. Jamaica society is set up much differently that America's. I was amazed to see the poorest of shacks at ground level yet right above the shacks on a hill would be grand mansions. Since they live so close, it would be hard for poor Jamaicans to share the same religion as the upper class since the division of life is so prominent. The Rastafari message encourages Rastas to be content with who they are and their lifestyle. It encourages them to not be envious of the rich. This message would appeal to the poor since would be so easy for them to envy the rich because they can see their lifestyle everyday from their own shack. Rastafari gives people a way to deal with their reality and a purpose to live each day, even if it is in poverty.
Smoking cannabis
An important place to visit for any Rasta is the Bob Marley Museum, which was a Marley's former residency since 1975 in Kingston, Jamaica. The Museum is engulfed in lush vegetation, an important part of the Rasta faith. On one side of the museum is Rita Marley's organic garden. It is still as healthy as it was when she lived there with Bob. It is said to be the healthiest garden in all of Jamaica. This relates to the Rasta view of the importance of natural earth. On the other side of the house is the oak tree, which was Bob Marley's favorite place to smoke. His cannabis plant is still in the yard and is still extremely healthy.
In my tour group were three men, one was from Jamaica and the other two were from other Caribbean islands. When we were standing by the oak tree they started to smoke their joints ni rememberance of Bob Marley. The tour guide told them that it was illegal to smoke but they could not understand...they stated that Bob Marley would have wanted them to smoke there. And this is probably true...this relates to the part of the article where Rastas smoke to gain Enlightment and to be at one with the earth and to exert their consciousness.
Going to Jamaica helped me to better understand Rastafari in two ways: it allowed me to see the purpose the religion serves for the lower class. Since they live next door (literally) to the rich it would be easy for them to be envious but Rastafari encourages them to love the earth which does not require any wealth, to not be obsessed with materialism, and to just love who they are. Secondly, by visiting the Bob Marley Museum and my interaction with the three Rastas, it is obvious that Rastas never forget their past and the founders of their religion; they have deep respect for them.
Relating my experience to the article...
"Rastafari developed among an oppressed people who felt society had nothing to offer them except more sufferign"
Wikipedia states that the Rastafari movement emerged among the working class and peasant black people. It also states that there were confrontations between poor black Rastas and middle-class police. Jamaica society is set up much differently that America's. I was amazed to see the poorest of shacks at ground level yet right above the shacks on a hill would be grand mansions. Since they live so close, it would be hard for poor Jamaicans to share the same religion as the upper class since the division of life is so prominent. The Rastafari message encourages Rastas to be content with who they are and their lifestyle. It encourages them to not be envious of the rich. This message would appeal to the poor since would be so easy for them to envy the rich because they can see their lifestyle everyday from their own shack. Rastafari gives people a way to deal with their reality and a purpose to live each day, even if it is in poverty.
Smoking cannabis
An important place to visit for any Rasta is the Bob Marley Museum, which was a Marley's former residency since 1975 in Kingston, Jamaica. The Museum is engulfed in lush vegetation, an important part of the Rasta faith. On one side of the museum is Rita Marley's organic garden. It is still as healthy as it was when she lived there with Bob. It is said to be the healthiest garden in all of Jamaica. This relates to the Rasta view of the importance of natural earth. On the other side of the house is the oak tree, which was Bob Marley's favorite place to smoke. His cannabis plant is still in the yard and is still extremely healthy.
In my tour group were three men, one was from Jamaica and the other two were from other Caribbean islands. When we were standing by the oak tree they started to smoke their joints ni rememberance of Bob Marley. The tour guide told them that it was illegal to smoke but they could not understand...they stated that Bob Marley would have wanted them to smoke there. And this is probably true...this relates to the part of the article where Rastas smoke to gain Enlightment and to be at one with the earth and to exert their consciousness.
Going to Jamaica helped me to better understand Rastafari in two ways: it allowed me to see the purpose the religion serves for the lower class. Since they live next door (literally) to the rich it would be easy for them to be envious but Rastafari encourages them to love the earth which does not require any wealth, to not be obsessed with materialism, and to just love who they are. Secondly, by visiting the Bob Marley Museum and my interaction with the three Rastas, it is obvious that Rastas never forget their past and the founders of their religion; they have deep respect for them.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Response to Imtiaz's Post on "Metropolis"
I agree with Imtiaz's post on Metropolis, posted on April 26. Imtiaz stated that he viewed Metropolis completely in a religious context. He also noticed the director's attempt to reach to specifically to the wealthy class and warn them of the suppression of the lower class and what dangers the future holds.
I really thought it interesting what Imtiaz noted about the symbolism of the Eternal Garden. He thought the Garden represented Heaven (Upper World) and the factory/Lower Class as Hell (Lower World). I immediately took the Eternal Garden to mean Eden, but I like Imtiaz's interpretation better.
It's also very interesting that Imtiaz compared Jon Fredersen to God. My immediate reaction was that of course he couldn't be God because he was evil. Yet, as I thought about it more I realize that this comparison is relevant. For example, in the Bible God is seen as all merciful, etc. etc. But in the Qur'an God is noted in two starkly different ways: he is seen as merciful but more frequently seen as a wrathful God, much more like Jon Fredersen. In order to be fully convinced in the comparison of Jon Fredersen to God, I would have to see a more merciful side to Jon Fredersen.
I really thought it interesting what Imtiaz noted about the symbolism of the Eternal Garden. He thought the Garden represented Heaven (Upper World) and the factory/Lower Class as Hell (Lower World). I immediately took the Eternal Garden to mean Eden, but I like Imtiaz's interpretation better.
It's also very interesting that Imtiaz compared Jon Fredersen to God. My immediate reaction was that of course he couldn't be God because he was evil. Yet, as I thought about it more I realize that this comparison is relevant. For example, in the Bible God is seen as all merciful, etc. etc. But in the Qur'an God is noted in two starkly different ways: he is seen as merciful but more frequently seen as a wrathful God, much more like Jon Fredersen. In order to be fully convinced in the comparison of Jon Fredersen to God, I would have to see a more merciful side to Jon Fredersen.
Ethiopia as the Next Zion
While reading the Kebra Negast I found it interesting that the Ethiopians consider Ethiopia rather than Israel to be the Zion. This makes me think of the Mormons and how they consider a city in Ohio to be the Zion. This brought up two thoughts in my mind. First I think that Zion serves the purpose of making a generic, worldwide religion accessible to groups of people. It allows them to feel close to God, thinking that they were called upon him to establish Christianity in their region. It's hard to feel close to a religion when the Zion is miles away. Secondly, I really do not think there has to be one Zion. Historically, yes, Israel is known as the Zion but I think in our modern age Zion as changed to be a state of mind. Zion can be anywhere for people as long as a place is named Zion for a religious purpose only.
I also found it interesting that in the Kebra Negast Queen Sheba's character is the focus on many pages. In the Qur'an it is mentioned that Queen Sheba rules but I do not think it goes so in depth with her story like the Kebra Negast. I think this reflects the society and the role of the female. It's interesting that you can have historical, religious texts that are very similar in message (Bible, Qur'an, Kebra Negast) yet different parts are tweaked to fit the structure of society at that time and they persist that way throughout history...no one tries to rewrite them to fit the modern society.
I also found it interesting that in the Kebra Negast Queen Sheba's character is the focus on many pages. In the Qur'an it is mentioned that Queen Sheba rules but I do not think it goes so in depth with her story like the Kebra Negast. I think this reflects the society and the role of the female. It's interesting that you can have historical, religious texts that are very similar in message (Bible, Qur'an, Kebra Negast) yet different parts are tweaked to fit the structure of society at that time and they persist that way throughout history...no one tries to rewrite them to fit the modern society.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
The Religion Found in Metropolis
What I noticed about Metropolis was how similar the society seemed to the drug society in "A Brave New World." In both societies people seem to be living in accordance with rules imposed upon one ruler of the community. They go about their daily life with no emotions as drugs, or in this case a machine, takes control of their lives. They are made not to think but to just go through the motions. To me, this symbolizes a lack of religion in society. It seems as if society is based solely on science and not on emotions. I think this may be what the director had in mind when filming Metropolis.
I do not agree with what was mentioned in Monday's film discussion that the director made the film without a specific purpose in mind. I believe that he saw something wrong in early Twentieth Century society that he wanted to bring to people's attention; the best way to do this during the time period was through film, the most popular form of entertainment. I believe that he may have seen a problem arising between science and religion. Now, the boundaries here may not be strictly science and religion but could also mean having a life run by convenience and machines versus a simplistic life where the heart rules (for example, a country life versus a life in urban Chicago). As a comparision with the film, "A Brave New World" is run by the feelings evoked by machine-made drugs. As soon as the lead character starts having romantic feelings for a woman, he is chastized. Metropolis is set up in the same fashion.
When the film starts out the society is so bland as workers drag themselves to work. Yet the film lightens up when Maria enters the picture, acting as a prophet similar to John the Baptist. She gives the workers hope of a better, more purposeful life. This is what religion does to most societies; it allows people to think both with their heads and their hearts and allows them to feel.
Overall I think Metropolis was written and filmed with a specific purpose in mind to show what society was like, what its faults were, and what would happen if the faults escalated without correction. I also think the religious themes were intentional to compare science and religion and the necessity for both in any society, just as each person needs both the head and heart to survive.
I do not agree with what was mentioned in Monday's film discussion that the director made the film without a specific purpose in mind. I believe that he saw something wrong in early Twentieth Century society that he wanted to bring to people's attention; the best way to do this during the time period was through film, the most popular form of entertainment. I believe that he may have seen a problem arising between science and religion. Now, the boundaries here may not be strictly science and religion but could also mean having a life run by convenience and machines versus a simplistic life where the heart rules (for example, a country life versus a life in urban Chicago). As a comparision with the film, "A Brave New World" is run by the feelings evoked by machine-made drugs. As soon as the lead character starts having romantic feelings for a woman, he is chastized. Metropolis is set up in the same fashion.
When the film starts out the society is so bland as workers drag themselves to work. Yet the film lightens up when Maria enters the picture, acting as a prophet similar to John the Baptist. She gives the workers hope of a better, more purposeful life. This is what religion does to most societies; it allows people to think both with their heads and their hearts and allows them to feel.
Overall I think Metropolis was written and filmed with a specific purpose in mind to show what society was like, what its faults were, and what would happen if the faults escalated without correction. I also think the religious themes were intentional to compare science and religion and the necessity for both in any society, just as each person needs both the head and heart to survive.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Reply to Catrina's Blog
This a response to Catrina's Blog which she posted on April 17, 2007. In her blog she focused on Augustine's "On Christian Teaching," where Augustine created a way to look at all religious texts and thus all religions. Augustine's sytem was to look at love and good and lust as egotism and therefore bad. Catrina disagreed with this saying that religion, like humans, evolve and it is never unified so how can clump these wide array of ideas under one organized "roof."
I agree with Catrina. I feel that, yes Augustine came up with an intelligent way to approach religious texts which may have worked well in his era but our set of values and ways of looking at religion have differed and thus I doubt that his approach would work efficiently for us as it once had for Augustine. For example, how would we apply this system to Tibetan Tantric Buddhism? Tibetan Tantrics actually advocate the use of sex because they see it as a way of cleansing the body. The the equate the point of ejaculation as a stage of enlightenment. Tibetan Tantrics clearly advocate the feeling of lust because they find a use for it in their belief system. Clearly, Augustine's system cannot apply to all religions.
I agree with Catrina that we cannot solely adhere to Augustine's model but that we need to accept the contradictions we find in religious texts within our own religion and also acknowledge the differences between religions and use these understandings to shape our view of religion as a whole.
I agree with Catrina. I feel that, yes Augustine came up with an intelligent way to approach religious texts which may have worked well in his era but our set of values and ways of looking at religion have differed and thus I doubt that his approach would work efficiently for us as it once had for Augustine. For example, how would we apply this system to Tibetan Tantric Buddhism? Tibetan Tantrics actually advocate the use of sex because they see it as a way of cleansing the body. The the equate the point of ejaculation as a stage of enlightenment. Tibetan Tantrics clearly advocate the feeling of lust because they find a use for it in their belief system. Clearly, Augustine's system cannot apply to all religions.
I agree with Catrina that we cannot solely adhere to Augustine's model but that we need to accept the contradictions we find in religious texts within our own religion and also acknowledge the differences between religions and use these understandings to shape our view of religion as a whole.
A Close-Minded View of Islam
I found Sam Harris's article "The End of Faith" ridiculous and bordering on the irrational. I was left feeling insecure about his knowledge on the subject his article discussed. Basically Harris views Islam as an aggressive religion with the intention conquering the world through murders. Although he states that his argument is of faith and the difference between faiths I see no trace of this argument in his article. In my opinion he is giving readers reasons why Islam/Muslims are an inferior religion. It seems as if he has a bias of all Muslims. For example, on pages 108-109 he states that people should not praise Muslims for their advancements in education and technology. He states that there are better people in other countries who may be uneducated but they do not commit acts of violence.
From what I recall from Islam, there is a sect of Islm that adheres to the belief of self-sacrifice for the will and love of one's creator; they feel a call from God to perform self-sacrifice. It was Muslims from this sect of Islam that performed the terrorist acts on 9/11, I believe. Also, these Muslims are very similar to Japanese Kamikaze soldiers.
Relating this article to our class, Harris is either failing or intentionally omitting the use of allegory. Harris does not even attempt to apply an allegorical method in his "understanding" of Islam. For example he writes that the "bottom line is that devout Muslims can have no doubt about the reality of paradise or about the efficacy of martyrdom as a means of getting there" (113). Yet how does Harris know that their thought process/ways of conceiving the path to Paradise is not different from ours? Harris errs in two ways: taking things too literally and not attempting to understand the thought process of Muslims (which could be cured if he applied allegory) and two, that from the very start of his study he seems to have a "Westerner ego"where he sees the Western thought process as superior to that of the Arabs. It makes me wonder how Harris would approach religions such as those of the Ancient pre-Colombian Mayan and Inca, where sacrifice plays a significant part of their belief system.
From what I recall from Islam, there is a sect of Islm that adheres to the belief of self-sacrifice for the will and love of one's creator; they feel a call from God to perform self-sacrifice. It was Muslims from this sect of Islam that performed the terrorist acts on 9/11, I believe. Also, these Muslims are very similar to Japanese Kamikaze soldiers.
Relating this article to our class, Harris is either failing or intentionally omitting the use of allegory. Harris does not even attempt to apply an allegorical method in his "understanding" of Islam. For example he writes that the "bottom line is that devout Muslims can have no doubt about the reality of paradise or about the efficacy of martyrdom as a means of getting there" (113). Yet how does Harris know that their thought process/ways of conceiving the path to Paradise is not different from ours? Harris errs in two ways: taking things too literally and not attempting to understand the thought process of Muslims (which could be cured if he applied allegory) and two, that from the very start of his study he seems to have a "Westerner ego"where he sees the Western thought process as superior to that of the Arabs. It makes me wonder how Harris would approach religions such as those of the Ancient pre-Colombian Mayan and Inca, where sacrifice plays a significant part of their belief system.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Applying the allegorical method to Zohar and other mystic religions
The complete understanding and use of allegory is imperative in openly understanding all religions, not solely modern religions. This is especially true in studying the mystic side of any religion such as Tibetan Tantric Buddhism and Zohar, Jewish mysticism.
So, what is allegory? Allegory is essentially saying one thing and meaning another, such as with the use of metaphor. For example, in his commentary on Lamentations Origen refers to Jerusalem as the human soul. Allegory is poetic in that it allows room for interpretation. During our class lecture on April 11th we stated that allegory was useful in interpreting ancient religions because it adds a spiritual side to the historical facts. I agree with this but I strive to emphasize the importance of applying an allegorical method to studying various forms of mysticism.
The Wikipedia article on Zohar states that practitioners of Zohar assume four kinds of Biblical exegesis (to extract what is written in the text the way it was written, from dictionary.com): peshat (literal), remez (allusion), derash (interpretive), sod (mystic/secretive). These allow for a well-rounded interpretation of Zohar topics and symbols. Without applying the exegesis method to Zohar ideas, an outsider may omit meanings/symbols that provide the base of a mystic religion and thus have an incomplete understanding of a religion. This is prominent in a situation in where an outsider would take the literal meaning of Zohar's use of erotic terminology. Zohar mystics do not use the erotic terms in the literal sense; instead they attach a deeper meaning to the terms to illustrate the relationship existing between God and man.
This allegorical method is also extremely important in studying Tibetan Tantric Buddhism (the mystic sect of Buddhism). Tantric has four initiation stages that practitioners must undergo. To explain my point, I will deal specifically with the second initiation stage. Within the second initiation stage practitioners consume the five nectars. The five nectars are urine, blood, semen, brains, and excrement. Taken in a literal sense, Tantrics would seem inhumane and disgusting but this ritual has more importance when looked through an allegorical lens. Tantrics also refer to the nectars as ambrosias as they each have their own cleansing function in order to purify a Tantric's body. Urine cleanses mind, blood cleanses merits, semen cleanses speech, brain cleanses acts, and excrement purifies the body. Thus through an allegorical method outsiders learn of the true meaning behind mystical ritual which will add to their complete understanding of a religion. For example, the overall goal in Tibetan Tantric Buddhism is to utilize both the body and the mind to attain Enlightenment which is why Tantrics place so much importance on cleansing the body.
The main point is that if outsiders rely solely on literal meanings they have too much opportunity to examine a religion with a closed mind and are able to place too much judgment on what they think they see. Allegory creates a clear lens for outsiders to look into, allowing them to understand a religion in a truthful way, a way in which the practitioner would understand it.
So, what is allegory? Allegory is essentially saying one thing and meaning another, such as with the use of metaphor. For example, in his commentary on Lamentations Origen refers to Jerusalem as the human soul. Allegory is poetic in that it allows room for interpretation. During our class lecture on April 11th we stated that allegory was useful in interpreting ancient religions because it adds a spiritual side to the historical facts. I agree with this but I strive to emphasize the importance of applying an allegorical method to studying various forms of mysticism.
The Wikipedia article on Zohar states that practitioners of Zohar assume four kinds of Biblical exegesis (to extract what is written in the text the way it was written, from dictionary.com): peshat (literal), remez (allusion), derash (interpretive), sod (mystic/secretive). These allow for a well-rounded interpretation of Zohar topics and symbols. Without applying the exegesis method to Zohar ideas, an outsider may omit meanings/symbols that provide the base of a mystic religion and thus have an incomplete understanding of a religion. This is prominent in a situation in where an outsider would take the literal meaning of Zohar's use of erotic terminology. Zohar mystics do not use the erotic terms in the literal sense; instead they attach a deeper meaning to the terms to illustrate the relationship existing between God and man.
This allegorical method is also extremely important in studying Tibetan Tantric Buddhism (the mystic sect of Buddhism). Tantric has four initiation stages that practitioners must undergo. To explain my point, I will deal specifically with the second initiation stage. Within the second initiation stage practitioners consume the five nectars. The five nectars are urine, blood, semen, brains, and excrement. Taken in a literal sense, Tantrics would seem inhumane and disgusting but this ritual has more importance when looked through an allegorical lens. Tantrics also refer to the nectars as ambrosias as they each have their own cleansing function in order to purify a Tantric's body. Urine cleanses mind, blood cleanses merits, semen cleanses speech, brain cleanses acts, and excrement purifies the body. Thus through an allegorical method outsiders learn of the true meaning behind mystical ritual which will add to their complete understanding of a religion. For example, the overall goal in Tibetan Tantric Buddhism is to utilize both the body and the mind to attain Enlightenment which is why Tantrics place so much importance on cleansing the body.
The main point is that if outsiders rely solely on literal meanings they have too much opportunity to examine a religion with a closed mind and are able to place too much judgment on what they think they see. Allegory creates a clear lens for outsiders to look into, allowing them to understand a religion in a truthful way, a way in which the practitioner would understand it.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Does the "Grizzly Man" show any sign of religion?
For the odd yet sentimental film that it is, I do think the Grizzly Man conveys some form of religion in what he does. For this specific blog, I am going to define religion as a belief or practice that does something emotionally for people. With this definition I am assuming that people do not practice in order to gain physical incentives.
Every summer for fourteen years the Grizzly Man faithfully traveled to Alaska and spent months living among the grizzlies. He did not do this for money or recognition. He only did it because he felt a strong connection to the grizzlies. This ties to my definition of religion because the Grizzly Man did not perform his "ritual" every summer to gain physical incentives; what he did was purely on an emotional level.
Alaska was his sacred place. When he was there it seems as if he was at peace. This is the same sort of feeling religion evokes from people. Even though certain rituals may look absurd to the human eye, we perform them becaues they allow us to create a sacred place for ourselves on Earth.
We may think the Grizzly Man's documentary on grizzlies to be odd and dangerous but his interaction with the grizzlies is a ritual for him because he "performs" it faithfully every summer for a few months. He does not perform the ritual to gain physical incentives such as money or fame but instead performs the ritual to create a sacred space for him on earth.
Every summer for fourteen years the Grizzly Man faithfully traveled to Alaska and spent months living among the grizzlies. He did not do this for money or recognition. He only did it because he felt a strong connection to the grizzlies. This ties to my definition of religion because the Grizzly Man did not perform his "ritual" every summer to gain physical incentives; what he did was purely on an emotional level.
Alaska was his sacred place. When he was there it seems as if he was at peace. This is the same sort of feeling religion evokes from people. Even though certain rituals may look absurd to the human eye, we perform them becaues they allow us to create a sacred place for ourselves on Earth.
We may think the Grizzly Man's documentary on grizzlies to be odd and dangerous but his interaction with the grizzlies is a ritual for him because he "performs" it faithfully every summer for a few months. He does not perform the ritual to gain physical incentives such as money or fame but instead performs the ritual to create a sacred space for him on earth.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Lamentations
Lamentations deals with the aftermath of Jerusalem when the Babylonians seized Jerusalem. At this point, religion is extremely important to the Jews. It is almost as if there exists a "parent-child relationship" between the Jews and religion. The Jews show an obvious fear of God. At one point in the text this fear seems like hate, if taken at facevalue. For example, it is said in 2:5 "The Lord has become like an enemy; he has destroyed Israel." Here, it is as if the dad has just punished the child and the child is saying "I hate you and it's all your fault!" Yet the child does not really mean it because in the next breath Lamentations states in 3:25 that the "Lord is good to those who wait for him, to the sould that seeks him," and in 3:31,32 "for the Lord will not reject forever. Although he causes grief, he will have compassion." Deep down, the Jews know that they have sinned and their consequence was the destruction of their once thriving, beautiful city.
Lamentations is the reaction Jews have towards the end of Jerusalem. It is evident that the destruction of Jerusalem is viewed in a purely religious way, therefore suggesting that religion is the center of life for the Jews. Society and way of life is shaped by religion. Also, religion defines good and evil and the Jews adhere to these definitions. This also shows the introduction of a monotheistic religion. Jews do not have a concept of spirits or multiple gods; they know that it is God alone who watches over them. Jews will always link various events to religion whereas in the Paleolithic and Holocence periods events were linked to nature or animal spirits. For the Jews, if something bad happens they will think about the concept of sin and look to see how they sinned and how they deserved the punishment God bestowed upon them. Likewise, if a good event occured they would automatically praise God. As religion plays a major role in the course of events, it gives Jews control of the future of their people and surroundings. They realize that God gives them choices and it is up to them to decide. If they sin, they know there will be consequences but God will always give them more choices. If they do the right thing, God will be merciful and fair by rewarding them.
Basically Jews live their life according to religion and truly view themselves as children of God.
Lamentations is the reaction Jews have towards the end of Jerusalem. It is evident that the destruction of Jerusalem is viewed in a purely religious way, therefore suggesting that religion is the center of life for the Jews. Society and way of life is shaped by religion. Also, religion defines good and evil and the Jews adhere to these definitions. This also shows the introduction of a monotheistic religion. Jews do not have a concept of spirits or multiple gods; they know that it is God alone who watches over them. Jews will always link various events to religion whereas in the Paleolithic and Holocence periods events were linked to nature or animal spirits. For the Jews, if something bad happens they will think about the concept of sin and look to see how they sinned and how they deserved the punishment God bestowed upon them. Likewise, if a good event occured they would automatically praise God. As religion plays a major role in the course of events, it gives Jews control of the future of their people and surroundings. They realize that God gives them choices and it is up to them to decide. If they sin, they know there will be consequences but God will always give them more choices. If they do the right thing, God will be merciful and fair by rewarding them.
Basically Jews live their life according to religion and truly view themselves as children of God.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Response to J.B.'s Blog on the "Indian Mounds of Wisconsin"
When I was reading the article on Indian mounds, I took for granted that Indians built the mounds because they were religious and had ceremonies strictly for the gods. I like that J.B. found that the mounds could be looked at with two views. One being that the Indians had ceremonies to thank God for what they were given. The second view J.B. describes as more karma-istic in that the Indians had ceremonies because they thought they had the power to control the weather. This second view is a very intresting concept that I think should be explored further.
Even in the article, the author sometimes doubts the truly religious aspect of the mounds since they tend to disappear after a time...the author often attributes the disappearance of the mounds relating to the fact that the Indians didn't need them after focus turned to agriculture rather than death ritual ceremonies.
I wonder then what purpose the mounds had for Indians; if they held a strong religious symbolism (connecting the middle world with the upper and lower worlds) would the mounds just have disappeared? Perhaps their "fading-out" points into a different direction, one without heavy religious symbolism...maybe the possibility of mounds serving as a function in society such as good weather for crops.
Even in the article, the author sometimes doubts the truly religious aspect of the mounds since they tend to disappear after a time...the author often attributes the disappearance of the mounds relating to the fact that the Indians didn't need them after focus turned to agriculture rather than death ritual ceremonies.
I wonder then what purpose the mounds had for Indians; if they held a strong religious symbolism (connecting the middle world with the upper and lower worlds) would the mounds just have disappeared? Perhaps their "fading-out" points into a different direction, one without heavy religious symbolism...maybe the possibility of mounds serving as a function in society such as good weather for crops.
Diffusion of Religion
The article on Indian Mounds of Wisconsin differed from the other articles we read in class on the Neanderthals and the Holocene period in that religion is an established part of Indian society, so much that it begins to have an influence in other aspects of society such as a source of group definition, protection, guide to living, and science.
With the Neanderthals there was more of absence than presence of religion. We first see the beginning establishment of religion in the Holocene where more religious symbolism was seen in the art, yet religion was not an obvious establishment in the Holocene since archaeologists and anthropologists debate the presence of religion in art. Within the Indian tribes of Wisconsin and other areas of the Midwest religious symbolism is noticed in the patterns on pottery.
At this point, it cannot be doubted whether or not Indians were religious or not.
What I noticed is that certain symbols that are taken as religious in the Indian mounds can be traced back to Paleolithic art and can possibly answer the question as to whether drawing of animals contains religious symbolism or is strictly early humans' interest in science. Indians, like the ancient Maya, classified the world into three parts: upperworld, middle world, and lower world. With this cosmology, certain animals were attributed to each part. For example, birds were usually representative of the upperworld. In the mound effigies, Indians would often depict human beings dressed up as birds and acting as shamans (107).
For Guthrie to say that Paleolithic art reflects only the scientific interest of the artists is to say that Indian art has the same reflection. Yet observers would not make that assertion straight away because of what they know of Indian religious beliefs. By studying Indian mounds, it is obvious that religion is an important aspect since they use it to define their clans, to predict the weather, to help their crops, et cetera but I also think it serves as a good example that it is possible that there was an earlier form of this same type of religion in Paleolithic art.
With the Neanderthals there was more of absence than presence of religion. We first see the beginning establishment of religion in the Holocene where more religious symbolism was seen in the art, yet religion was not an obvious establishment in the Holocene since archaeologists and anthropologists debate the presence of religion in art. Within the Indian tribes of Wisconsin and other areas of the Midwest religious symbolism is noticed in the patterns on pottery.
At this point, it cannot be doubted whether or not Indians were religious or not.
What I noticed is that certain symbols that are taken as religious in the Indian mounds can be traced back to Paleolithic art and can possibly answer the question as to whether drawing of animals contains religious symbolism or is strictly early humans' interest in science. Indians, like the ancient Maya, classified the world into three parts: upperworld, middle world, and lower world. With this cosmology, certain animals were attributed to each part. For example, birds were usually representative of the upperworld. In the mound effigies, Indians would often depict human beings dressed up as birds and acting as shamans (107).
For Guthrie to say that Paleolithic art reflects only the scientific interest of the artists is to say that Indian art has the same reflection. Yet observers would not make that assertion straight away because of what they know of Indian religious beliefs. By studying Indian mounds, it is obvious that religion is an important aspect since they use it to define their clans, to predict the weather, to help their crops, et cetera but I also think it serves as a good example that it is possible that there was an earlier form of this same type of religion in Paleolithic art.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
What is the meaning behind Paleolithic art?
In his article, The Nature of Paleolithic Art R. Dale Guthrie argues that the widespread notion of what most people think Paleolithic art means is detrimental to the overall essence of cave art. Most people like to see what Guthrie calls a magico-religious (Guthrie, 8) aspect of Paleolithic art, an attempt to "search for clues to the symbolism and ritual meaning hidden in the images (Guthrie, 5). Guthrie states that this harms the overall picture of Paleolithic art in that people refuse to see any other meaning behind the drawings. Personally, I disagree with Guthrie's argument. I do think that it is important to analyze cave art attempting to seek out different meanings such as religion, science, et cetera but I disagree that "Paleolithic art has suffered" (Guthrie, 8) from the religious approach.
I feel that finding religious meaning in Paleolithic images is a reasonable and unavoidable approach. Since early humans had no obvious form of organized religion it is really unclear what sort of beliefs they had, if any. Guthrie states that "organized religion is a potent force, and religious stories shape our collective perceptions" (Guthrie, 9). The question that Guthrie asks here is whether or not the public including archaelogists and anthropologists truly find religious symbolism in Paleolithic art or are they only hoping to find it. I think it is a little bit of both. Of course people are hoping to find it and they find it in part because religious symbolism is present in the drawings. Religion, whether organized or not, is a way in which humans can relate to and understand one another. By finding religious meaning in Paleolithic art, it is our way of finding some similarity between us and early humans and a way in which to understand what they valued in their society.
Guthrie states that overuse of the magico-religious approach creates a distortion where at "its worst it has presented early peoples in a distorted light as superstitious dolts totally preoccupied with mystical concerns (Guthrie, 10). Rather, Guthrie sees Paleolithic art as portraying "people in close touch with the details of a complex earth" (Guthrie, 10). I do not think that readers or Guthrie should rule out the possiblity of animals as a symbolic ritual object for early humans. I find it hard to believe that early humans would draw images of animals based solely on their scientific fascination of physiology and biology without a trace of religious symbolism. In my opinion religion of early humans while not an organized form is prevalent in their artwork. I believe that animals served a ritualistic purpose for early humans and it is through their art that they aim to show this religious symbolism.
I feel that finding religious meaning in Paleolithic images is a reasonable and unavoidable approach. Since early humans had no obvious form of organized religion it is really unclear what sort of beliefs they had, if any. Guthrie states that "organized religion is a potent force, and religious stories shape our collective perceptions" (Guthrie, 9). The question that Guthrie asks here is whether or not the public including archaelogists and anthropologists truly find religious symbolism in Paleolithic art or are they only hoping to find it. I think it is a little bit of both. Of course people are hoping to find it and they find it in part because religious symbolism is present in the drawings. Religion, whether organized or not, is a way in which humans can relate to and understand one another. By finding religious meaning in Paleolithic art, it is our way of finding some similarity between us and early humans and a way in which to understand what they valued in their society.
Guthrie states that overuse of the magico-religious approach creates a distortion where at "its worst it has presented early peoples in a distorted light as superstitious dolts totally preoccupied with mystical concerns (Guthrie, 10). Rather, Guthrie sees Paleolithic art as portraying "people in close touch with the details of a complex earth" (Guthrie, 10). I do not think that readers or Guthrie should rule out the possiblity of animals as a symbolic ritual object for early humans. I find it hard to believe that early humans would draw images of animals based solely on their scientific fascination of physiology and biology without a trace of religious symbolism. In my opinion religion of early humans while not an organized form is prevalent in their artwork. I believe that animals served a ritualistic purpose for early humans and it is through their art that they aim to show this religious symbolism.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Comment on a Neanderthal Blog
Like Brad Hoh, I was also confused when I did not find an obvious reference to religion in Steve Milchen's article on Singing Neanderthals. I was able to find some connections, but I had not considered the interesting connections that Brad made. I like his idea of directly linking the "Hmmmmm" singing to our singing in church. Like the Neanderthals, it is an important part of the church service and connects the congregation as one voice.
I also liked the link between Neanderthal burial rituals with our funeral service. Rarely would people ever agree to accept our funeral traditions as rituals, but comparing it to the burial rites o Neanderthals they are quite similar. It just goes to show that even though society and history changes, religion is one of the few aspects of people's lives that persists in that the basic backbone of it does not change.
I also liked the link between Neanderthal burial rituals with our funeral service. Rarely would people ever agree to accept our funeral traditions as rituals, but comparing it to the burial rites o Neanderthals they are quite similar. It just goes to show that even though society and history changes, religion is one of the few aspects of people's lives that persists in that the basic backbone of it does not change.
Neanderthals
I guess I enjoyed reading of the history of Neanderthals...although my mind was so caught up in the historical and anthropological points of view that I felt like I was missing the religious aspect of Steven Mithen's article on The Singing Neanderthals. For me, religion was not an obvious highlight of the article. I kept wondering when Mithen would relate the "Hmmmmm" phenomenon to religion so I could somehow relate it to class.
Yet, what I realized is that music was a form of religion for Neanderthals. They were never considered an established society, so they did not have a concrete religion. But, music acted as a religion for them in many ways, such as: it is often essential for survival especially in cases of misfortune, enables social bonding and provides mutual support (Mithen, 236). Religion for modern homo sapiens and for Neanderthals provides a sense of community. Mithen states that "group identity was promoted via communal music-making" (241). Music was a way of building relationships between people, therefore creating an opportunity for communal living. Also, parents used music when raising their children to ensure their development with communication. This could be compared to baptism: parents ensuring their children's salvation and raising them in a religious environment to establish their proper development.
I was also wondering if the instruments made to create the sounds could be considered either a type of religion or a ritual process. I would almost see the carving of bone, use of sticks, etc. has a ritual process to prepare for the religious ceremony.
Yet, what I realized is that music was a form of religion for Neanderthals. They were never considered an established society, so they did not have a concrete religion. But, music acted as a religion for them in many ways, such as: it is often essential for survival especially in cases of misfortune, enables social bonding and provides mutual support (Mithen, 236). Religion for modern homo sapiens and for Neanderthals provides a sense of community. Mithen states that "group identity was promoted via communal music-making" (241). Music was a way of building relationships between people, therefore creating an opportunity for communal living. Also, parents used music when raising their children to ensure their development with communication. This could be compared to baptism: parents ensuring their children's salvation and raising them in a religious environment to establish their proper development.
I was also wondering if the instruments made to create the sounds could be considered either a type of religion or a ritual process. I would almost see the carving of bone, use of sticks, etc. has a ritual process to prepare for the religious ceremony.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Reactions to Genesis and Why Do We Believe?
While reading an excerpt from Genesis, I realized how poetic it sounded. For example, Genesis does not bluntly state that God created the Earth. Rather, it uses sentences such as "let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear" (1:6). This allows readers to form a majestic, sacred image of creation and the creator. The sentence structure also gives insight into how powerful and kind God is; he is powerful in that he creates the whole world all by himself yet he is also graceful in how he goes about creation. Overall, how Genesis describes God's creation of the Earth is meant to show two things: (1) how much God loves his creation and (2) even though God grants humans control over their Earth, God has ultimate control of the universe and thus over the human race.
What I found in the NY Times article, Why Do We Believe? are many definitions that people give religion, such as calling religion "superstition" (Henig, 38) and a "belief in hope that is beyond reason" (Henig, 38). What's interesting is that Atran is an archaeologist which gives readers a sense of what sort of method he will use in his study of religion. From this standpoint, readers can expect that Atran will be using real objects such as artifacts, ruins, buildings, etc. to find a semblance of religion in them. The article also states that Atran uses Darwinian ideas in his approach. So now readers can also expect that he will try and find evolutionary meaning behind religion. A methodologist's approach is imperative to state in the beginning so readers are not going into an article blindly. Instead, they know what and what not to expect in how a specific article will deal with religion.
What I found in the NY Times article, Why Do We Believe? are many definitions that people give religion, such as calling religion "superstition" (Henig, 38) and a "belief in hope that is beyond reason" (Henig, 38). What's interesting is that Atran is an archaeologist which gives readers a sense of what sort of method he will use in his study of religion. From this standpoint, readers can expect that Atran will be using real objects such as artifacts, ruins, buildings, etc. to find a semblance of religion in them. The article also states that Atran uses Darwinian ideas in his approach. So now readers can also expect that he will try and find evolutionary meaning behind religion. A methodologist's approach is imperative to state in the beginning so readers are not going into an article blindly. Instead, they know what and what not to expect in how a specific article will deal with religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)