09.29.09
Stephen Fry on the “Divine Fire” and Human Imagination
I feel like I’ve been posting far too many youtubes on my blog, but I also feel that it would be wrong not to post them. Here, again, is another youtube, and it has made my copy of Shelley’s Frankenstein call out to me for another read. I can’t remember how many times I’ve read this favorite among favorites of mine because it’s been so long since I’ve touched it last. And I’m afraid it will be some time longer before I get to it again.
04.06.09
Touching, But Can’t Be Touched
I couldn’t tell you how many times, when I’ve talked about the lack of EVIDENCE for the supernatural, I’ve been given personal testimonies from people who think anecdotes should be more than enough for me to commit myself to THEIR belief in the supernatural (even though, the more personal testimonies gathered from people NOT sharing the same spiritual family, the more the contradictions among the testimonies).
Check out this video –>
01.10.09
The Mystic Route
What is this video telling you?
First of all, it’s obviously an allegory. Flies don’t grow back half of their bodies when they’re cut off, or disappear into a painting. For that reason (and the title of the video), the fly is our clue to understanding what the video is about. And remember, it’s an allegory, so the video is not saying, ‘Don’t kill flies.’
The beginning of the video introduces a contemplative, sword wielding warrior who sees the life of a fly in his practice area to be his enemy (a destroyer of the peace the warrior possesses), and assumes the life of the fly should, therefore, not exist.
I’ve interpreted the fly to represent all enemies (destroyers of the good we possess) that live within our environment, or our selves. And, to destroy what we believe to be our enemy multiplies evil rather than saves the good because any living thing we think to be evil is never without possessing good (life itself, for example). Therefore, destroying our enemy makes us an enemy of good too, and subsequently, multiplies the evil rather than saving the good.
A fine lesson, in some respects. Although, anyone’s welcome to present a different interpretation.
Where I take issue with what is being taught in the video is when a fly lands on a beautiful painting and transforms into something beautiful within the painting. And the warrior learns from the fly that to overcome the presence of a living destroyer of peace one must create an ideal (heavenly) reality apart from the one actually experienced. Then, by using some mental gymnastics, the warrior re-interprets the not-so-ideal (earthly) reality as an ideal one. In other words, he deluded himself of what is really going on – a la mysticism!
Why? Why take the mystic route? Why must we think we can know or even imagine the one and only, highly improbable, ideal reality, and think it should, and WILL, replace our lowly earthen reality soon, making EVERYTHING completely good?
Why couldn’t the warrior direct his efforts to a realistic pursuit of peace? Like trying to gain a better understanding of his present reality, achieving a greater awareness of the good that is within his enemies, finding what already exists to be “heavenly” within our earthen reality? No, instead, the mystic hides by overshadowing the real with an illusory veil, whitewashing what he or she doesn’t want to work through.
And we can find this happening throughout many of the religious communities, people who believe in a supernatural reality that sets themselves apart from the rest of the doomed world. Just recently, a Pastor explained to me that people who continually reject God’s goodness are creating their own irreversible destiny for complete evil. And God will “honour” their choices, while “redeeming” the lives of those who didn’t reject God’s goodness.
Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s admirable for anyone to want to change the life we have for the better, moving it closer to an ideal world (however unlikely an ideal world is). But until humanity is able to actually calculate a highly plausible future, we have no reason to assume that the universe will bow to our wishes.
The universe does not revolve around us. And yet there are many who believe that “God” (Creator/Creation or just Creator) made the universe suited for humanity, like a womb suited for a baby. Even in the empirical sense, some believe the whole universe (especially the planet earth) was ‘fine-tuned’ for humanity instead of humanity being ‘fine-tuned’ for the universe.
Look, I’m not saying there wasn’t a time in the journey of our species that we shouldn’t have thought and felt as if a loving, superior consciousness created a universe (or “womb”) for the benefit of our maturity. What I’m trying to draw attention to is that first, we all know there is a time when a child recognizes that he or she is not the center of the universe, and second, we also know that there is a time when a child outgrows the physical, mental and emotional needs to remain cuddled in the center of a loving, superior consciousness.
06.29.08
History Questions
- Is history an actual story (or “narrative”), or is it just seen as one?
- And if history doesn’t, in fact, consist of any type of narrative, what can we lose and gain by revising it as one?
- If.. history is written as a man-made narrative, a fiction, should we only have one version?
03.21.07
Tolkien and Freud
Do you think it’s possible that J.R.R.Tolkien had somekind of Freudian influence in his Lord of the Rings? The reason I ask is because I can’t help but think of Gollum and Samwise as Frodo’s “Id” and “Super-Ego,” thereby, making Frodo the Ego. Crazy, huh?
But then, the Gollum/Smeagol character is not without issues over his Precious…
03.13.07
President Bush’s Dream World
Have you ever wondered what President Bush’s dream world consists of? Well, wonder no more…
02.17.07
Healthy Skepticism
Peter Kreeft, a Christian philosopher, often challenges schools of thought by using their philosophy against them. For instance, for the school of skepticism, he would say something like, “To stay true to their philosophy, skeptics need to be skeptical of skepticism.” This may sound like the school of skepticism is defeated in this phrase, but I think it makes skepticism stronger. I think we should always challenge our own methods of discovering truth and try to improve them.
I also think we should explore others’ methods, learn from them, and use them against our own ideologies. One of the ways I enjoy doing this is by creating fictional characters who don’t share the exact same philosophy or agree on social issues. I love creating an informal debate between them. The characters, for whatever psychological need I give them, are on a personal inquiry, challenging those who see things differently. I’ve corrected my own philosophy through this method plenty of times.
Some people I’ve had conversations with react to a deconstructionist argument as if they thought it were a pursuit for complete annihilation. The truth is, though it can be used for complete annihilation, the bigger picture reveals that it’s just a lot of pruning. And when the pruning is done, it’s so much easier for the living to grow.
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense. – Carl Sagan
02.12.07
Baby Challenges Novel Writing
I look at Emma and somehow I feel challenged to make sure my novel gets done. I want her to be able to read a finished product in the future.
Maybe it would help if I imagined her goading me like baby Stewie goads Brian the dog in this Family Guy clip:
11.15.06
Pinnacle of Poetry
After re-reading Becky’s post on our baby blog, I wonder how frustrated our child may get because of how badly we misunderstand him/her. Articulation is such a challenge. I consider it one of my greatest weaknesses. I’m not exactly superhuman in other areas either, but in some sense, ineffability has become my Kryptonite. (Maybe that’s why I’m so hard on those who pursue ineffability.)
I can already see the irony in what I’ve just said here, because, my pursuit to improve my ability to articulate my thoughts and feelings about my life and the world I live in, is, in fact, a form of pursuing ineffability. Let me attempt to clarify: I’m not saying any pursuit of ineffability is dangerous. What I am saying, is – destroying or barring forever any knowledge, and the language that carries it, is dangerous. If we pursue ineffability by reaching the limits of knowledge and language after using all knowledge and language available to us, then ineffability can be accepted as a part of our current identity. Arriving at this point, for me, is the pinnacle of poetry.
I say “forever” above, because I see validity in keeping certain knowledge from ourselves until we think we are ready for it. It may seem, at times, knowledge and language can be mirrors that don’t always reveal the best of life, including ourselves. But this shouldn’t make knowledge and language our enemies. I know meaning can often get buried in so-called knowledge and convoluted wordiness. It doesn’t have to. Knowledge and language can reveal meanings, create clarity, and help us understand their limits. These are not characteristics of an enemy, but instead, a friend.
And this is the kind of friend that can empower us. There’s validity in the saying, “Knowledge is power,” as long as that knowledge is in the right hands. How alienated and powerless would we feel if we were not able to articulate who we are to others? How blind would this world be if we barred knowledge of others from ourselves?
Here’s a clip from the movie “Waking Life” – an elaboration of language and the human need to communicate with others…
*[Coffee break needed here. This post doesn't know if it's two posts or one.]
NAME CALLING
There is power in being known and knowing someone’s identity, someone’s true name…
My baking and brewing I will do today,
The queen’s son to-morrow I will take away,
No wise man can show the queen where to begin,
For my name, to be sure, is Rumplestiltskin.
Rumpelstiltskin – one of many ineffable names, only, this one was ineffable out of ignorance, not out of fear. Out of fear, other monsters’ names are not uttered because it is felt the utterance would call the monster’s attention to the one speaking their name, as if the monster was omnipresent. This kind of superstitious fear gives more power to the monster and its name than deserved. (A lesson kids can learn from Rowling’s Harry Potter.)
And what, exactly, are the evil doers’ motivations for wanting others and themselves to believe misrepresentations of their own identity? I think it’s because the truth would reveal how small and incompetent the evil doers really are. I think this is the reason why some myth-making novelists portray the paradoxal vampires as incapable of seeing their own reflections. And I say “paradoxal” because these “undead” creatures are also created to have the power of immortality. To me, this represents the lofty value of life, recognizing that as long as life has existed, its always been larger than death.
But I’m getting off track here. Tangents – for good or bad, you’ll find them in all daydreamers.
At a loss without a segue, I’ll return back to the beginning about my child’s articulating abilities and say that I’m also looking forward to the day when our child articulates his/her recognition of us parents by calling out, “Momma” and “Daddy.” But before the little one tries to articulate our self-imposed names, the two of us have to try to make our nameless child named, which is no easy task.
Whatever his or her name will be, someday, I may end up telling the little one that as much as I try to understand her/him, I will not be able to define who s/he is in a few syllables (or a 300 page biography); but I’d be more than willing to help her/him pursue the ineffability of his or her identity through the means of all available knowledge and language. I know it’s presumptuous to pre-plan my fatherly role here, so I’ll just say – I’m looking forward to being there when my child needs my help on his/her journey of struggles.
