Religion has been on my mind lately, because of this, this week I decided to read the 3rd edition of Religion In Sociological Perspective (don't judge a book by its boring title or textbook cover!). It is a pretty good textbook that defines various theoretical perspectives of definitions of religion, religion in larger society, and effects of religious practice; while providing arguments for and against these prespectives. What struck me most was the chapter devoted to "Religion in Larger Society." This chapter examined macro-perspectives for analyzing religion within society. The text describes two main paradigms for the macro-analysis of religion: Functional Theory and Conflict theory. I want to suggest that both these prespectives over-individualize people, and thus miss what I see to be the true nature/function of religion. Before doing this I will brefily go over the definitions of each.
-Functional Theory states that behaviors/beliefs satisfy human needs. This theory can be broken into two schools of thought. The first is Functionalism. Functionalism states that individual needs or drives must be satisfied in a way that does not produce chaos, and that norms and institutions work to meet these individual needs and desires.Therefore this theory sees religion as primarily satisfying individual psychological needs. Functionalism is direct result of Sigmund Freud's cultural impact on the early 20th century. The second school of thought is Structural-Functionalism. Structural-Functionalism is based in the work of Emile Durkheim, one of the founding fathers of sociology. Structural-Functionalism states that social behaviors/beliefs work to herd the multitude of individual desires into a collective will. Unlike Functionalism, it argues that this is not done through relieving individual anxiety, but through using anxiety to create a dependence of the individual on the collective, and thus promoting individuals to suppress their personal desires for the will of the community. Both of these perspectives ultimately suggest that religion (as well as other social institutions) work to create cohesiveness within society.
-Conflict Theory on the other hand states that values and beliefs are secondary to self-interests. Conflict theory sees society as a constant struggle between power groups. According to conflict theory, any stability that may arise is the result of a deadlock of power, or the dominance of one group over the others. From this perspective, religion is just another facet of identity that works not to unify society, but to divide special interests.
Both these theories are useful in some sense however I do not think either is useful for describing the purpose of religion. Both theories erroneously assume that the fundamental nature of humans is individualistic. Functional theory sees religion as satisfying individual needs or controlling individual desires; while Conflict theory sees religion as purely as another source of individualization to pursue self-interest. This notion of society as derived of a collective of individuals is part of Western society's underlying episteme of individualism. However, humans are social creatures!!! For anyone who talks with me about this type of stuff, probably thinks this line is my catchphrase. I say it over and over, but I really do not think it can be said enough. Humans are like ants or bees, or wolves if you will. We survive as a collective NOT as individuals. There has been much data in the social sciences over the last decade that proves individuals contain biological dispositions for empathy, and are dependent on social scaffolding to survive. I am not trying to completely remove the notion of individualism. To the contrary, I think that it is precisely because we are individualistic social creatures that we differ from bees or ants. We are highly advanced hybrids between the individual and the social. What I am trying to suggest is that theories like those listed above that are based on assumptions of human nature as driven by self-interest are not only wrong, they are dangerous to human survival. I also stand by this point for economic models that overly emphasize human individuality (i.e capitalism). We are individuals, but we are individuals whose happiness and survival is irrevocably connected to the collective. What then would I suggest the function of religion is?
I recently attended a highly provocative discussion of religious extremism. What I saw to be the purpose of the discussion was to combat the affects of religious extremism (hostility to different faith-systems) by working to define religion as a way to see the invisible ties of humanity. The speaker would present a instance where political/economic reasons weaponize a faith system for partisan gains, and then present passages from the faith-systems text to show how such actions were discouraged. The idea was to disassociate acts of terror/war from religious systems by defining religion as an institution that fundamentally strives for social harmony. Therefore, regardless of what is being interpreted, if a group or individuals actions does not work to create harmony between people, it should not be associated with religion. Not only do I personally agree with this definition, I agree with the speakers motives for asserting it. In our current society, religion is very much a facet of identity rather than a embodiment of humanism. However, I do not think this is because of of any natural role or function, but because because of the power of the liberal narrative in the Western world. Besides being empathetic and social, humans are also fundamentally symbolic creatures. We exist in stories. This is both incredibly powerful and dangerous. Because we cannot "turn off" our symbolic nature, the stories we tell ourselves become reality. If enough people believe they are first and foremost individuals they essentially are.
I will end this attempting to emulate the will of the speaker I met this weekend by asking this: Even if we can make ourselves individuals are we happy doing so?
Friday, February 25, 2011
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Yan Yuan: Humaneness without Humanity
Yan Yuan is a reoccurring character in The Analects. He is described as Confucius’s best student who if not for dying prematurely, would have reached the level of sage hood. The characteristic most ascribed to Yan Yuan is his studiousness and love of learning. Although this is a quality highly praised in Confucianism, I believe it is also what was holding him back from becoming a sage.
Both The Great Learning and The Analects can be read as defining a love of learning as the starting point of the Way. The Great Learning states the investigation of things to be the base of the way; the investigation of things refers to growth through observation of the natural world. To investigate things is to learn, therefore in order to become a gentleman one must first love to learn. This message is also found in the The Analects. Passage 2.4 states
“”The Master said, At fifteen I set my mind to learning; by thirty I had found my footing; at forty I was free of perplexities; by fifty I understood the will of Heaven; by sixty I learned to give ear to others; by seventy I could follow my hearts desire without overstepping the line.”
Zhu Xi reads this passage not as a personal biography, but as a guide for future generations in finding the way (Gardener 2003: 45). If we read it in this light, the first step to finding the way is identical to The Great Learning. The master began his journey by setting his mind to learning. From these two examples it would seem that Confucianism is an ideology that highly emphasizes the importance of knowledge. However, besides promoting a love of learning, The Analects is also highly critical of “the wise” and makes a clear distinction between the wise and the humane (Analects 4.2; 6.23; 17.3). While there is no definition of the wise in The Analects, being wise is a quality attributed to the obtainment of some type of knowledge. Therefore, the wise should be viewed as also having a love of learning. I will use passage 4.2 to further define what it means to be “wise.”
In 4.2 the Master states “the humane person rests in humanness, the wise person profits from humanness.” I do not think Master is talking about pecuniary reward but the ability to turn the ideology of humanness into individual power. The individual ego naturally desires some level of individual power/autonomy. Some people obtain this through physical development; others do so through intellectual development. The wise, refers to people who take the intellectual route, and thus should be thought of as people who love learning because of what it does for themselves. Using this definition of wise, I will now argue that Yan Yuan’s (Hui) love of learning should be categorized with the wise not the humane, even though the ideology he drew his power from was Confucian Humanism.
The wise are those who develop knowledge to feel autonomy/ indivudal power. I believe that what made Hui unique was that the ideology he operationalized was Confucius’s Way. The way of Confucianism links individual happiness to the cultivation of benevolent behavior. While this is a very humane prespective, it also provides incredible individual autonomy. As seen in passage 6.11 of The Analects, Hui was able to control his happiness, desires, and actions based on this ideology. When asked what he desires by the Master, Hui’s response was “to never boast of what good points I have and never cause trouble to others. (5.26)” Though his desire is in line with humaneness it is entirely about self-control; whereas Zilu’s desire that “[he] and all his friends could share the same carriages and horses, robes and furs, and never worry if [they] wore them out” misses the core of humaneness, but is still in some way more human than Hui. Zilu though wrong in his definition of “success” wants success for his extended community, while Hui wants complete self-mastery. Following Zhu Xi’s interpretation of 2.4 I would say that Hui was at the level of “being free of perplexities,” but because of this overemphasis of self, he still did not understand the will of heaven.
Zhu Xi describes “being free of perplexities” as understanding perfectly clear with respect to affairs and things. I interpret this as understanding the Human Truth that empathy, compassion, and benevolence are essential to human existence. The difference between this and “the will of heaven” is the understanding that these things cannot be accomplished through individual logic alone. As stated earlier, Hui was a unique type of wise person. Passage 6.23 of the Analects states “the wise delight in water, the humane delight in mountains;” If the wise delight in water and the humane delight in mountains, then Hui delights in icebergs. As implied by passage 9.11, Hui was desperately trying to figure out how to turn Confucianism into a higher form of Truth. To put it another way, he was trying to rationalize himself into a sage. This however is a paradox. Rationalization is a process that relies solely on the individual’s cognitive apparatus; whereas humaneness implies an existence larger then the atomized individual. The Will of Heaven is not the mastery of self; it is the extension of self. Hui used the way as a means of power not intimacy, and so although he was humane, he lacked a sense of humanity (connection to others). This point is well made by passage 3.18
“The Master said, in serving the ritual, if you carry out all the acts prescribed by ritual people think you are toadying.”
A person who had found their standing in Confucianism and was no longer in doubt (Confucius at age 40) could understand the necessity of ritual and painstakingly work to serve the rituals without flaw. They would feel incredible individual satisfaction and power from this (a profit), but there inhumane pursuit of ritual perfection would also distance them from those around them. Thus, even though what they are attempting to emulate is humaneness, they lose their humanity in the process. The love of learning, even if it leads to individual humaneness is worthless if it does not bring you closer to other people. In passage 9.21 the Master says
“Speaking of Yan Yuan… What a pity! I saw him move forward. I never saw him come to a stop.”
If you do not stop you will leave others behind. Like water you will flow endlessly. If you stop, over time you will become the support for others, and together will forge mountains.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
The Population Bomb
The Population Bomb was not on my list, but it was suggested to my last week and I read it while at the airport. The book discusses the serious need for humanity to regulate its population, otherwise we will destroy ourselves. The author, Paul Ehrlich, traces the root of humanities problems to population. There is a particularly powerful passage towards the beginning of the book that I would like to share.
"It has been estimated that the human population of 6000 B.C was about five million people, taking perhaps one million years to get there from two and a half million. The population did not reach 500 million until almost 8,000 years later- about 1650 A.D. This means it doubled roughly once every thousand years or so. It reached a billion people around 1850, doubling in some 200 years. it took only 80 years for the next doubling, as the population reached two billion people around 1930... the doubling time at present seems to be about 37 years."
The doubling of the population means we must make twice as much food, provide twice as many people education, etc. There is a large body of sociologist and other social science researchers that are looking for quantitative fixes to these types of problems. They are looking for a standardized method to feed, teach, clothe, and raise hundreds of thousands of children. Nowhere is this more apparent then in China and India. Where populations that are closing in on 1.5 billion people stretch the limits of national and local resources. Perhaps it is because I have a Confucian ideology, but I cannot see how this is an "Indian problem", or a "Chinese problem." It is a human problem.
China right now has a middle class of about 300,000 people (the size of America), this number will surely increase drastically in the next several decades. The world is struggling to support the insatiable appetites of Western consumers, and it is failing. Yet despite this, in America, India, and China, we are raising children to desire even more than what is available now. What I fear most is a future where Chinese and Indian consumers begin to ask aloud WHY can't we have the things americans have. And America will no longer be able to talk about money, wealth, or economies, because these nations will have worn down their people and resources so much that they have the money. Without this excuse the only thing America will have left to say is this " These things are ours, we do not want to give them to you." And China and India will realize that what they had been told a century earlier about the economic game was a lie. It was not about fairness, but about greed, and they will be enraged, and there will be war.
And before you begin to label or judge what i have just said, please seriously consider what I am about to say. Please think of the luxuries you delight in. Things from as obvious as I-phones to transparent as the ability to take baths or multiple showers in one day. There is a limit of these things, even water. It is hard to see it, because for so long the ability to purchase these high luxuries has been solely ours. Now, if you lived in a world where you could not have these things because you could not out buy the competition would you accept that? Would your parents be ok with giving up their standard of living? Mine would not. I have asked them.
The other day I was at the airport. I saw a family traveling with 3 sons, many of my friends want to have 2 or 3 children, simply because that was how they grew up. We do things out of habit or because of symbolic meaning we have created, but I think we should do more because of necessity. I am not saying people should not be parents, but why can we not extend the definition of a parent. Make the parent not just the biological father and mother, but the community as well. Why do my children need siblings to bond with instead of neighbors. I would love to have several children, but I also want them to love the world they grow up in.
"It has been estimated that the human population of 6000 B.C was about five million people, taking perhaps one million years to get there from two and a half million. The population did not reach 500 million until almost 8,000 years later- about 1650 A.D. This means it doubled roughly once every thousand years or so. It reached a billion people around 1850, doubling in some 200 years. it took only 80 years for the next doubling, as the population reached two billion people around 1930... the doubling time at present seems to be about 37 years."
The doubling of the population means we must make twice as much food, provide twice as many people education, etc. There is a large body of sociologist and other social science researchers that are looking for quantitative fixes to these types of problems. They are looking for a standardized method to feed, teach, clothe, and raise hundreds of thousands of children. Nowhere is this more apparent then in China and India. Where populations that are closing in on 1.5 billion people stretch the limits of national and local resources. Perhaps it is because I have a Confucian ideology, but I cannot see how this is an "Indian problem", or a "Chinese problem." It is a human problem.
China right now has a middle class of about 300,000 people (the size of America), this number will surely increase drastically in the next several decades. The world is struggling to support the insatiable appetites of Western consumers, and it is failing. Yet despite this, in America, India, and China, we are raising children to desire even more than what is available now. What I fear most is a future where Chinese and Indian consumers begin to ask aloud WHY can't we have the things americans have. And America will no longer be able to talk about money, wealth, or economies, because these nations will have worn down their people and resources so much that they have the money. Without this excuse the only thing America will have left to say is this " These things are ours, we do not want to give them to you." And China and India will realize that what they had been told a century earlier about the economic game was a lie. It was not about fairness, but about greed, and they will be enraged, and there will be war.
And before you begin to label or judge what i have just said, please seriously consider what I am about to say. Please think of the luxuries you delight in. Things from as obvious as I-phones to transparent as the ability to take baths or multiple showers in one day. There is a limit of these things, even water. It is hard to see it, because for so long the ability to purchase these high luxuries has been solely ours. Now, if you lived in a world where you could not have these things because you could not out buy the competition would you accept that? Would your parents be ok with giving up their standard of living? Mine would not. I have asked them.
The other day I was at the airport. I saw a family traveling with 3 sons, many of my friends want to have 2 or 3 children, simply because that was how they grew up. We do things out of habit or because of symbolic meaning we have created, but I think we should do more because of necessity. I am not saying people should not be parents, but why can we not extend the definition of a parent. Make the parent not just the biological father and mother, but the community as well. Why do my children need siblings to bond with instead of neighbors. I would love to have several children, but I also want them to love the world they grow up in.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Analects -Book 5, Passage 28
" The Master said, in a village of ten households there are certain to be those who are as loyal and trustworthy as I am, but none my equal in the love of learning."
This is a passage that is easily overlooked, and my first two three times reading the Analects I did not really pay it any attention. It was only after talking about during one of my classes that the passage opened up for me. My professor pointed out that this passage was one of the only times in the Analects where Confucius can be seen praising himself. I had never though about that, just simply assumed he was trying to promote others to be avid learners. I have always thought myself as someone who loves learning, and that accomplishing this was much easier to accomplish than being loyal or trustworthy. But what does it mean to love learning ? The conclusion I have come to is that to love learning is to be humble, and in this sense I have to take back the claim I just made. I have not always loved learning, I have loved knowing, and there is a difference between the two.
I remember some time towards the end of first grade, I was sitting in Mrs. Keathly's classroom preparing to visit 2nd grade classrooms to determine where I would go the next year. As I waited to go visit Mrs. Freison's classroom, there were also two older girls waiting in Mrs. Keathly's classroom. I do not remember who they were or why they were there, but I do remember specifically them teaching me multiplication and a few square roots. First they explained to me 2x2 and then asked me to figure out 2x4. I have always been quick with this type of problem solving, and with the added motivation of impressing older kids I was able to pull out the right answer. I imagine I was quite prideful about this, but in all honesty I do not remember. The whole event is rather fuzzy to me, but what I do remember is a feeling that I get associated with the words "square root." After answering correctly one of the girls said something a long the lines of "Do you know what a square root is?" Knowing full well that i did not, and reveling in the fact that she held this mysterious knowledge. And because I was a little boy so open to trust the feelings of others the words "square root" were etched into my mind just as how she portrayed them, a mysterious power. The feeling I get when I think of these words very closely linked to an image. It is an image of Spaceman Spiff's Demise-O-Bomb combined with the final weapon in The Butter Battle Book. A potent force that sits behind locked doors hidden from normal eyes to see. The girls told me two square roots, the square root of 81 and the square root of 100. I'm sure the idea was only a little less foreign to them then it was to me, and their choice of these two examples was not for reasons of pedagogy, but because they were the only two they knew. Perhaps one of them had an older brother or sister who bestowed this mysterious knowledge on them in a similar manner. Whether this is the case or not, I made sure to memorize these powerful words, and preceded to use them effectively to wage my own social battles. Upon entering the second grade if there was every a debate about who was smarter, square roots were my ace in the hole; just as if there was ever an insult competition, "you super sonic idiot disconnected brain infected ding-dong dork" was my ace in the hole. I think this example accurately reflects my how I viewed knowledge, even well into college.
What I loved was not learning, it was knowing, and more specifically, knowing things that others did not. Knowing things that others do not makes you feel power over them. Nothing is more showing of this truth then watching a diverse group of undergraduate students talk. Regardless of the subject, each attempts to bend it to fit the specific discipline that has been partially etched into their brains. And if by change the opposition wanders innocently into their field of choice, like a gunmen challenged to a duel they shoot without hesitation. All so that they may take on the role of "the knower". In psychology there is a concept that refers to this called Maser orientation vs. Performance orientation
The idea is that they are two different ways of learning. People with a Master orientation learn something because they are confident that they have the ability to, and take pleasure in the process of progressing. People with a Performance orientation learn something to legitimize a certain role they want to show the world. Those who adopt a Performance orientation are not concerned with learning, or progressing, just with how they look doing it. This idea was deeply embedded into my head for a long time. To the point where not was not only performing for others, but for myself as well. I remember I if there was a video game I liked, I would need to be able to beat if flawlessly. This meant getting through the entire game as fast as possilbe, without dying, taking damage, and unlocking everything. I remember playing sonic 2 on the Sega dream cast, and restarting over and over again. one time I got to the second to last level without dying once. I had amassed 34 lives, and despite this I restarted after dying. I never beat Sonic 2, I was too obsessed with performing rather then playing.
Going back to Confucius's quote, I think to love learning is to have a Mastery orientation. You learn not to say you know but to discover how much you do not know. I my opinion someone who loves learning never truly believes they know anything perfectly. They are constantly looking for what they do not know. In this sense, I see the love of learning as a type of humbleness. No matter how far you take a field you never assume yourself a master, you are always a student. This is something I still struggle with. Even with this quote , now that I have this idea, I feel like I know what it means. It will be tempting to pass over it the next time I read the Analects, or to just refer to this idea. But this is not learning. I think as of now I am actively pursing a mastery orientation, but out of instinct focus on performance, especially in areas linked to my identity. Today I am going to an interfaith conference, it is my goal to keep this in mind, and not wage these subtle wars for the dominance of my ideas. I say I love learning, but this is not yet entirely true.
This is a passage that is easily overlooked, and my first two three times reading the Analects I did not really pay it any attention. It was only after talking about during one of my classes that the passage opened up for me. My professor pointed out that this passage was one of the only times in the Analects where Confucius can be seen praising himself. I had never though about that, just simply assumed he was trying to promote others to be avid learners. I have always thought myself as someone who loves learning, and that accomplishing this was much easier to accomplish than being loyal or trustworthy. But what does it mean to love learning ? The conclusion I have come to is that to love learning is to be humble, and in this sense I have to take back the claim I just made. I have not always loved learning, I have loved knowing, and there is a difference between the two.
I remember some time towards the end of first grade, I was sitting in Mrs. Keathly's classroom preparing to visit 2nd grade classrooms to determine where I would go the next year. As I waited to go visit Mrs. Freison's classroom, there were also two older girls waiting in Mrs. Keathly's classroom. I do not remember who they were or why they were there, but I do remember specifically them teaching me multiplication and a few square roots. First they explained to me 2x2 and then asked me to figure out 2x4. I have always been quick with this type of problem solving, and with the added motivation of impressing older kids I was able to pull out the right answer. I imagine I was quite prideful about this, but in all honesty I do not remember. The whole event is rather fuzzy to me, but what I do remember is a feeling that I get associated with the words "square root." After answering correctly one of the girls said something a long the lines of "Do you know what a square root is?" Knowing full well that i did not, and reveling in the fact that she held this mysterious knowledge. And because I was a little boy so open to trust the feelings of others the words "square root" were etched into my mind just as how she portrayed them, a mysterious power. The feeling I get when I think of these words very closely linked to an image. It is an image of Spaceman Spiff's Demise-O-Bomb combined with the final weapon in The Butter Battle Book. A potent force that sits behind locked doors hidden from normal eyes to see. The girls told me two square roots, the square root of 81 and the square root of 100. I'm sure the idea was only a little less foreign to them then it was to me, and their choice of these two examples was not for reasons of pedagogy, but because they were the only two they knew. Perhaps one of them had an older brother or sister who bestowed this mysterious knowledge on them in a similar manner. Whether this is the case or not, I made sure to memorize these powerful words, and preceded to use them effectively to wage my own social battles. Upon entering the second grade if there was every a debate about who was smarter, square roots were my ace in the hole; just as if there was ever an insult competition, "you super sonic idiot disconnected brain infected ding-dong dork" was my ace in the hole. I think this example accurately reflects my how I viewed knowledge, even well into college.
What I loved was not learning, it was knowing, and more specifically, knowing things that others did not. Knowing things that others do not makes you feel power over them. Nothing is more showing of this truth then watching a diverse group of undergraduate students talk. Regardless of the subject, each attempts to bend it to fit the specific discipline that has been partially etched into their brains. And if by change the opposition wanders innocently into their field of choice, like a gunmen challenged to a duel they shoot without hesitation. All so that they may take on the role of "the knower". In psychology there is a concept that refers to this called Maser orientation vs. Performance orientation
The idea is that they are two different ways of learning. People with a Master orientation learn something because they are confident that they have the ability to, and take pleasure in the process of progressing. People with a Performance orientation learn something to legitimize a certain role they want to show the world. Those who adopt a Performance orientation are not concerned with learning, or progressing, just with how they look doing it. This idea was deeply embedded into my head for a long time. To the point where not was not only performing for others, but for myself as well. I remember I if there was a video game I liked, I would need to be able to beat if flawlessly. This meant getting through the entire game as fast as possilbe, without dying, taking damage, and unlocking everything. I remember playing sonic 2 on the Sega dream cast, and restarting over and over again. one time I got to the second to last level without dying once. I had amassed 34 lives, and despite this I restarted after dying. I never beat Sonic 2, I was too obsessed with performing rather then playing.
Going back to Confucius's quote, I think to love learning is to have a Mastery orientation. You learn not to say you know but to discover how much you do not know. I my opinion someone who loves learning never truly believes they know anything perfectly. They are constantly looking for what they do not know. In this sense, I see the love of learning as a type of humbleness. No matter how far you take a field you never assume yourself a master, you are always a student. This is something I still struggle with. Even with this quote , now that I have this idea, I feel like I know what it means. It will be tempting to pass over it the next time I read the Analects, or to just refer to this idea. But this is not learning. I think as of now I am actively pursing a mastery orientation, but out of instinct focus on performance, especially in areas linked to my identity. Today I am going to an interfaith conference, it is my goal to keep this in mind, and not wage these subtle wars for the dominance of my ideas. I say I love learning, but this is not yet entirely true.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Democracy of the Dead by Roger Ames
For the last six months I have been captivated by Confucianism. The more I learn about it, the more I believe the values it teaches are what is needed to rejuvenate our country. Ames makes an interesting point that rather then importing a completely foreign idea system, which could have potentially dangerous side-effects, it is better to use a marginalized counter-discourse to provoke change within an existing system; a evolutionary rather then revolutionary movement. Even though he is a Confucian scholar, it seemed to me that he was bluntly stating that he did not think Confucianism was right for America. This was really shocking to me because I had started reading the book looking for support in the completely opposite direction.
There are two things I see Ame's statement as suggesting: the first is that revolution is negative, and the second is that there are dangers in the high degree and size of symbolic information (I will explain what I mean by this in a second).First, are revolutions negative? There are many types of revolutions. However, in my mind I see revolution as invoking dramatic large scale action. In my mind I imagine a giant game of musical chairs. The time between each round could be generations, but at some point, the music starts, and no matter who you are you cannot help but move. It is childish, but I get very nervous playing musical chairs. The last time I played was during my sophomore year of college. Nothing put me above the nervousness. Not the lofty ideas I churned in my head, not my status, or the muscles in my leg. Not even the fact that it was a game. It is silly, but as that music played I could feel myself leaning towards the chairs, speeding up when I was furthest away and slowing down when they were within my reach. That said, there are limits to the control the game had over me. I was not willing to hurt anybody to win, but there were people who were. They may not have thought they were going to hurt people, and they definitely did not want to hurt people, but these are different from not being willing to. If you are really not willing to hurt someone, then you think first and foremost of that, no matter what else you are doing. But it's hard, especially when you want to win. And when it comes to life, most people want to win. This is why I think revoltuions are dangerous. They involve large scale, fast, change that i see as inevitably damaging. This is not to say that the means cannot justify the ends. For example, the civil rights movement of the 1950s through 1960s was a revolt ion in humaneness. It undoubtedly caused many deaths and shattered many people's reality, but in the end I think these means were justified. Returning to the subject of Democracy, I am very critical of our current form of democracy. When I was just a couple years younger I felt strongly that we needed revolution in America. I still think we need revolution, but not against democracy. It has its problems, but they are not large enough to justify the scramble. The revolutions I would support are revolutions of love and community. These are things I see to be worth the risk.
The second thing I wanted to discuss about the above idea is what effects the degree and size of symbolic information have. For something to be a symbol means that it has plural meanings. This can range from having two meanings to having ... well infinite. When I talk about the degree of symbolic information what I mean is that how much does it leave to personal interpretation. Some symbols do not leave much at all. If I write
3+3=6
There is not much you personally can do with that to change its meaning. This is why math is so powerful. It can create stability and thus secure its power. However, other symbols are not stable at all. Some people read the bible and decide that they must be good parents, others that they must save the world, and still some believe they must punish sinners. While this is partially due to high degree symbols, it is also due to the fact that the bible is a huge amount of information. I wish I could write some sort of equation to express this idea, so I will try (sorry if it is bad). What I am suggesting is that
Having a certain number of high degree symbols (Hd) plus a vast body of overall symbolic material, leads to near limitless interpretation of material. Peace requires order, and order requires stability. Even if the intentions of transmitters are noble, I think large amounts of highly symbolic material can produce unpredictable results in a society. Not to say that these could not be great things. But for the purpose of establishing a stable society, I can see how a marginalized idea counter-discourse would be more beneficial.
There are two things I see Ame's statement as suggesting: the first is that revolution is negative, and the second is that there are dangers in the high degree and size of symbolic information (I will explain what I mean by this in a second).First, are revolutions negative? There are many types of revolutions. However, in my mind I see revolution as invoking dramatic large scale action. In my mind I imagine a giant game of musical chairs. The time between each round could be generations, but at some point, the music starts, and no matter who you are you cannot help but move. It is childish, but I get very nervous playing musical chairs. The last time I played was during my sophomore year of college. Nothing put me above the nervousness. Not the lofty ideas I churned in my head, not my status, or the muscles in my leg. Not even the fact that it was a game. It is silly, but as that music played I could feel myself leaning towards the chairs, speeding up when I was furthest away and slowing down when they were within my reach. That said, there are limits to the control the game had over me. I was not willing to hurt anybody to win, but there were people who were. They may not have thought they were going to hurt people, and they definitely did not want to hurt people, but these are different from not being willing to. If you are really not willing to hurt someone, then you think first and foremost of that, no matter what else you are doing. But it's hard, especially when you want to win. And when it comes to life, most people want to win. This is why I think revoltuions are dangerous. They involve large scale, fast, change that i see as inevitably damaging. This is not to say that the means cannot justify the ends. For example, the civil rights movement of the 1950s through 1960s was a revolt ion in humaneness. It undoubtedly caused many deaths and shattered many people's reality, but in the end I think these means were justified. Returning to the subject of Democracy, I am very critical of our current form of democracy. When I was just a couple years younger I felt strongly that we needed revolution in America. I still think we need revolution, but not against democracy. It has its problems, but they are not large enough to justify the scramble. The revolutions I would support are revolutions of love and community. These are things I see to be worth the risk.
The second thing I wanted to discuss about the above idea is what effects the degree and size of symbolic information have. For something to be a symbol means that it has plural meanings. This can range from having two meanings to having ... well infinite. When I talk about the degree of symbolic information what I mean is that how much does it leave to personal interpretation. Some symbols do not leave much at all. If I write
3+3=6
There is not much you personally can do with that to change its meaning. This is why math is so powerful. It can create stability and thus secure its power. However, other symbols are not stable at all. Some people read the bible and decide that they must be good parents, others that they must save the world, and still some believe they must punish sinners. While this is partially due to high degree symbols, it is also due to the fact that the bible is a huge amount of information. I wish I could write some sort of equation to express this idea, so I will try (sorry if it is bad). What I am suggesting is that
Having a certain number of high degree symbols (Hd) plus a vast body of overall symbolic material, leads to near limitless interpretation of material. Peace requires order, and order requires stability. Even if the intentions of transmitters are noble, I think large amounts of highly symbolic material can produce unpredictable results in a society. Not to say that these could not be great things. But for the purpose of establishing a stable society, I can see how a marginalized idea counter-discourse would be more beneficial.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)