Edit [minutes later]: here's a best of the photoblog, if you never checked it out:
- Genocide pt. 1: smitten with a cross
- Genocide pt. 2: some amateur photoshopping
- Can a sphere be upside down?
- My favorite map
Thursday, February 9
photoblog? why not here?
For some reason, when I had a need to post a lot of pictures on the internet following my trip to honduras, I felt I had to create a separate blog for such activities. But that blog and those pictures mostly just sit there, and I hardly ever update it (today being the first day since october). So I think I am going to discontinue my use of that blog and just post pictures on this blog like I should have done from the beginning. Sometimes I am too picky about what I put up on this blog for some reason. So those pictures from honduras and the start of college will still be there, I just will never ever put any more pictures there. To celebrate, I will repost the comic I posted over there earlier today (which my dad sent me via email).
Edit [minutes later]: here's a best of the photoblog, if you never checked it out:
Edit [minutes later]: here's a best of the photoblog, if you never checked it out:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is in response to your description of the "despicable" statues at SLU.
ReplyDeleteI pose a hypothetical question to you, Tom...
During your trip to Honduras, your entourage encounters a village of people who were capturing members of all the neighboring villages and ceremonially killing them in gruesome ways, not just in a single event, but as a recurring daily ritual. You have little fear of being killed yourself, because your group possesses superior weaponry with which to defend yourself if attacked, but trying to defend all the surrounding villages is futile, due to the number of attackers. There are no police. And it is obvious that there is no way to negotiate with the killers.
What would you do?
Dan
Okay, I'll pause for a moment and not automatically think that you are labeling all native americans as blood-thirsty savages so I can try to answer your hypothetical question.
ReplyDeleteWell, since we are respected enough because of our superior weaponry, I would think we would push that respect to ask what the purpose is behind these ceremonial killings.
Since this "village of people" has the audacity and force to oppress surrounding villages for such gruesome purposes, I can only assume that they are part of some civilization with their own unique sordid history of oppressing and killing other people to benefit themselves by eliminating competition. Without even receiving an answer from them for my previous question, I could gather that.
If they respond that this is a religious ritual sacrifice that they must perform to appease their god or gods, I would understand that there would be no way to stop them from their activities, for faith is a powerful force. It would have to be overcome by severe physical force (which you have said that we do not have available to us). Perhaps the foreign diseases we carry with us will simply wipe them all out and then we don't have to worry about them killing each other anymore (because they're all gone!).
I suppose the answer that you would be looking for is that we should try to convert them to christianity so that they know that killing their neighbors is bad. You seem to have a pretty naive understanding of the history of christianity, from what you've said in other comments. Explain how christianity would influence this village of people positively when they learn of the crusades carried out in the name of christ (another instance of misguided evangelism (assuming evangelism could ever be well-guided)). And christians were even guilty of killing their own neighbors of the same faith- the inquisition ring a bell? And moving even closer to home, christians often turn the violence directly onto themselves, punishing themselves for their inherited (or is it inherent?) evilness, by self flagellation or just the mental torture of constant guilt and shame over one's own complexity.
If you are successful at converting them to christianity, and therefore stop the killing by force of morality, I will agree that this is a good, because while the unique culture of this human ceremonially-killing village is destroyed, that village was destroying the unique culture of the villages around it as well. My qeustion is, would we, as evangelists, be satisfied at this point or would we go on to convert the relatively peaceful people of the surrounding villages who, until we came to save them, had been getting killed? And if we did, would this not be a form of cultural genocide? Let me know if I'm way off track in my response to your original hypothetical question.
This one seems to me to be a very fascinating problem; it seems to have many of the marks of the "no-solution" problems that face us so often (like the current problem in the Middle East. But I digress.) It seems to me that there are some assumptions in your argument that you have not sufficiently demonstrated. On the one hand you have set up an artificial distinction between "primitive" and "civilized" societies. I think you would argue that some sort of split happened in humanity at the time of the so-called "agricultural revolution" which took place somewhere in the "fertile crescent" of Mesopotamia several thousand years ago. But does this divide actually exist? Is there a real difference in kind between these cultures or is it only a difference in degree? It seems to me that the various cultures are actually much closer together in experience than you make them out to be. Were the Mayans, for instance, who did not participate in your "agricultural revolution" a "primitive culture" although they had an extremely advanced mathematics, a rather modern existential philosophy, and were rather good at subjugating neighboring tribes? Another assumption you make is that all religions are equally valuable. But is this really the case? Is every religion even comparable to every other? It seems that the various relgions do not even make claims about the same sorts of things. Does "faith is a powerful force" legitimate any sort of act? And if it legitimates the act of brutally sacrificing one's neighbors, surely it legitimates evangelism.
ReplyDeleteJust a few more questions, if I may. You seem to be assuming the "myth of the noble savage," that certain "primitive peoples" lived in bliss and harmony in their hunter-gatherer lifestyle until the evils of civilization destroyed their peace. But I challenge you to show me one place where this was the case, where some civilization existed in which warfare did not play a part. The "noble savage" is not based on anyone's real experience; it was invented by Western thinkers like Lucretius and Epicurus in ancient times, and revived than people like Jean Jacques Rousseau to provide a mythic basis for a hedonistic lifestyle, as an alternative to the Garden of Eden myth that grounds Judeo-Christian morality. Of course, "myth" does not mean untrue, but for it to be true it must be substantiated by rational demonstration. But I don't think you will find any "innocent" peoples or totally "peaceful" peoples. Violence is part of the human experience throughout its history. And so is guilt, I think you will find. For that matter, why is violence always wrong? When has Christianity ever thought of itself as a pacifist religion? Did not Christ say "I have not come to bring peace but a sword" and "whoever does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one"? I don't see why violent means are categorically wrong, even if in particular they often are.
These are just some questions I had while reading your posts. Thank you very much for dialoguing in this fashion; it is always an honor to dialogue with you. I hope and pray that your continuing quest for the Good Life is fruitful. God bless.
Mark Spencer
Mark, when I got to the end of reading your comment, all I could say was, "Mark Spencer, I love you." You keep me honest and focused, and sometimes you even agree with me without trying (which is always nice in an argument). So my comment in response might look like I'm backpedaling to incorporate many of the things you just said, but I'm pretty sure I've expressed these things in other ways elsewhere. So thank you for forcing me to flesh them out again here.
ReplyDeleteOkay, the agricultural revolution. There are different degrees of agriculture, and those could point to different degrees of culture, I agree. There's various levels, from simply planting seeds that you'll come back around to harvest when the time comes, to low-level lackadaisical gardening, to the intensive totalitarian agriculture that I am concerned with as a radical shift in how humans related to each other and the world. I'm pretty sure that the Mayans did have pretty intensive agriculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayas#Agriculture). So I would included them in the civilized world, having participated in their own little agricultural revolution. If you want to look at it another way, it's any society that forces you to work long and hard in some way, such as to make the huge ceremonial religious structures we can still see when we go to central america (I have pictures!).
It was a while ago that I tried to say that all religions are equally valuable. That was when I was still struggling to remain christian. I have a bit more perspective now that I am not in the midst of that particular struggle (just a bit). I agree with you here, I think. I don't think you can compare religions as easily as people try to. I don't think they have to be equally valuable or right for people to still respect other people's religious differences. I was NOT saying that faith was a legitimizing force (well, it is, but not in any universal objective sort of way). I was only saying that it is a powerful force. It is a dangerous force. Faith has the potential to lead to a lot of violent behavior. Patriotism and religious fanaticism are both faith-based forces in which the people swept up in them are willing to die (and kill) for the causes involved. I am not saying that faith legitimates such acts as brutally sacrificing one's neighbors at all, only that we would not be able to reason with them about such actions because of this strong emotional block they have up in the form of their faith.
I am aware of the fallacy of the noble savage. It would be exactly this myth that would lead us, as evangelists, to continue on to the other, previously oppressed, tribes to convert (and oppress) them as well. The noble savage, viewed as innocent and meek, is equated with a child that must be taken care of by the Western White Parent. I am obviously not in agreement with this myth. I can see how it might appear that I am ignoring native people's complexities when I still idealize them so much. But I idealize them while fully aware that they are not peaceful, that they are rather in a constant state of low-level warfare. This warfare is a primarily ceremonial one though- a show of force to one's neighbors to remind them not to mess with you. Very rarely did anyone die (but this element would be required to keep the dance interesting and real). So I do not idealize them for being completely peaceful. If you haven't realized yet, I am no longer a pacifist. I do fear that you are linking this kind of low-level ritualized violence to the extreme assault on humanity and the world that civilized warfare represents (including the religious wars of the crusades). I do not believe that violence is always wrong. I am surprised (and slightly delighted) to hear you say similarly that christianity is not a pacifist religion. It seems to contradict everything I know about Christianity, or how it is taught now, though. So I have never read those bits about Jesus. Perhaps I always read a overly-tamed version of the bible (like the one that says "resist not evil" -what a horrible translation of what Jesus was saying), or those bits (along with that bit about the heretical fig tree which Jesus violently destroyed for not obeying) were simply ignored by all my religion teachers (at school and church).
If you see a contradiction forming between my acceptance of a willingness to fight and die for one's tribe as opposed to one's country or religion, then you have yet to gain an appreciation for tribes. Imagine being a part of a group of one hundred people, and these one hundred people will support you through anything. Anything. And you, in turn, are fiercely loyal to them as well. This loyalty is based on necessity, though, not necessarily emotions. It's a necessity founded on the daily task of life of securing food to keep the tribe alive. Tribes are non-hierarchical and egalitarian. Sharing would be the fundamental verb to describe how tribe members relate to one another. All food is shared. Child-rearing tasks are shared. Possessions are shared (and possession itself is only based on use, not right - i.e. you possess something only because you are using it at the moment, not because you have an eternal right to its use, for as long as it lasts). With all of the tasks of life being shared among the tribe, individual workloads are greatly reduced, compared to modern, civilized life (consider the single mother. or even the nuclear family, for that matter. talk about an exhausting lifestyle). So when I idealize tribes, it is for these reasons, not because they are supposedly nobly non-violent, as in the noble savage myth.
You snuck in a short little comment about guilt among the violence stuff. I do acknowledge guilt as an appropriate emotion when someone has done something wrong (wrong in the culturally relative sense, of course), but religions like Catholicism take that guilt to a new level that qualifies as sado-masochistic (I am not referring to the sexual connotation of these terms in this context, necessarily). Catholic guilt, as it is commonly referred to is more accurately described as simply a fear of going to hell. Fear is no basis for making choices or for guiding the actions of your life (certainly not for a happy or "Good Life," anyway).
Anyway, it was mainly your comments about violence that led me to exclaim that I love you. You are brave to argue that violence is not categorically wrong from the christian standpoint (don't let gandhi or mlk hear you say that!). It was never something I could do. I had to shake off my christian faith before I could finally come to terms with the fact that violence is a part of the human experience.
Thank you for your comment. I enjoyed reading and responding to it greatly. May the dialogue continue!
I have a question for Dan and Mark. Are you denying that the Western world committed a genocide against the indigenous (or as close to indigenous as you can get for the Americas) people living in the Americas, or only that the missionaries that came first did not play a role in the genocide? If you believe that no genocide took place, then I don't know what to say other than go back and take history again. Or more cheaply, you could read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States (which I am admittedly recommending before I've read it). Our country was made possible only by a genocide. If you accept that, but not the bit about the missionaries, what would you call it if a couple buddhist monks came into your suburb and tried to convert you to buddhism (this would never happen, by the way. buddhism is not an evangelical religion, to my knowledge), saying that you had it all wrong and that you need to give up all your previous ways of worshipping God in order to adopt their way. Or perhaps you only have certain things wrong, so the monks compromise with you and say that you only need to change a couple things here and there, and then you're buddhist! You're on the path to enlightenment! Now your future is secure! But this compromise is only to get you hooked so that, slowly, you forget everything of your previous culture and way of life and adopt completely the buddhist life. Now imagine everyone you know slowly forgets their previous culture too. Where did it go? It's gone! It has died. It has been killed. It's cultural genocide.
ReplyDeleteThis is what missionaries did. And besides, all of this is just a prelude to soldiers coming in ahead of settlers to just flat out kill the indians en masse to clear the land for settlement by civilized proper folk. Just when we had gained the indians trust too...
So Dan, please, instead of posing a vague hypothetical question, could you explain to me why the statues are not dispicable?
Oh, no, I am certainly not denying that the "Western world" committed genocide against many peoples--the American attitude toward the tribes on this continent is downright tame compared with the British action against the Tasmanians or the Maoris or numerous African or Indian peoples. Of course, there are also comparable cases of the Aztecs commiting genocide against their neighbors, and the Mongols against theirs, and the Blackfoot and Iroquois tribes aginst theirs, and numerous other tribes against other tribes. But this cannot be called the fault of the missionaries. I invite you to examine the work of missionaries like Micheal Richi in China who incorporated such cultural practices as ancestor worship into the Catholic liturgy, or Bartolomeo de las Casas in Mexico at whose instigation the Pope issued the first "Declaration of Human Rights" in order to protect the native peoples from slavery to the conquistadors, or St. Isaac Jogues and the French Jesuits, St. Junipero Serra and the Spanish Franciscans, and countless others who successfully incorporated the cultures of the people they evangelized into their Catholic practice. As Catholics we believe that every culture contains the "semina verbi," seeds of the Word of God planted there by the Holy Spirit to prepare them for the coming of Christ. As Catholics we believe that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of every culture and way of life, and that life is ultimately absurd and meaningless without Him to give it meaning. Everything that can be saved in a culture ought to be saved and incorporated into the One Faith of Christ. There is no need to "forget their previous culture"--and this did not always happen. Sadly, the American vision is one of "manifest destiny," a bizarre capitalist-Protestant notion that somehow the American culture (which in my opinion does not exist except artificially) was morally superior to every other. This has never been the Catholic view--sadly, many Catholics, even Catholic missionaries, committed atrocities both on the intellectual and physical levels. But that is not what is at issue here. The Catholic Faith claims to be divinely inspired. Its veracity rests on whether its truth-claims are true, not on the conduct of its individual members. (And yes, Buddhism is an evangelical religion--not by the sword certainly, but Buddhist missionaries were sent to China, Korea, and Japan, with amazingly good results--I would make the argument, though, that Buddhism is not a religion in its pure form, but more of an existential philosophy). Anyways, what the soldiers did in the West ought not be equated with the efforts of Catholic missionaries, who were not really present there at the time. And I would certainly not want to deny what is obviously true from a historical standpoint; I think the truth of the Catholic faith rests on something far bigger than any of these events: the historical event of the Incarnation.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind reception of my comments. I would still question whether tribes were really ever as egalitarian as you suggest, and whether egalitarianism is all that good of a thing anyways. But yes, you are right about the Catholic guilt thing: many Catholics act out of fear of hell, and we are called to act in love, not in fear. But sorrow for sin is never a bad thing, I think, as long as it moves us to cast ourselves upon Christ and seek forgiveness and act out of gratitude for His mercy. I'd really encourage you to diversify the sources you read or examine regarding the Catholic faith--much of what is presented as "Christianity" now-a-days is a thinly spiritualized secularism, which considers religion to be merely "social justice" and Jesus to be an "ethical teacher." This is NOT what Catholicism has been historically (not to say that social justice has not always been a part of Catholicism, it has, but under the name of "Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy") And I think the ideology behind the Crusades (although perhaps not their actual practice) IS authentically Catholic. Though in this, like other things I won't go into here, I may be a bit of a fringe element in modern Christianity.
Well, at any rate, I greatly enjoy these debates, and I do agree with you on a great many things, and I'm glad you actually care about these things, and I am praying for you. God bless.
Mark Spencer
It's quite simple, Tom.
ReplyDeleteChristianity is the Truth and Jesus is the answer to the question that burns in every human heart, "Why am I here?"
Where you see oppression of the helpless -- I suspect possibly a metaphor for your own anger and disappointment at how you interpret your experience of Catholicism -- I see a prostrate Bishop Juan de Zumárraga weeping before the miraculous image of Mary who revealed herself to the indigenous peoples as being their mother.
And maybe that's where we differ. I've just read your description of Catholic guilt ccnsisting of "simply a fear of going to hell." I have very little fear of going to hell. I know that the possibility of it exists, because I know that, try and wish as I might, I can't fix those parts of me that make me unworthy to be in the presence of Jesus. Not "unworthy" because someone else "guilts" me into feeling that way, but unworthiness, like the magnetic resistence that reveals the impossibility of unitying two incompatible magnetic poles.
The closer I am drawn to Christ, the more my "being" understands the incompatibility and unworthiness of the union. And that unworthiness reveals not hell, but heaven.
I think the difference between our philosophies is this; where I see my Creator, you see a mere piece of bread.
I thought this might be relevant: Thy Kingdom Come.
ReplyDelete"God’s plan for the nations has been unfolding in a specific geographic direction. This geographical march of history is called the Chain of Christianity or the Chain of Liberty. It seems as if God’s direction is westward. "Christian" geography (which is true geography) is the view that the earth’s origin, end, purposes, and physiography are for Christ and His glory. Like individuals, nations have a unique purpose. We will see throughout this book how God has raised up and put down nations of the world for His purposes.
"Arnold Guyot, a nineteenth-century scientist and professor of geology at Princeton University, noted that God had arranged the structure of the earth to assure that the Chain of Christianity would move not south into Africa or east into Asia but westward into Europe. That which originated in Asia and developed in Europe has had its greatest fulfillment in America.
...
"A secular society lacks faith in God’s Providence, and consequently men find fewer natural resources. The secular or socialist has a limited-resource mentality and views the world as a pie (there is only so much) that needs to be cut up so that everyone can have a piece. In contrast, the Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God’s earth."
And that is how genocide is justified: with praise and glory to God.
- Devin
Mark wrote: "-the American attitude toward the tribes on this continent is downright tame compared with the British action against the Tasmanians or the Maoris or numerous African or Indian peoples. Of course, there are also comparable cases of the Aztecs commiting genocide against their neighbors, and the Mongols against theirs, and the Blackfoot and Iroquois tribes aginst theirs, and numerous other tribes against other tribes."
ReplyDeleteAll of these examples you cite are of civilizations committing genocide or of warring chiefdoms. The typical Western conception of "tribe" is of a chiefdom, where power is concentrated in the hands of a chief. It is an unfalsifiable hypothesis that chiefdoms are a precursor to civilization, so we cannot say anything to that effect; however, we can say that civilization and chiefdoms have more in common with each other than they do with foraging bands. Lawrence Keeley wrote "War before Civilization", dispelling the myth of the noble savage -- but most of the examples he cites of war before civilization are of horticulturalists killing horticuluralists. This makes perfect sense, because horticulturalists were competing over sedentary land-bases, whereas forager tribes were all nomadic and would not need to engage in total war. Horticulturalists were also prone to the early stages of what Quinn calls the Food Race -- needing more food and more land to provide for more people, which can obtain more food and more land.
Forager bands, unlike chiefdoms, were egalitarian. You may question the value of egalitarianism, but I certainly do not. One of my life-changing experiences was reading Night by Elie Weisel, and then learning about the Milgram experiments soon after. I do not need to look very far to see the atrocities of hierarchy. Perhaps more important to me still, I have many stories of my own suffering from being subject to a hierarchical society. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that egalitarian relationships are more healthy than hierarchical ones.
Mark wrote: "I invite you to examine the work of missionaries like Micheal Richi in China who incorporated such cultural practices as ancestor worship into the Catholic liturgy, or Bartolomeo de las Casas in Mexico at whose instigation the Pope issued the first "Declaration of Human Rights" in order to protect the native peoples from slavery to the conquistadors, or St. Isaac Jogues and the French Jesuits, St. Junipero Serra and the Spanish Franciscans, and countless others who successfully incorporated the cultures of the people they evangelized into their Catholic practice. As Catholics we believe that every culture contains the "semina verbi," seeds of the Word of God planted there by the Holy Spirit to prepare them for the coming of Christ. As Catholics we believe that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of every culture and way of life, and that life is ultimately absurd and meaningless without Him to give it meaning. Everything that can be saved in a culture ought to be saved and incorporated into the One Faith of Christ."
This reminds me of the "Kill the Indian, save the man" mentality, except with a twist: "Kill the Indian, save the Christ."
- Devin
Responding to Devin's Thy Kingdom Come remarks...
ReplyDeleteThe first line from your link says it all - "You cannot understand history without understanding Divine Providence."
Thus it accurately describes the bane of the typical college student "freed" to "open their minds" for the first time.
After mere months, they confuse their indoctrination to intellectual snobbery with evidence that they've actually met the next incarnation of Solomon because of their ability to get an "A" after reading a book and parroting their professors hatred of how history transpired, thus providing real evidence that they learned little about history or Divine Providence.
The only solace society might have against such "intellectualism" is that those thus afflicted hopefully think themselves too sophisticated to vote.
- Dan
Let us make an argument.
ReplyDeleteGod exists.
Therefore, God exists.
Hmmm.
Another?
Sure, why not.
Humans are "ruling the earth".
God intended them to rule the earth.
God made humans to rule the earth.
Let's keep going.
I cannot come up with any other explanation other than God.
Therefore, God is the only explanation.
Last one, and my personal favorite --
I have the Truth.
You don't.
Isn't arguing fun?
- Devin
Tom, your blog is becoming the most exciting place for sociological debate on the internet! Thanks for letting me get in on this action. This is mostly in response to Devin's posts, but some to yours, Tom, as well. It's a lot of general points as well.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Devin, it seems to me you are doing the exact thing that you attack here: "I have the Truth. You don't." By attacking Christianity/civilization (and yes, I do believe the two go together) so virulently you are setting up yourself or the sources you quote as the source of "truth." Now I have no problem with saying there are real sources of truth. But I don't think you have any leg to stand on when you attack those others of us who claim to have some access to real truth.
It also seems to me that you are commiting the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy in many of your arguments: you say that there are ills in "civilization;" the ills come after civilization (which you can't prove--but which you seem to assume, since you live after the dawn of civilization.) Thus you conclude that the ills come because of civilization. But this seems a rather isolationist approach: you are willing to sacrifice all the great human works of the last sixty centuries or so: all the music of Beethoven and Palestrina and Brahms, the art of Raphael and Michelangelo, the mathematical advances of Euler and Cantor, the scientfic discoveries of Newton and Schrodinger--you have to sacrifice all of this, because it is caused by civilization--all for what? A "forager" lifestyle? Why? Of course, you have to sacrifice the writers like Daniel Quinn that led you to this conclusion, since his thought is surely a product of civilization. But why is civilization itself, and all that goes with it so bad? Why is "egalitarianism" so great? You'll never get to real "egalitarianism" since there are natural inequalities between people. Why are hierarchies so evil? What about people who are born with a natural gift to lead? Are they irrelevant? Is everyone who strove so hard to make the human race great and wise and endow us with knowledge and art to be tossed aside? These, it seems to me, are the logical conclusions of what you propose. But I really do want to understand where you are coming from. Please explain how we could live as you propose and still remain these things that make human life so worth living...
I'd like to make a clarification: we seem to be working from different definitions of the word nature. I define nature, following Aristotle, as "what a thing is." A thing is acting in accord with nature when it follows what it is designed to do. Thus a human person is following his nature, by this definition, when he acts in accord with reason and free will since these are the distinctive parts of the human person (with human defined as a rational animal.) But I'd like to know how you define nature.
One last point, if I may. You quote a lot of sources in your posts. I've heard of some of them, I haven't heard of others. But I can make quotations and references as well, which contradict yours. I could quote Thomas Hobbes as saying that the life of the human race without law, in the time before civilization, was "nasty, poor, brutish, and short." Or I could quote Aristotle as saying that humans are "political animals" and only doing what we are most ourselves in an organized state. Or I could refer you to Nietzsche who says that it is the purpose of the human race to transcend itself, rise above itself, into a higher stage of life. None of these men were Christians. But I can quote them all to support my points. The point is, quotations only do so much. If you can logically prove your points to me, that will convince me of them much more.
Thanks for reading and conversing. I know that we will all reach truth--the real truth--if we keep at it, conversing and examining each others' points. I hope all of you are all doing well, and I am praying for you all. God bless.
Peace,
Mark Spencer
Mark -- I am aware that you think I am saying the same thing as "I have the Truth. You don't." But I would make a sharp distinction between that and what I am saying, which is "I have a truth. You have a truth." You can feel the difference, in both the capitalization and the acknowledgement of the other person. Dan has written me off, and so I make my response humorous, in jest. There is little else I can do when my person is not seen as valid, not my arguments.
ReplyDeleteIt is seemingly inevitable to get a little bit into the ad hominem and argument from authority fallacies any time we discuss what is "true" and what is "not true." I am comfortable enough to say that the bible is true for you. But are you comfortable enough to say that my sources are true for me?
This is all that I ask; mere coexistence. I do not wish to change you, and if changing me is your goal you surely will not succeed. I strongly disagree that we will all reach "the real truth" if we keep at it, conversing and examining each others' points... because I disagree that there is a "the real truth" in the first place.
If civilization had allowed coexistence, there wouldn't be this problem in the first place. However, everyone must live the one right way or be destroyed. This is Genocide with a capital G. If you would ask why I see genocide as negative, I might can understand the disconnect. But when I am not merely told that my way of life is invalid, but this is acted upon with force, that is when I start to bristle.
This "truth" thing is no small discussion. It is the justification for war and genocide throughout history. The ramifications of you even ACKNOWLEDGING that I might have a point are simply enormous. This is why civilization has been so hellbent on imposing its one right way on everyone since the beginning. And in parallel, those in civilization often repeat this interaction on a smaller scale, by externalizing change and attempting to convert people, which I wrote about recently here.
You could cite Thomas Hobbes and Aristotle and Nietzsche in order to undermine anthropological findings, but they are not anthropologists, they are philosophers. The idea of unilineal cultural evolution that they all subscribe to is pure myth. See the Sociocultural evolution article at Wikipedia for more.
But I don't see what good citing anything does when we cannot agree on a standard of what constitutes knowledge or not. I see the bible as myth -- it's a story we can derive meaning from, through metaphors, but in the end it is not much different than the Greek mythology or any other culture's theology. What are your grounds for claiming one is true while saying the rest are myths? The grounds are your personal experience, of course, for that is all "you" are... but certainly your personal experience is not universal, nor can it become as such.
On these grounds, if I were in your position I would not appeal to logic. Your belief in god is irrational... humans are not rational animals, we just like to think so because we are irrational. The previous sentence is entirely logically consistent, regardless of whether you feel it is true or not. You see, I can logically deconstruct anything, even making some really absurd arguments that are logically sound -- because logic is applied to a set of premises. You are free to examine my premises at will, but you cannot "work backwards" as it were and come to any sort of logical conclusion about my premises without having premises of your own. Logic is not a process of obtaining knowledge, it is a means of constructing knowledge.
That being said, I can prove that these ills of which I speak and experience are the result of civilization far more easily than you can provide any evidence for your version of God or human nature. For proof is merely providing evidence that is consistent with a hypothesis or theory. There is a particularly robust correlation between "civilization" (defined anthropologically of course) and "the ills of civilization", for reasons that should be fully obvious. You might argue that these ills are also present in other societies, but then the burden of proof is on you. And for some reason I doubt you could prove that a single hunter-gatherer society could support the number of people, the amount of division of labor, the concentration of wealth and surplus, and the amount of entrenched oligarchy that civilization does. These things are unique to civilization in both their scale and commonality -- a hierarchical foraging band is an exception, and NOT the rule. It would please me greatly if you could find any actual evidence to demonstrate otherwise, rather than relying on anecdote and reasoning by analogy.
You ask many questions, and in many of these you commit the fallacy of many questions. You assume that I accept the premises of your question, which I do not. Wikipedia explains the fallacy this way: "This fallacy is often used rhetorically so that the question limits direct replies to something that serves the questioner's agenda. The standard example of this is the question Are you still beating your wife? Whether the person asked answers yes or no, he will admit to having beaten his wife at some time in the past. Thus, that fact is presupposed by the question, and if it has not been agreed upon by the speakers before, the question is improper, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed."
Personally I obtain no meaning from the "accomplishments" of civilization... Raphael and Michelangelo and all the wonders of the world I probably couldn't care less about if I tried. And yes I'll have to sacrifice Quinn, no big loss there... I'd trade all the books and helpful authors in the world for the freedom of living in an egalitarian community. And in fact I plan to.
The point is not to "give things up" or "make sacrifices", however. This is only the point to the extent that "getting things" ever was. The extent to which we relinquish the idea of progress as equivalent to accumulating more and more stuff, is the extent to which we will "give things up".
As for the other loaded questions, well, for now I will only point you to a basic statement of my beliefs. You seem to be asking how I obtain meaning from a foraging society, but in essence you are asking for my entire paradigm -- and that post is as close as I have gotten to describing my paradigm.
As it stands, however, our paradigms are incompatible. There is no reconciliation to be had as long as you remain on one or the other side of any of these false dichotomies.
You might also look at and respond to the numerous other posts I have made here, this time actually responding to their substance and not who is saying what and why. I will be glad to expand upon any specific point I made that you disagree with, but you're going to have to give me more than elongated "nuh-uhhhh"s with no real substance other than a few loaded questions.
In other words, go ahead and bring out all your sources, put them against mine, and we'll see if they hold up to any kind of scrutiny. I don't posture and claim truth and then not show my sources or bring anything to the table... I'll bring everything I have and lay it all out for you. All I ask is that you do the same... and that if you cannot, then you cease to make unsupportable arguments and parade them as being true for not just yourself but other people as well.
On this last note of bringing your sources out -- I would love to argue with your god, if you could but merely produce "him" for me. His original scribes appear to be extremely outdated, mistake prone, and ethnocentric, unfortunately... but I would certainly be open to something he has written more recently.
Pardon my irreverence, I'm a bit of a skeptic. Be sure to pray extra-hard for me, I'm going to need it.
- Devin
Devin,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your reply: for the first time, I think I am beginning to understand something about the "relativist" position which you propose. You see, I never understood the saying "you have your truth, I have mine," because I happen to define truth as the conformity of a statement to reality, following St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, De Veritate), or the standard of reality which all of reality follows which is the Word of God, Jesus Christ, following St. Augustine (On Free Will, City of God). But you do not follow these definitions. Rather, you seem to see truth as some myth which one invents out of one's personal milleu of experiences which helps one live in the world. You can "prove" all your claims about civilization based on your definition of civilization--but this will convince no one but those who share your premises, which I do not. This is certainly not "truth." A better way to say it is "you have your myth, I have mine." These myths do not cross. J.R.R. Tolkien said everyone bases their worldview off of a basic myth. What I, and the Catholic Church, radically and controversially propose is that there is a true myth. We do not claim to have all of it. But we do claim to have a part of it, not by our own efforts, but because it was given to us. Yes, you could see this as arrogant, exclusive, dangerous. But I could say that your position is a position of fear: you have a sort of 'false humility' by which you fear to make any sort of 'truth claims' about the world, and you are nervous about anyone else doing it. So you claim there is no truth. And yes, you could logically deconstruct any of my "proofs." The knife of skepticism can tear through anything; I could do the same to you. But I think you need to first demonstrate to me that skepticism is a proper way to live in the world. And I think you are not as much of skeptic as you would like to make out, since the mere adherance to skepticism is a statement of dogma, all your arguments to the contrary notwithstanding.
But we could sling arguments all day. I certainly respect your right to form your conscience and your beliefs as you see fit. This is your right as a human person. But follow your ideas out to their logical conclusion. What is the point of living in your conception of reality, with no truth, no great art, no life after death? Or is this another loaded question, and you would say that it is wrong to even assume that there is a meaning? It seems to me in your conception--and I could certainly be wrong--that nearly every human person in Europe, Asia, and America for the last six thousand years at least wasted their lives as slaves to a pointless system, and every noble act of theirs is so much useless refuse to be thrown on the hunter-gatherer campfire. And this seems the most irrational, unprovable thing of all.
But as you yourself say, I will never be able to prove this to you. You are in your myth and I in mine. Can we have any meeting point? Is there anything we have in common, Devin? Or are we isolated, cut off from each other by an uncrossable divide of ideas? Is there really such a divide between faith and reason, philosophy and sociology, truth and reality? And if you want to meet God, the opportunity is always there: you don't need me to produce Him for you. He writes daily upon the page of creation and history--creation is not some distant event in the past, creation is here and now, all around you, in you. What it requires is docility, humility, openness. Only these can get you to God, although God is already here before you seek Him. Ultimately, it is only He Who can reveal to you the path your life ought to take. My arguments and sources could only be a preparation for this. So, yes, I am praying for you, Devin. I see potential in what you are saying. If I were to follow my myth, I would say I see some truth there. God bless.
Peace in Christ,
Mark Spencer
Yes. I have my myth, you have yours. Humans understand the world through stories, without myths we could not live. I do not pretend my story applies to you however, and calling my myth true for other people is just ethnocentrism on a personal level. The truth paradox implicit in relativist philosophy (there is no universal truth, this is a universal truth) acts like a fork, putting people on one side or the other -- whereas I am inclined to waver in the middle. I'll allow the possibility that your truth is unversal; but if you try to impose it on me I'm going to react negatively, since I have my own story.
ReplyDeleteI'm open to "god" or the spirit, just not a defined version. Defining the universe has never, ever sat well for me. Thich Nhat Hanh speaks of nirvana as the kingdom of god, when nirvana is also the extinction of all concepts. It is my understanding that concepts like civilization have little bearing on what the universe really is and means -- although these concepts DO have bearing on my own life.
You see, I would never obtain meaning from a story I did not relate to. I do not relate to finding meaning in civilization, because my life in what I understand civilization to be was empty and meaningless. I am well-versed in nihilism, meaninglessness, hopelessness, bitterness, depression, cynicism, and the like. It is only when I dropped out of school that I started to discover my identity... and that path has led me to where I am today.
There are probably things we have in common, but we would speak of them differently and we see them differently in our minds. That is where the disconnect comes from. I am willing to meet you where you are but you have to be willing to meet me where I am -- none of this "I have your truth" stuff. If I were to actually connect with you I would need to hear you validate MY truth as I can validate the truth you see in your story.
This is where it gets tricky. How can I meet you where you are, when I make the claim that you do not have universal truth? Well, I can accept that this idea of universal truth is your story, thus nesting your universal truth in my understanding of relative truth. And I imagine you can do the same for me -- nesting my understanding of relative truth within your larger understanding of absolute truth. There really is no conflict, I am just as much a part of the universe as you are. This is the insight of recognizing the false dichotomy of self and non-self, being and non-being, relative and absolute.
I do not judge other people's lives in civilization as wasted or worthless, just as I do not condemn people to death by merely pointing out that humans die. Civilization at its root is an unsustainable system, pointing out that it doesn't work and isn't going to last is not a value judgment. The value judgment comes from my own personal story; I make a sharp distinction between what is valuable for me and what is valuable for other people. Most people have the assumption that civilization is valuable for everyone, this is the kind of totalizing that I resist.
Certainly people obtain meaning from the story of civilization -- the myth/story of "neverending progress" is a powerful one that most people subscribe to. It goes back to seeing humans as separate and above other animals, and the idea that humans are in control and in ownership of the world. This is a myth that I feel is extraordinarily destructive, especially combined with a nihilistic philosophy (as Nietzsche pointed out) that our life on Earth is only valuable because it determines where we go in the afterlife. This is not a story I obtain meaning from, to say the least. I can allow that there is a certain amount of truth to be found in this story even while thinking that it is very destructive and unhealthy, and even that the amount of untruth outweighs the amount of truth.
If you truly wish to understand how I can live without believing in God or an afterlife or civilization, then I can go into greater depth. Life in a relative world is far less simplistic, however, and it is less easy to navigate a world that is not entrenched in dualism... so it will take a while. It really is a different paradigm, you're going to have difficulty understanding it in terms of your own. I've explained it in the past as something like learning a new language.
My guess is that you would have as much difficulty accepting my paradigm as I would believing yours, however. I'm willing to give it a try, though... I've always been open to dialogue. However, I will not debate you, and I am not going to accept that your truth is true for me too (especially where it conflicts with MY truth).
The fact of the matter is, though, that I doubt I have the time or the energy to go into it. I have my life to live, and little desire to believe in your paradigm. The cool thing about relativism and living outside of civilization is that I don't need or want or have any interest in converting you or getting you to accept my beliefs... because I can simply live my way while you live yours. So interestingly, probably the best way to learn how I navigate the world is to accept that I am different and valid... which means I don't even really need to communicate to you what I believe at all, because you can experience it by letting go of me.
Enjoy.
- Devin
Oh boy, Mark!
ReplyDeleteThis last comment of Devin's is as much a warning as it is an invitation to dialogue.
The warning almsot seems like an attempt to push you away ("Let go of me ~ my paradigm is probably too complex for you") and yet there is still that glorious invitation that should keep ringing in your ears, "Show me your God!"
You may find it helpful to spend 3p-4p listening in the Port before responding to this one!
Peace and prayers for you all,
Aunt Annie
More accurately, it was me saying that I'm not going to stand for someone pushing their beliefs on me. If he would really like to understand my paradigm, without any ulterior motive of changing what I believe, we can talk. If not, though, we can't. That's all.
ReplyDelete- Devin
And how do you define pushing one's beliefs on another? If I were to tell you I was an eggplant would you accept that as my truth and simply not question me about my belief in order to understand why I feel that way, or would you consider the act of questioning in itself to be out of bounds?
ReplyDeleteAnd if questioning isn't out of bounds, I have a real question about beliefs: I'm feeling very unworthy of my position in this creation and am searching for the worthiest of paths to which I can achieve my highest self, as near to perfection, and therefore fulfillment of my person (or at least the satiation of this urge) , as can be achieved. I hope we can agree that that is a worthy goal, because life would be pretty pointless if we all expended a great deal of time and energy pursuing something, anything, if the only ultimate benefit was that it simply gave us something to do.
What advice would you give Devin? Do you also have that urge? How do you try to satisfy it?
Dan
I find that when I'm giving advice I am looking for a form of validation, by getting someone else to accept my beliefs as their own. I have a history of "pushing my beliefs" on other people, so I know exactly why it does not work, why it is manipulative and insincere, and how it makes you into a self-righteous prick. Giving advice is always dangerous, even if the counsel has been asked for, especially if it has not. And giving someone the "advice" that they need to believe your truth is crossing a line even if the advice WAS asked for.
ReplyDeleteSo to answer your question, I do have the urge to tell other people what I think they should do, but at the same time I recognize that this urge is borne out of my own insecurity or feelings of unworthiness. Oftentimes I'll stop here, choosing to not say anything at all rather than put myself in the dangerous position of telling someone else what I think they should do. If I say anything at all, I speak from my own story and my own personal experience, leaving room for the other person -- rather than declaring my experience true for them, too. I certainly wait until people ask for my advice. If they argue with what I am saying, that is a flashing neon warning sign that what I am saying is not welcome -- and if they say that they do not wish to engage anymore, then they've come right out and told me that what I was saying was not appreciated. If I have my wits about me I will then apologize, saying that I have crossed a line.
The whole exchange puts a definite strain on even a close friendship. I have unintentionally ended many relationships this way, and it was the last one with my best friend Leigh where I was finally able to recognize why all of this was happening. I was having an enormous amount of difficulty letting her be her own person... I wanted her to not go to college, to see the things I saw, to live the story I was living. It was benevolent, I think, at first -- "for her own good" -- but it got ugly fast, especially when I pushed her so much the only thing she could do was reject me. Leigh is no longer my best friend, we hardly even speak any more... even after I wrote her a very long apology letter. She simply couldn't be herself around me anymore, because I had demonstrated to her that I did not believe her self was real or valid.
It seems to me that if you wish to change me or get me to accept God, you are reenacting this story of trying to get me to accept your way, "for my own good." If you should continue to do so, I have no choice but to close down communication with you -- I will simply not be getting anything out of it.
As a matter of fact, I already haven't been getting anything out of it... and communication with you has already been closed. The previous posts have been an attempt to open up a closed space such that there can actually be a dialogue, not just two monologues.
- Devin
Devin, thanks for being open and honest about your story. I certainly want to let you live your own story; everyone ought to be able to do that. And relativism and the entire postmodern shift in thought is something I am currently trying to understand better. It is something I need to do to be able to relate to a lot of people in the world today.
ReplyDeleteBut I want you to understand my side of the story as well. I do not want to force my beliefs on you; I want your beliefs to be yours--that's the only way you can believe something. The reason I am so excited and talkative about my beliefs is that as a Catholic I have come to know Jesus Christ as a real Person, as one Who is God and Man, as one Who is my brother and my Savior. And I have come to be in love with Him and His Church. And above all I want everyone to find this wonderful treasure that I have found, because I believe that life is not worth living without it. My relationship with Christ is something that has come to pervade every aspect of my life. To ask me to lay it aside in the name of dialogue or anything else is like asking me to decapitate myself: it cannot be done. To do so would be to radically excise myself from my story. To stop witnessing to you or anyone else about what I have found would be the same. What I do want to do is understand you, as you are my brother in the human race. What I will do is pray for you, and not condemn you or judge you, and try to understand you. I believe that every philosophy and way of thought has great good in it.
Thanks, Dan and Annie, for all your comments and prayers as well. God bless you both.
I'm giving up all internet except e-mail for lent (which starts in two days) so I won't be commenting here or anywhere else for the next six weeks. If any of you might ever want to reach me to converse or whatever, I can be reached at worldofforms@gmail.com. God bless you all.
Peace in Christ,
Mark Spencer
I was not asking you to lay your beliefs aside, I was asking you to stop trying to change me. If trying to change me is a part of your belief system then I don't think I can talk or listen to you anymore. Unless I've misunderstood you, that is what your last comment is saying. You're very polite about it, but your politeness and seeming benevolence is a thin veil covering a much darker sentiment -- that all of those who do not see what you see need to change. That is truly one of the most dangerous beliefs I have ever encountered. I do not wish to end on a sour note, but I do not see how this conversation can continue.
ReplyDelete- Devin
Yup, as the Jay Giles band sings "Love Stinks!, yeah yeah", especially when it's rebuffed. But that's the price we must be willing to pay in order to find authentic love... the possibility of getting hurt really bad. After the gut-punch has been recovered from, we gotta figure out where we missed the signals, or made the bad choices, and not repeat.
ReplyDeleteAnd that's where telling one's story to, and listening to advice from others helps us grow from the experience. In the past I've proven myself to be my own worst enemy and judge. My belief in faith eventually resulted in faith of belief, solidified my confidence in my personal ethics, which formed my character, which led to action, which led to my beloved Annie...but there was alot of wreckage strewn along the way.
Dan