I am going to be one of those people who hands in her paper sometime before Tuesday- and here is all I have to say:
"I believe that the greatest trick of the devil is not to get us into some sort of evil but rather have us wasting time. This is why the devil tries so hard to get Christians to become religious. If he can sink a man's mind into habit, he will prevent his heart from engaging God."
-Blue Like Jazz
It's one of my favorite books of all time. It's full of 'nonreligious thoughts on Christian Spirituality'.... you should read it, & let me know if you do.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Imagery by the Sea
Wallace Stevens’ poetry contains several allusions to some sort of hidden spirituality or concept of a greater power. ‘The Idea of Order at Key West’ is a lulling tale that mixes the rhapsody of a woman’s’ wandering song with the power of the mysterious and yet familiar sea. The confusion as to who is singing the song, the sea or a person walking along its beaches, is parallel to each person’s attempt to try and differentiate between what is human and what is potentially derived from some higher power. The author also asserts independence in the woman’s voice, saying that she ‘strides alone’, she ‘was the single artificer of the world’, and that ‘she was the maker of the song she sang’. The mingling of references to the sky, sea, air, horizon, and water paint a visual picture of the scene, and yet despite this concreteness the imagery points to something much more powerful and otherworldly. By combining the song of a woman by the sea with beautiful visualization and abstract concepts, Stevens’ creates a tale that the reader is free to interpret and mold into something personal and individual.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Guardians of the Secret
When I first looked at ‘Guardians of the Secret’, I immediately received an impression that did not change upon further analysis or class discussion. My interpretation is of four guards guarding the white area, while a bloody mass lies underneath. Because the white box is in the center of the drawing, I believe that the ‘secret’ is behind it, which would make it more of a sheet instead of a box. The guards can see the secret, why is why they are dead/skeletal looking or because they are dead/skeletal looking. The colors on the sheet match the colors in the bloody mass underneath, which gives the impression that the people underneath had at one point tried to permeate the sheet, to discover the secret. The intimidating aura of the guards is what leads to the belief of the blood and gore- if the guards had been clean-cut or less evil and dead like, a viewer would probably never think that the space under the sheet contained dead bodies. Finally, the secret is clearly a very important one. The fact that it requires four scary guards and it has caused the death of many people leads one to believe that the secret must be imperative- and worth giving your life for.
Analyzing art is an interesting comparative to analyzing religion. Many believe that everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, and that there is no right or wrong method of elucidation. Many apply this subjective view to the religious world, as well. While everyone is influenced by their unique worldviews and perspectives, I believe one of the crucial functions of a religious belief is being confident enough in that faith to assert the existence of a right and wrong- that the world is objective.
When examining a painting, it is interesting to hear the opinions of the class and try to analyze my own thoughts- however I believe, in the end, that the artist had an expressed intent, purpose, motivation for creating the drawing in the first place that may not correspond with interpretations of the class. According to the author, I believe there is a right and wrong way of interpreting the drawing. Many people may disagree with this, but I would argue that even if the artist did not intend to install his own beliefs on his viewers, then this is his expressed intent, purpose, and motivation. The lack of a boundary is its own boundary- if everyone is supposed to have their own interpretation, then this is its own rule of understanding for that painting. For this particular drawing, this is the ‘right’ way of interpretation, and the ‘wrong’ way is to try to enforce individual beliefs on anyone else.
The same is with religion. Because I believe that the author intended for everyone to understand Him, there must be a right and wrong in the universe, and in the conclusions of interpretations of religion.
Analyzing art is an interesting comparative to analyzing religion. Many believe that everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, and that there is no right or wrong method of elucidation. Many apply this subjective view to the religious world, as well. While everyone is influenced by their unique worldviews and perspectives, I believe one of the crucial functions of a religious belief is being confident enough in that faith to assert the existence of a right and wrong- that the world is objective.
When examining a painting, it is interesting to hear the opinions of the class and try to analyze my own thoughts- however I believe, in the end, that the artist had an expressed intent, purpose, motivation for creating the drawing in the first place that may not correspond with interpretations of the class. According to the author, I believe there is a right and wrong way of interpreting the drawing. Many people may disagree with this, but I would argue that even if the artist did not intend to install his own beliefs on his viewers, then this is his expressed intent, purpose, and motivation. The lack of a boundary is its own boundary- if everyone is supposed to have their own interpretation, then this is its own rule of understanding for that painting. For this particular drawing, this is the ‘right’ way of interpretation, and the ‘wrong’ way is to try to enforce individual beliefs on anyone else.
The same is with religion. Because I believe that the author intended for everyone to understand Him, there must be a right and wrong in the universe, and in the conclusions of interpretations of religion.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Reflection on Reflection
As I was reading my classmates’ blogs, I noticed that Tom wrote about our meditation session from a few classes ago, and I realized that I also had not had a chance to comment on that experience.
I was one of those annoying people who could not sit still; I just kept moving around and watching everyone else, not really trying to calm down and just wishing my desk were about six inches bigger so I could really lie down and fall asleep. For some reason I felt frustrated with the fact that I was being asked to just sit still for twenty minutes. I immediately thought of the reading I had to catch up on for a class, and the reading and paper and project coming up for another. I tried reading some homework, and then felt blatantly obnoxious when I had to turn a page. I found the silence stifling and oppressive, and I felt suddenly forced into the present and my surroundings, as if the moment I was asked not to pay attention and not to focus, paying attention and focusing became inescapable and was the only thing I could think about. This feeling lasted about ten minutes.
The second half I was able to zone out and almost convince myself that I was meditating- or at least not bothering anyone else. I knew I could “meditate”, or pray, but I was nowhere near the correct mindset. I prayed for a while, sure, but I did not feel as though I was mentally into it. So I proceeded to daydream and stare blankly at objects around the room.
Needless to say, I failed miserably in this experience of meditation. However, if I find myself mentally prepared and in the right mindset, I think I’ll be able to succeed in this task someday.
I was one of those annoying people who could not sit still; I just kept moving around and watching everyone else, not really trying to calm down and just wishing my desk were about six inches bigger so I could really lie down and fall asleep. For some reason I felt frustrated with the fact that I was being asked to just sit still for twenty minutes. I immediately thought of the reading I had to catch up on for a class, and the reading and paper and project coming up for another. I tried reading some homework, and then felt blatantly obnoxious when I had to turn a page. I found the silence stifling and oppressive, and I felt suddenly forced into the present and my surroundings, as if the moment I was asked not to pay attention and not to focus, paying attention and focusing became inescapable and was the only thing I could think about. This feeling lasted about ten minutes.
The second half I was able to zone out and almost convince myself that I was meditating- or at least not bothering anyone else. I knew I could “meditate”, or pray, but I was nowhere near the correct mindset. I prayed for a while, sure, but I did not feel as though I was mentally into it. So I proceeded to daydream and stare blankly at objects around the room.
Needless to say, I failed miserably in this experience of meditation. However, if I find myself mentally prepared and in the right mindset, I think I’ll be able to succeed in this task someday.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Frames
This post is in response to a topic discussed at length in the last class session. Professor Smith pointed out that after September 11, people everywhere would never think of watching a basketball game- those games are cancelled, and the news is on 24/7. However, a church- any church- would never close after such an event. Churches stayed open for days and nights, so people could enter at will and seek the comfort that had disappeared from their everyday life. Many people have become Christians after events such as 9/11, and their testimony will often involve something along the lines of ‘it took an event/tragedy such as ___ for me to realize the need I have for Jesus”. This occurrence, this tragic event, has become that person’s ‘ultimate frame’.
While I agree that people as a whole may be assigned frames that include the group as a single, cohesive unit, I also think that each individual also has an ‘ultimate frame’ that shapes and influences every decision that individual makes. This frame can change- and it often does throughout a life- but whatever that frame is, it is the most important authority in that person’s life.
For some people, the frame is their faith, their lack of faith, their family, their job, or their life. What is inside this frame dictates what kind of life that person will lead, and what will constitute a ‘good’ or ‘fulfilled’ life for that person.
What is your frame?
While I agree that people as a whole may be assigned frames that include the group as a single, cohesive unit, I also think that each individual also has an ‘ultimate frame’ that shapes and influences every decision that individual makes. This frame can change- and it often does throughout a life- but whatever that frame is, it is the most important authority in that person’s life.
For some people, the frame is their faith, their lack of faith, their family, their job, or their life. What is inside this frame dictates what kind of life that person will lead, and what will constitute a ‘good’ or ‘fulfilled’ life for that person.
What is your frame?
The Urban Experience
The treasure hunt may finally end! In the ‘Historical Narrative’ section, under ‘Beginnings of Settlement Life in Chicago’, and ‘Garnering Support for Hull-House from the Clergy’ is an enlightening article about the involvement of religiously affiliated people with the establishment of Hull House.
Jane Adams and Ellen Starr clearly had some skill in networking. They garnered the support of Moody, Fourth Presbyterian, and Plymouth Congregational Churches, which then “gave the two young women an entre to the respectable and influential business elite engaged in Christian social outreach in the city associated with these congregations”. This groundwork of support is crucial in launching the Hull House program, as the support of several churches is helpful in validating the presence of the two women, alone in the city. While this public support offers a sense of legitimacy to the aims and goals of Adams and Starr, the article also mentions a clash between the conservative and liberal pastors. Clearly, Adams and Starr had to be careful to maintain the support of arguing benefactors, especially when “Adams and Starr received support from David Swing, originally at Fourth Presbyterian, where his views clashed with the conservative Presbyterian synod and with Cyrus H. McCormick, influential benefactor”. While the founders of Hull House were able to gain the support of several respectable churches in Chicago, these churches were not all united with each other, and their feuding certainly was a cause of concern for Jane Adams and Ellen Starr.
Jane Adams and Ellen Starr clearly had some skill in networking. They garnered the support of Moody, Fourth Presbyterian, and Plymouth Congregational Churches, which then “gave the two young women an entre to the respectable and influential business elite engaged in Christian social outreach in the city associated with these congregations”. This groundwork of support is crucial in launching the Hull House program, as the support of several churches is helpful in validating the presence of the two women, alone in the city. While this public support offers a sense of legitimacy to the aims and goals of Adams and Starr, the article also mentions a clash between the conservative and liberal pastors. Clearly, Adams and Starr had to be careful to maintain the support of arguing benefactors, especially when “Adams and Starr received support from David Swing, originally at Fourth Presbyterian, where his views clashed with the conservative Presbyterian synod and with Cyrus H. McCormick, influential benefactor”. While the founders of Hull House were able to gain the support of several respectable churches in Chicago, these churches were not all united with each other, and their feuding certainly was a cause of concern for Jane Adams and Ellen Starr.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Digression
I have decided to dedicate one of this week’s blogs to an event that has been a predominant factor in my life for the last two weeks. The Pistons-Bulls match up in the second round of the NBA playoffs contains several of the themes that have been discussed over the course of this class. While some may be skeptical as to the relatedness of basketball and the thematic elements of religion, I would strongly argue otherwise.
The amount of fervor and dedication that is generated by die-hard fans contains some of the elements found in any religious belief. While clearly religious belief is much more deep and generally meaningful then the ‘belief’ of committed followers of basketball, some of the underlying methods of thought and reasoning are not necessarily unique to religious contemplation or attention.
Basketball fans attend games, make time to watch matches on TV, follow players, statistics, numbers, drafts, and their favorite teams. There is not a connection between basketball and ‘religion’ per say, but many themes that people affiliate with religious belief, such as the time commitment, passionate involvement, or personal association are clearly similar characteristics.
In addition, the vehemence and vigor with which fans defend their teams, particularly against other rivals, resembles the same defiance and loyalty believers feel toward their faith. The staunchness and allegiance a Pistons or Bulls fan feels while watching a game can also be found in many of the blogs or class discussions. Wherever people feel a deep commitment to any philosophical thought- even as ‘shallow’ as a sports allegiance, passions will fly and debate will be sparked. The land of sports is no different.
The amount of fervor and dedication that is generated by die-hard fans contains some of the elements found in any religious belief. While clearly religious belief is much more deep and generally meaningful then the ‘belief’ of committed followers of basketball, some of the underlying methods of thought and reasoning are not necessarily unique to religious contemplation or attention.
Basketball fans attend games, make time to watch matches on TV, follow players, statistics, numbers, drafts, and their favorite teams. There is not a connection between basketball and ‘religion’ per say, but many themes that people affiliate with religious belief, such as the time commitment, passionate involvement, or personal association are clearly similar characteristics.
In addition, the vehemence and vigor with which fans defend their teams, particularly against other rivals, resembles the same defiance and loyalty believers feel toward their faith. The staunchness and allegiance a Pistons or Bulls fan feels while watching a game can also be found in many of the blogs or class discussions. Wherever people feel a deep commitment to any philosophical thought- even as ‘shallow’ as a sports allegiance, passions will fly and debate will be sparked. The land of sports is no different.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
One aspect of Bob Marley’s lyrics that is specifically influential in his message is his use of inclusive terminology. His repetition of naming his listeners as ‘we’ may subliminally invoke an affiliation toward Marley’s message, and ignite a kind of common bond that breaches the gap between artist and audience.
This system makes sense, because the best way to instigate a gathering is to put yourself at the same level as those you are ‘recruiting’- in a sense. Marley is the master of this method. His lyrics are filled to the brim with ‘we’ ‘our’ ‘ourselves’, etc. A prime example is in ‘Exodus’. “So WE gonna walk…WE’RE the generation…WE know where WE’RE going...WE know where WE’RE from…WE’RE leaving Babylon, WE’RE going to OUR fatherland…” This creates a common group of people with a similar background, shared current struggles, and a unified goal for the future. It is an all-inclusive, feel-good message that anyone can relate to and join because it is vague enough to support anyone’s feelings.
The same holds true with ‘Jamming’ and ‘Redemption Song’.
Jamming: “WE can do it anyhow…WE neither beg nor WE won’t bow…WE all defend the right…”
Redemption Song: “WE forward in this generation triumphantly…none but yourselves can free OUR minds…how long shall THEY kill OUR prophets while WE stand aside and look…”
This separation between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is another source of unity within the lyrics. Its Marley and his listeners against whatever enemy the audience chooses. The ‘man’, ‘big businesses’, the ‘killers of the prophets’, etc, are all appropriate choices for the ‘them’. The ‘us’ is those who support Marley’s message, which is basically whatever you choose it to be.
Some may argue that it is just music, and the message and lyrics aren’t necessarily used to generate a following. This is true to some extent, but whenever an artist has an agenda for which his music is an outlet, I think independent thinking is vital when listening to this message.
This system makes sense, because the best way to instigate a gathering is to put yourself at the same level as those you are ‘recruiting’- in a sense. Marley is the master of this method. His lyrics are filled to the brim with ‘we’ ‘our’ ‘ourselves’, etc. A prime example is in ‘Exodus’. “So WE gonna walk…WE’RE the generation…WE know where WE’RE going...WE know where WE’RE from…WE’RE leaving Babylon, WE’RE going to OUR fatherland…” This creates a common group of people with a similar background, shared current struggles, and a unified goal for the future. It is an all-inclusive, feel-good message that anyone can relate to and join because it is vague enough to support anyone’s feelings.
The same holds true with ‘Jamming’ and ‘Redemption Song’.
Jamming: “WE can do it anyhow…WE neither beg nor WE won’t bow…WE all defend the right…”
Redemption Song: “WE forward in this generation triumphantly…none but yourselves can free OUR minds…how long shall THEY kill OUR prophets while WE stand aside and look…”
This separation between ‘us’ and ‘them’ is another source of unity within the lyrics. Its Marley and his listeners against whatever enemy the audience chooses. The ‘man’, ‘big businesses’, the ‘killers of the prophets’, etc, are all appropriate choices for the ‘them’. The ‘us’ is those who support Marley’s message, which is basically whatever you choose it to be.
Some may argue that it is just music, and the message and lyrics aren’t necessarily used to generate a following. This is true to some extent, but whenever an artist has an agenda for which his music is an outlet, I think independent thinking is vital when listening to this message.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Noah in the Zohar
I would like to expand upon my previous post regarding the different perspectives of the biblical character Noah, focusing on the interpretation found in the ‘Zohar’. I would like to try and account for why Noah is presented in such different ways, and how the background and current events surrounding the author may have influenced the stratified outcomes.
First, I must examine the bible, to explore what the text familiar to one religious tradition says about Noah.
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth….And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die. But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee….Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation….And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him. (Gen. 6:13 -7:5)
According to the bible, Noah simply did as God told him to do. The reader knows that Noah is a Godly man, but this is evident because God spared him and his family- this isn’t information based on the author’s first-person opinion.
In the ‘Zohar’ reading, the passage of Noah is based on a certain Rabbi Yohanan’s interpretation of the text. The Rabbi doesn’t see the obedience of Noah, he sees its negation- the fact that Noah was in the presence of God and did not take advantage of the opportunity to plea on the behalf of the human race. Because of this action- or lack of one- by Noah, the Rabbi Yohanan argues that Noah was simply satisfied with knowing he and his family was safe. He makes the case that because Noah was not in any danger, he was content with getting on the ark and allowing the rest of the world to perish. Why does this Rabbi take this opinion? Why didn’t he applaud Noah for his steadfast obedience and ability to follow God’s directions?
So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks….You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them. Gen 14-21
This passage is so precise and detailed that most of us couldn’t imagine following them correctly.
However, it appears that the foundation of the Rabbi’s anger towards Noah is based upon the text as found in the ‘Zohar’:
Our Rabbis have taught: How did the Blessed Holy One respond when Noah came out of the ark and saw the whole world destroyed and began to cry over the Holocaust? Noah said: “Master of the world, You and called Compassionate! You should have shown compassion for Your Creatures!” The Blessed Holy One answered him: “Foolish shepherd! Now you say this, but not when I spoke to you tenderly…I lingered with you and spoke to you at length so that you would ask for mercy for the world! (pg 58)
This teaching, as passed down from different Rabbis, explains the interpretation. This information is different then as found in the standard Bible, and this difference accounts for the resulting confliction of attitude toward this biblical figure. Clearly, it only takes a few additional passages in a different religious tradition to completely alter a group’s perspective on a historical character, and this must be accounted for in comparing different opinions.
First, I must examine the bible, to explore what the text familiar to one religious tradition says about Noah.
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth….And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die. But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee….Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation….And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him. (Gen. 6:13 -7:5)
According to the bible, Noah simply did as God told him to do. The reader knows that Noah is a Godly man, but this is evident because God spared him and his family- this isn’t information based on the author’s first-person opinion.
In the ‘Zohar’ reading, the passage of Noah is based on a certain Rabbi Yohanan’s interpretation of the text. The Rabbi doesn’t see the obedience of Noah, he sees its negation- the fact that Noah was in the presence of God and did not take advantage of the opportunity to plea on the behalf of the human race. Because of this action- or lack of one- by Noah, the Rabbi Yohanan argues that Noah was simply satisfied with knowing he and his family was safe. He makes the case that because Noah was not in any danger, he was content with getting on the ark and allowing the rest of the world to perish. Why does this Rabbi take this opinion? Why didn’t he applaud Noah for his steadfast obedience and ability to follow God’s directions?
So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks….You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them. Gen 14-21
This passage is so precise and detailed that most of us couldn’t imagine following them correctly.
However, it appears that the foundation of the Rabbi’s anger towards Noah is based upon the text as found in the ‘Zohar’:
Our Rabbis have taught: How did the Blessed Holy One respond when Noah came out of the ark and saw the whole world destroyed and began to cry over the Holocaust? Noah said: “Master of the world, You and called Compassionate! You should have shown compassion for Your Creatures!” The Blessed Holy One answered him: “Foolish shepherd! Now you say this, but not when I spoke to you tenderly…I lingered with you and spoke to you at length so that you would ask for mercy for the world! (pg 58)
This teaching, as passed down from different Rabbis, explains the interpretation. This information is different then as found in the standard Bible, and this difference accounts for the resulting confliction of attitude toward this biblical figure. Clearly, it only takes a few additional passages in a different religious tradition to completely alter a group’s perspective on a historical character, and this must be accounted for in comparing different opinions.
Noah in the Zohar
I would like to expand upon my previous post regarding the different perspectives of the biblical character Noah, focusing on the interpretation found in the ‘Zohar’. I would like to try and account for why Noah is presented in such different ways, and how the background and current events surrounding the author may have influenced the stratified outcomes.
First, I must examine the bible, to explore what the original text says about Noah; because I’m assuming that this is from where the ‘Zohar’ and ‘Kebra Negast’ first derived the story.
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth….And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die. But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee….Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation….And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him. (Gen. 6:13 -7:5)
According to the bible, Noah simply did as God told him to do. The reader knows that Noah is a Godly man, but this is evident because God spared him and his family- this isn’t information based on the author’s first-person opinion.
In the ‘Zohar’ reading, the passage of Noah is based on a certain Rabbi Yohanan’s interpretation of the text. The Rabbi doesn’t see the obedience of Noah, he sees its negation- the fact that Noah was in the presence of God and did not take advantage of the opportunity to plea on the behalf of the human race. Because of this action- or lack of one- by Noah, the Rabbi Yohanan argues that Noah was simply satisfied with knowing he and his family was safe. He makes the case that because Noah was not in any danger, he was content with getting on the ark and allowing the rest of the world to perish. Why does this Rabbi take this opinion? Why didn’t he applaud Noah for his steadfast obedience and ability to follow God’s directions?
So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks….You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them. Gen 14-21
This passage is so precise and detailed that most of us couldn’t imagine following them correctly.
However, it appears that the foundation of the Rabbi’s anger towards Noah is based upon the text as found in the ‘Zohar’:
Our Rabbis have taught: How did the Blessed Holy One respond when Noah came out of the ark and saw the whole world destroyed and began to cry over the Holocaust? Noah said: “Master of the world, You and called Compassionate! You should have shown compassion for Your Creatures!” The Blessed Holy One answered him: “Foolish shepherd! Now you say this, but not when I spoke to you tenderly…I lingered with you and spoke to you at length so that you would ask for mercy for the world! (pg 58)
This teaching, as passed down from different Rabbis, explains the interpretation. This information is different then as found in the standard Bible, and this difference accounts for the resulting confliction of attitude toward this biblical figure. Clearly, it only takes a few additional passages in a different religious tradition to completely alter a group’s perspective on a historical character, and this must be accounted for in comparing different opinions.
First, I must examine the bible, to explore what the original text says about Noah; because I’m assuming that this is from where the ‘Zohar’ and ‘Kebra Negast’ first derived the story.
And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth….And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die. But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee….Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation….And Noah did according unto all that the Lord commanded him. (Gen. 6:13 -7:5)
According to the bible, Noah simply did as God told him to do. The reader knows that Noah is a Godly man, but this is evident because God spared him and his family- this isn’t information based on the author’s first-person opinion.
In the ‘Zohar’ reading, the passage of Noah is based on a certain Rabbi Yohanan’s interpretation of the text. The Rabbi doesn’t see the obedience of Noah, he sees its negation- the fact that Noah was in the presence of God and did not take advantage of the opportunity to plea on the behalf of the human race. Because of this action- or lack of one- by Noah, the Rabbi Yohanan argues that Noah was simply satisfied with knowing he and his family was safe. He makes the case that because Noah was not in any danger, he was content with getting on the ark and allowing the rest of the world to perish. Why does this Rabbi take this opinion? Why didn’t he applaud Noah for his steadfast obedience and ability to follow God’s directions?
So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks….You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them. Gen 14-21
This passage is so precise and detailed that most of us couldn’t imagine following them correctly.
However, it appears that the foundation of the Rabbi’s anger towards Noah is based upon the text as found in the ‘Zohar’:
Our Rabbis have taught: How did the Blessed Holy One respond when Noah came out of the ark and saw the whole world destroyed and began to cry over the Holocaust? Noah said: “Master of the world, You and called Compassionate! You should have shown compassion for Your Creatures!” The Blessed Holy One answered him: “Foolish shepherd! Now you say this, but not when I spoke to you tenderly…I lingered with you and spoke to you at length so that you would ask for mercy for the world! (pg 58)
This teaching, as passed down from different Rabbis, explains the interpretation. This information is different then as found in the standard Bible, and this difference accounts for the resulting confliction of attitude toward this biblical figure. Clearly, it only takes a few additional passages in a different religious tradition to completely alter a group’s perspective on a historical character, and this must be accounted for in comparing different opinions.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Nationalism and Identity
Carissa mentioned in her blog ‘Ethiopia and Zion’ how the Ethiopians believed themselves to be of equal status as the Israelites, only lacking in wisdom. When they acquired the Arc of the Covenant, this gave Ethiopia even more status. This is a very important aspect of the narrative, and it sheds light on what may be the purpose for its creation. The continuous and underlying theme of ‘pro-Ethiopia’ throughout the text definitely alludes to a type of prehistoric propaganda that is repeated again and again throughout history- the methods have not changed. As discussed in class today, the ‘Kebra Negast’ gives an identity to all Ethiopians. It creates an ‘us’ that a specific group can relate and adhere to, and it provides a sense of unity much like the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, or the Communist Manifesto. This text caters to the individual and group by offering a mentality that can fit all people of a certain group on the basis of similar nationality. I believe this is a great part of the appeal of the text, and the reason for its popularity- it provides a centralization and unification of a broad group of people; a bond that unites a nation.
The Importance of Narrative
For some reason, reading parts 1 and 2 of Kebra Negast reminded me of the ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ series I used to love when I was growing up. I believe the reason for this is the way in which the writers of this text seem to choose which direction they were going to take the story- as based on the solidified previous publication of the Bible. They deviated from the set structure when it was appropriately vague enough to fill in their own detail, while always returning to the basic storyline. This separation and reunion gives the entire work an air of legitimacy and authority- the connection to a text already accepted and allocated authority automatically puts this new text within the same realm and with the potential to have the same status. This method is the most logical way to present new information, as molded to the needs of the writers.
This system most accurately fits the narrative storytelling as seen in the readings. The narrative voice gives the recording of events an air of a legitimate sequence of occurrences as vouched for by the personal author, who is in direct appeal to the readers. This is not a message as relayed through time and storytellers, but a straight and undeviating narrative voice that severs the margin for disbelief and contradictions (it is hard to find contradictions when the whole story is told by the same author with a singular point of view).
If I were to try and make up a story to fit my specific agenda, taking a widespread and popular text and expanding upon its vaguer points would be the most intelligent means toward accomplishing this goal. The narrative voice then compliments this mission perfectly.
This system most accurately fits the narrative storytelling as seen in the readings. The narrative voice gives the recording of events an air of a legitimate sequence of occurrences as vouched for by the personal author, who is in direct appeal to the readers. This is not a message as relayed through time and storytellers, but a straight and undeviating narrative voice that severs the margin for disbelief and contradictions (it is hard to find contradictions when the whole story is told by the same author with a singular point of view).
If I were to try and make up a story to fit my specific agenda, taking a widespread and popular text and expanding upon its vaguer points would be the most intelligent means toward accomplishing this goal. The narrative voice then compliments this mission perfectly.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Noah: Good or Bad?
One interesting distinction between ‘The Queen of Sheba and her only Son Menyelek’ and the ‘Zohar’ is the approach taken in regard to Noah. The ‘Zohar’ reproached Noah because he did not ‘shield his generation and did not pray for them like Abraham…he did not care and did not ask for mercy, he just built the ark and the whole world was destroyed’ (pg 58-59, Zohar). The Kebra Negast, however, says ‘…as for Noah, he humbled himself, and offered up sacrifice, and he cried out, and groaned, and wept. And God held converse with Noah, who said, “If Thou wilt destroy the earth a second time with a Flood, blot Thou me out with those who are to perish” And God said unto him, “I will make a covenant with thee that…I, on My part, that I will not destroy the earth a second time with a Flood, and that I will give unto thy children Winter and Summer, Seedtime and Harvest, Autumn and Spring.’ (6-7, Kebra).
These two interpretations portray Noah in drastically different lights. In ‘Zohar’, Noah is made accountable for the flood because he did not stand up for his people and plead to God on their behalf. Noah is chastised for not being as caring or protective as Abraham or Moses, both of whom pledged their pledged their lives in the attempt to save their people. In ‘Kebra’, Noah is presented precisely as Abraham and Moses are in ‘Zohar’. He pleads to God, and he asks that he be killed with his people if God decides to flood the world again. When God then promises that he will never again destroy the world by flood, Noah may be credited for this security.
These two differences demonstrate how different perspectives and authors influence the writings of historical texts. The portrayal of one book or work may create a person worthy to be praised, or it may make that same person into an example of what not to do. The ‘Zohar’ and ‘Kebra’ both offer different portrayals of Noah and his actions regarding the flooding of the world.
These two interpretations portray Noah in drastically different lights. In ‘Zohar’, Noah is made accountable for the flood because he did not stand up for his people and plead to God on their behalf. Noah is chastised for not being as caring or protective as Abraham or Moses, both of whom pledged their pledged their lives in the attempt to save their people. In ‘Kebra’, Noah is presented precisely as Abraham and Moses are in ‘Zohar’. He pleads to God, and he asks that he be killed with his people if God decides to flood the world again. When God then promises that he will never again destroy the world by flood, Noah may be credited for this security.
These two differences demonstrate how different perspectives and authors influence the writings of historical texts. The portrayal of one book or work may create a person worthy to be praised, or it may make that same person into an example of what not to do. The ‘Zohar’ and ‘Kebra’ both offer different portrayals of Noah and his actions regarding the flooding of the world.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Response to Catrina
I believe that Catrina’s post ‘Religion and Music’ exemplifies one of the most fundamentally important aspects of belief. It is when events such as the Virginia Tech tragedy occur that people most clearly feel the peace and comfort that God provides every hour of every day to every person in the world. While Catrina refers to music as its own religion, I strongly believe that the deeper sense of security and knowing that reunion with the people taken from us will one day occur comes from not some vague idea or concept of ‘religion’, but from the strength and love of God that resonates in the heart of each human being, in some way.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Peace in the Middle East?
"Let us imagine that peace one day comes to the Middle East. What will Muslims say of the suicide bombings that they so widely endorsed?...How will they account for the celebrations that followed these "sacred explosions"?...It seems to me to be an almost axiomatic truth of human nature that no peace, should it ever be established, will survive beliefs of this sort for very long."
As the daughter of a Colonel of the US Army whose father served in Iraq and Kuwait, this is very disheartening news. Harris makes several strong arguements in support of the quotation above- in fact it is impossible not to arrive at the same conclusion once any understanding of the Muslim faith is conceived. The belief that peace can never exist in the Middle East is the logical conclusion of Harris' exercise through the complexities of the Koran and the followers of this text. This essay should move the readers to some sympathy for the soldiers and what they are dealing with in Iraq- although it is clear that not ALL Muslims believe in the 'idea of an amry of infidels occupying Baghdad' or that Americans are the 'enemies of God' (128). However, with this faith dominating the entire region the US is trying to rebuild, it cannot be too shocking that progress is going so slow. Imagine trying to defeat an enemy that blends in perfectly with the civilians- because the 'enemy army' ARE civilians- and in which each member of the oppossing army is willing to give the ultimate sacrifice- his life- by using his martyrdom to destroy anyone and anything in the persuit of attaining his reward of paradise.
The only hope, it appears, for peace in the Middle East would be to somehow corrolate democracy with Islam. Democracy is the government of choice because it does not allow for one man to run unchecked and uncontrolled by the people he governs. While many of the Muslims support this transtition to democracy, the danger lies in those select groups that may ignite the rest of the population to rebel if the economic situation is not improved and if the newly established government is not given the means to govern effectively and with authority. The current situation is the most precarious; a democracy that is still new and struggling to take hold is more prone to upheaval and coups than even a dictatorship (cite- Intro to International Relations). If a leader who highly supports the Jihad siezes control in this dangerous situation, the rest of the world will be in danger as a result of being part of the 'House of War'. It is for this purpose that the new government in Iraq must be cemented in place, given the means to succeed, and not allowed to degenerate into disorder and chaos. The chaos that will follow the failure of the US to completely succeed in Iraq will be many times greater than the chaos that exists now- this fact is made even more clear by Harris' text.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Parents, Children, and WWJD
Throughout the book of Lamentations, there are two main figures the reader is exposed to. God, who is an authoritative figure and has just whiped out the city of Jersalem, and the author, a figure in submission. This has been classified as a 'parent-child' relationship, and for several reasons. God is acredited with omnipotence and omnicience; he is believed to understand why the city was destroyed (because he did it), and is the one called upon to ensure that it does not happen again. The author is appealing to God for understanding, protection, and security- much like a child would appeal to a parent in a similar situation. The author is also expressing hurt, anger, and frusteration, much like a child would to a parent who has allowed harm to befall their offspring. This relationship is logical and befitting of the circumstances.
This parent-child relationship as used to help explain the author's interpretation of events is similar to the method many people use to explain their own interpretations of events today: What Would Jesus Do? This classic expression is the modern version of the parent-child relationship as expressed in the Old Testament. While Christians today still view God as Father, another ingredient thrown into the mix is Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and Son of God. Jeremiah, the supposed author of Lamentations, was before Jesus' time. However, WWJD is sybolic of how Jesus altered Christianity, and took the roots of Judaism in a different direction. When Jesus died on the cross, he took on the sins of every person in the entire world and promised every person new life- if they believe he is the Son of God and died so that we may be with God in heaven. Through this act, Jesus advocates for each person and offers this gift of freedom to each person. This alters the relationship between God and man, because through Jesus, salvation is based on love and faith and not works. Jeremiah was appealing to God to remove his anger, and while believers do the same thing today, it is with the confidence of knowing that nothing that happens in this world can separate a person from the love of Jesus. This is a security that Jeremiah did not have, and this is the difference between the parent-child relationship and WWJD
This parent-child relationship as used to help explain the author's interpretation of events is similar to the method many people use to explain their own interpretations of events today: What Would Jesus Do? This classic expression is the modern version of the parent-child relationship as expressed in the Old Testament. While Christians today still view God as Father, another ingredient thrown into the mix is Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and Son of God. Jeremiah, the supposed author of Lamentations, was before Jesus' time. However, WWJD is sybolic of how Jesus altered Christianity, and took the roots of Judaism in a different direction. When Jesus died on the cross, he took on the sins of every person in the entire world and promised every person new life- if they believe he is the Son of God and died so that we may be with God in heaven. Through this act, Jesus advocates for each person and offers this gift of freedom to each person. This alters the relationship between God and man, because through Jesus, salvation is based on love and faith and not works. Jeremiah was appealing to God to remove his anger, and while believers do the same thing today, it is with the confidence of knowing that nothing that happens in this world can separate a person from the love of Jesus. This is a security that Jeremiah did not have, and this is the difference between the parent-child relationship and WWJD
Friday, April 13, 2007
Lamentations
It was brought up in class on wednesday that perhaps Lamentations was written from the viewpoint of God himself. This is a fasinating theory, and it calls for a much different reading of the text.
When reading the text as written from the perspective of a man, most likely Jeremiah, writing his thoughts, prayers, and opinions of an event he himself witnessed, the meaning is humanized. With this author in mind, the reader understands the writings to be grounded and failable- or at least limited in perspective and range of understanding of the events at hand. This view also makes the text more personal and exemplary of the author's relationship with God. For example, even in witnessing to the horrible events that have occured, the author still returns to praising and trusting God: "I called on your name, O Lord, from the depths of the pit: you heard my plea" (Lam 3:55). This is a relationship of trust, dependence, and hope between a man and God.
When reading the text as the voice of God, the entire reading changes. Now the meaning is not of a human in distress over his city, but God heartbroken that such disasterous events had to transpire. Now it is God speaking of betrayal, groaning, transgressions, and rejection. It is also God speaking of turning to him to make everything right again. In this perspective, God is telling his children to have hope in him, wait for him, and seek him. He is telling his readers that he will not reject forever, and that HE will hear the pleas from the depths of the pit. It shows that God feels all the pain of all the people, and that he hurts when we hurt. Through this pain, God says in Lamentations that he will "have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly afflict or grieve anyone" (Lam 3:32). From this viewpoint, the message becomes even more affirming.
While both perspectives deliver the same message of hope through the heartache, the emphasis and readings of the text alter how the reader approaches the verses.
When reading the text as written from the perspective of a man, most likely Jeremiah, writing his thoughts, prayers, and opinions of an event he himself witnessed, the meaning is humanized. With this author in mind, the reader understands the writings to be grounded and failable- or at least limited in perspective and range of understanding of the events at hand. This view also makes the text more personal and exemplary of the author's relationship with God. For example, even in witnessing to the horrible events that have occured, the author still returns to praising and trusting God: "I called on your name, O Lord, from the depths of the pit: you heard my plea" (Lam 3:55). This is a relationship of trust, dependence, and hope between a man and God.
When reading the text as the voice of God, the entire reading changes. Now the meaning is not of a human in distress over his city, but God heartbroken that such disasterous events had to transpire. Now it is God speaking of betrayal, groaning, transgressions, and rejection. It is also God speaking of turning to him to make everything right again. In this perspective, God is telling his children to have hope in him, wait for him, and seek him. He is telling his readers that he will not reject forever, and that HE will hear the pleas from the depths of the pit. It shows that God feels all the pain of all the people, and that he hurts when we hurt. Through this pain, God says in Lamentations that he will "have compassion according to the abundance of his steadfast love; for he does not willingly afflict or grieve anyone" (Lam 3:32). From this viewpoint, the message becomes even more affirming.
While both perspectives deliver the same message of hope through the heartache, the emphasis and readings of the text alter how the reader approaches the verses.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The Grizzly Man
I did not know anything about 'Grizzly Man' before we watched it. While the first few minutes played, I thought it was a joke, or at least a satire, of a man who was obsessed with bears- possibly mocking other documentaries of animal-crazed people doing field work. Then the movie continued, and I realized that Tim was serious, and that the film was not mocking anything, but was an earnest documentation. Then I started (or tried to, anyway) to take Tim seriously.
From what we observed in class, bears had somehow become a religion to Tim. Clearly, Tim felt a spiritual connection to the bears that kept him returning to Alaska every summer for thirteen years. This pull and desire for connection may be similar to the human search for spiritual fufillment with God, or a 'higher power'. By watching Tim's actions on film, it was clear that he wanted to be on the same level as the bears, and desired to interact in a direct relationship which could lead to further communication between the human and bears. Tim wanted to bridge the gap- in the same was humans wish to with God...only with bears.
Also, it appears as though the bears had become Tim's identity. They were his life, and there was no end point of when he would stop spending his summers in Alaska. The trip was very much a part of who Tim was, and not dedicating time with the bears did not appear to be an option. When Tim was not with the bears, he was spreading his knowledge of them to children in schools- his efforts never ceased. This dedication and personal investment also makes Tim's relationship with the bears to appear to be a religious one.
The main downfall of entrusting religious feelings and tendencies to anything that is not God is that it can lead to demise. While people in the video said that being killed and eaten by a bear was how Tim would have wanted to go, and that he would be upset that the bear that ate him was killed, I think the audio from his last moments would prove otherwise. I could be wrong, and perhaps Tim really would feel that way, but he is human. Even a bear would be infuriated at being eaten by another bear, and would most likely want that bear shot and killed.
From what we observed in class, bears had somehow become a religion to Tim. Clearly, Tim felt a spiritual connection to the bears that kept him returning to Alaska every summer for thirteen years. This pull and desire for connection may be similar to the human search for spiritual fufillment with God, or a 'higher power'. By watching Tim's actions on film, it was clear that he wanted to be on the same level as the bears, and desired to interact in a direct relationship which could lead to further communication between the human and bears. Tim wanted to bridge the gap- in the same was humans wish to with God...only with bears.
Also, it appears as though the bears had become Tim's identity. They were his life, and there was no end point of when he would stop spending his summers in Alaska. The trip was very much a part of who Tim was, and not dedicating time with the bears did not appear to be an option. When Tim was not with the bears, he was spreading his knowledge of them to children in schools- his efforts never ceased. This dedication and personal investment also makes Tim's relationship with the bears to appear to be a religious one.
The main downfall of entrusting religious feelings and tendencies to anything that is not God is that it can lead to demise. While people in the video said that being killed and eaten by a bear was how Tim would have wanted to go, and that he would be upset that the bear that ate him was killed, I think the audio from his last moments would prove otherwise. I could be wrong, and perhaps Tim really would feel that way, but he is human. Even a bear would be infuriated at being eaten by another bear, and would most likely want that bear shot and killed.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Response to Alex Fairchild's "Burial Mounds"
Alex brought up an interesting point that I was grappling with while reading 'Indian Mounds of Wisconsin'. The Native Americans seem to have been very deliberate in their distinctions between the 'upper' and 'lower' worlds. While one may immediately jump to the conclusion that this is similar to the Christian belief in a heaven- 'upper' world, and hell- 'lower' world, upon further reflection this does not appear to be the case. Christians believe that heaven exists as a place to be in union with God, and where the spirits of believers of Jesus Christ will go upon death. Christians also believe that hell is where the spirits of people who have had the chance to know Jesus and have refused to accept him go upon death. This concept is very different from the Native American's use of the 'upper' world and 'lower' world. While some tribes did consider the tribes with an 'upper' world animal as their symbol to be more powerful or significant than those tribes with a 'lower' world symbol, this did not necessarily connote a good verse evil approach, or a membership of the 'lower' world tribe to be a demotion or a punishment or a consequence of that Native American's actions. It would make more sense that the different classifications were physical observations of that animal's role in nature. Those animals that dwelled in the sky, and those who remained on the ground.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Social Structure and Mound Shape
The reading on Indian mounds was very interesting, overall. One area that was especially facinating was the way in which the burial mounds were "maps of ancient belief systems. They recapitulate the structure of the universe and model the relationship of the social divisons and clans..." (129).
The division between the upperworld and the lowerworld was not only apparent in the different shapes of the mounds, but also among the clans themselves. The mapping of the mounds are harmonious to the landscape, with the flying animals along ridges and the water animals near water sources- but they are also representational of some of the social institutions among the differnet tribes.
The Ho-Chunk are divided socially into two groups- "those who are above" and "those who are on earth" (116). The most important clan in the "above" division is the Thunderbird, while the Bear and Water Spirit are the most important of th "lower" divisions (117). "What is significant about his arrangement is that it not only more finely defines the realms of the natural world, but also represents common types of effigy mounds" (118).
While the mounds are very complex in their burial traditions, construction, and ceremonial centers, the social aspect of who belonges to which tribe is another important clue of who was buried where, and what their lives may have been like. Knowing that the Thunderbird had a higher status then a land animal in the Ho-Chunk tradition gives more information about what that mound may contain, and more pieces of the puzzle that will contribute to the broader picture of who exactly these mound builders were. While the symbolic and spiritual natures are also important, the social traditions can be the backbone of those other areas can be perceived.
Whether the mound is of a bird, animal, or water spirit, that particular shape will reveal much information- and in some cases the social hierarchy of that tribe can be a determining factor.
The division between the upperworld and the lowerworld was not only apparent in the different shapes of the mounds, but also among the clans themselves. The mapping of the mounds are harmonious to the landscape, with the flying animals along ridges and the water animals near water sources- but they are also representational of some of the social institutions among the differnet tribes.
The Ho-Chunk are divided socially into two groups- "those who are above" and "those who are on earth" (116). The most important clan in the "above" division is the Thunderbird, while the Bear and Water Spirit are the most important of th "lower" divisions (117). "What is significant about his arrangement is that it not only more finely defines the realms of the natural world, but also represents common types of effigy mounds" (118).
While the mounds are very complex in their burial traditions, construction, and ceremonial centers, the social aspect of who belonges to which tribe is another important clue of who was buried where, and what their lives may have been like. Knowing that the Thunderbird had a higher status then a land animal in the Ho-Chunk tradition gives more information about what that mound may contain, and more pieces of the puzzle that will contribute to the broader picture of who exactly these mound builders were. While the symbolic and spiritual natures are also important, the social traditions can be the backbone of those other areas can be perceived.
Whether the mound is of a bird, animal, or water spirit, that particular shape will reveal much information- and in some cases the social hierarchy of that tribe can be a determining factor.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
The Platform of Human Nature
"There is no evidence of transformative technical change on the scale of domestic animals, no permanent or fortified residences, no sophisticated watercraft...yet our reconstruction of that period suggests fully human lives, with associated intellectual and artistic capacity and much else we associate with modern people. Why is it that for 30,000 years we see no agriculture, urban life, written language, pottery,...any other of the dynamic panoply of innovations that shaped the lives of most of our Holocene ancestors?" (405, Part II, The Nature of Paleolithic Art)
One aspect of this course that is becomming more and more interesting to me is how inter-related this class is with my other two classes: cultural anthropology and comparative politics. (And I'm not just saying that because Professor Smith said it may be a good idea to bring in concepts from other classes). How we define culture and what entails a 'civilization' varies broadly accross different nations of the world. Guthrie's statement of 'what we associate with modern people' is noted through the lens of how westerns would view modern people. It may be interesting to investigate how Americans' opinions of the paleolithic art are shaped by their inherited culture, while a !Kung Bushman in the Kalahari would gaze upon the cave drawings and see something very different.
We students at Lawrence University, for the most part, have never had to rely solely on our own skill and the land for survival. We are analyzing paleolithic art from the perspective of our worldview, but the insights we may obtain may drastically differ if our worldview was more closely linked to what the art depicts. For example, if we were living in the Kalahari, and did not have modern weapons, we would be killing our food in a very similar fashion to the artists we are studying. If we then were asked to analyze the cave drawings, we would probably just say that the stags are stags, the bison are bison, and the dead man is a man who was not quick enough to get out of the way. We would not be searching for symbolism or hidden meanings, and we would find nothing unusual or overly facinating about the drawings: they are merely images- admitably very old images- of our everyday life, a life that clearly has not altered very much.
Everyone, even Guthrie, has a bias, and it is interesting to examine how the derived information may alter- even if slightly- if that bias changes.
One aspect of this course that is becomming more and more interesting to me is how inter-related this class is with my other two classes: cultural anthropology and comparative politics. (And I'm not just saying that because Professor Smith said it may be a good idea to bring in concepts from other classes). How we define culture and what entails a 'civilization' varies broadly accross different nations of the world. Guthrie's statement of 'what we associate with modern people' is noted through the lens of how westerns would view modern people. It may be interesting to investigate how Americans' opinions of the paleolithic art are shaped by their inherited culture, while a !Kung Bushman in the Kalahari would gaze upon the cave drawings and see something very different.
We students at Lawrence University, for the most part, have never had to rely solely on our own skill and the land for survival. We are analyzing paleolithic art from the perspective of our worldview, but the insights we may obtain may drastically differ if our worldview was more closely linked to what the art depicts. For example, if we were living in the Kalahari, and did not have modern weapons, we would be killing our food in a very similar fashion to the artists we are studying. If we then were asked to analyze the cave drawings, we would probably just say that the stags are stags, the bison are bison, and the dead man is a man who was not quick enough to get out of the way. We would not be searching for symbolism or hidden meanings, and we would find nothing unusual or overly facinating about the drawings: they are merely images- admitably very old images- of our everyday life, a life that clearly has not altered very much.
Everyone, even Guthrie, has a bias, and it is interesting to examine how the derived information may alter- even if slightly- if that bias changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)