"God is a symbol for something that can as well take other forms, as, for example, the form of high poetry."
As I read through Adagia, I kept thinking that Stevens shouldn't give poetry so much credit. One line stuck out to me in particular: "Poetry is a purging of the world's poverty and change and evil and death. It is a present perfecting, a satisfaction in the irremediable poverty of life." Many other lines like this came up throughout, and he even places poetry on a higher pedestal than other art, such as music. But, it is clear that he is not just placing Poetry as the highest art form, he is making it into his "religion": his "big arch."
One thing relating Adagia to religion is the format in which it is written. It is so dense, and every line is a philosophical gold nugget: each could be explored in an essay of its own. One could quote a single line, full with meaning, just as people quote single lines of the Bible. Stevens also writes into Adagia ways for interpreting the text. However, this is only a side-affect of writing about his "big arch": According to Stevens, Poetry refers to everything, so it's no wonder that the written manifestation of it refers to itself. One thing he says is "A new meaning is the equivalent of a new word." Throughout the poem, he is constantly changing what words mean, mostly redefining what the word "poetry" means. He begins many lines with, "poetry is…" One in particular he repeats in various forms is, "Poetry is not a personal matter." This implies that even though Poetry is his "big arch", it is not just his. This implies a social aspect to poetry, which is also an aspect of religion.
The final thing which convinces me that Stevens' Adagia is the Bible to his "big arch," Poetry, is this nugget; "I have no life except in poetry." Stevens refers all of his life back to Poetry, which he describes as a way of looking at everything in the world. Thus, for Stevens, Poetry functions as religion.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Jackson Pollock as Universalist: Response to Chris R.
I would like to respond to Chris's blog on Jackson Pollock.
I think that sometimes we confuse complete abstraction, or the absence of a recognizable form, in artwork for a lack of meaning and purpose. While Pollock's work is definitely abstract, it is most definitely not devoid of meaning or purpose. Chris pointed out that his work was meaningful, but he says only as a side-affect of Pollock's purpose of painting a "whirlwind of nonsense…[and a] more and more random combination of…material." However, I would argue that not only does Pollock's abstract art have meaning, Pollock also intended it to have purpose.
I'm not sure any serious artist creates what they do without purpose. Neither did Jackson Pollock. While he didn't intend a specific meaning, he was part of a movement—Abstract Expressionism—that included Barnett Newman (above), which strived for universality in their works. By taking away recognizable forms that might not be meaningful for some, they purposely tried to make the artwork meaningful for everyone: everyone can relate to color, shape, and form. Yes, whatever the viewer takes out of the painting is largely his or her own interpretation, but that does not mean the painting did not have an original purpose.
The universality theme throughout the Abstract Expressionism movement also often had a spiritual side. The art gallery had in the mid-twentieth century had become a place where one should be quiet, and contemplate the art works: benches were placed in front of artworks so that viewers could sit for a long period of time and stare at artworks. Both Pollock and Newman wanted the viewer to obtain some sense of enlightenment, or at least think, “aha!” I see this as a way of meditation, and, as we learned in class, meditation is often a spiritual experience. So, while Pollock did not intend a specific meaning in his painting, he did intend it to be purposeful, and perhaps even slightly spiritual.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Note
So, I've posted quite a bit today, but I'm really interested in what people have to say on the Religion and Obesity post...it's such a curious topic!
Fraternities' fraternity
I was looking around this evening, and came across J.B.'s post on fraternity. At the top was a picture of the Eta Alpha Gamma Fraternity. I was expecting his post to connect the idea of fraternity (as in the movie red) as serving the same purpose as religion to the (capitalized) Fraternity, like the one pictured, as sometimes being a religion-like. While he talked about his ideas on the former, he did not discuss the latter, making the picture almost unnecessary. I'd like to briefly share my naïve ideas on the matter.
Besides the bonds of fraternity similar to that found in any other group of friends, Fraternities often employ different rituals and bonding activities, not unlike religious tradition. I recently had the pleasure (?) of witnessing some such display. While sitting in Riverview, I watched as many young initiates were led blindfolded (and likely drunk) to the top of Union Hill and rolled down the hill (yes, still blindfolded). When at the bottom they lit the campfire, and hooted and hollered at the end of each sentence in the reading of a text by a black-robed figure. The reading of a specific text is obviously religious-like, and creates a sense of unity among members. But as to the stranger ritual, I asked myself, "Why would one do such a thing?" The answer lies in the name of the organization—Fraternity. While one might say that fraternity, or human connection, can be found outside a Fraternity, I can understand the bonds that ritual and long tradition can create. It is the same as in any religion—engaging in acts that are specially reserved for members of a specific group (well…I wouldn't expect many other people to roll down a hill blindfolded) create a stronger group identity, and thus stronger fraternity. I suppose, then, it's a matter of whether you're willing to partake in the ritual in order to receive the fraternal benefit.
Besides the bonds of fraternity similar to that found in any other group of friends, Fraternities often employ different rituals and bonding activities, not unlike religious tradition. I recently had the pleasure (?) of witnessing some such display. While sitting in Riverview, I watched as many young initiates were led blindfolded (and likely drunk) to the top of Union Hill and rolled down the hill (yes, still blindfolded). When at the bottom they lit the campfire, and hooted and hollered at the end of each sentence in the reading of a text by a black-robed figure. The reading of a specific text is obviously religious-like, and creates a sense of unity among members. But as to the stranger ritual, I asked myself, "Why would one do such a thing?" The answer lies in the name of the organization—Fraternity. While one might say that fraternity, or human connection, can be found outside a Fraternity, I can understand the bonds that ritual and long tradition can create. It is the same as in any religion—engaging in acts that are specially reserved for members of a specific group (well…I wouldn't expect many other people to roll down a hill blindfolded) create a stronger group identity, and thus stronger fraternity. I suppose, then, it's a matter of whether you're willing to partake in the ritual in order to receive the fraternal benefit.
More Food and Religion: Kosher Diet
It's crazy how much different subjects overlap…
Again in my Nutritional Anthropology class we talked about food and religion. (If you haven't already, you should read my earlier post on religion and obesity…and please comment…I'm quite curious). This time, though we talked about religious dietary restrictions, specifically the kosher diet for Judaism, and its possible motivation. We looked at a couple different interpretations, including symbolic and ecological. But, adding a perspective from religious studies on why we have religion and how religions survive, I've come to an encompassing conclusion of my own.
The symbolic interpretation says that the dietary restrictions, or laws on which animals are clean or unclean for consumption, are allegorical for social order and moral codes. It likens the body to a temple—only pure things may enter each. Only the physically pure (those without physical deformities) may enter the temple. Also, those who have touched or eaten unclean foods may not enter the temple. Pigs and camels are seen as unclean because they do not fit into the category of clean animals—"Whosoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat." The pig is not allowed because he "cheweth not the cud," or in other words is not a rudiment. The camel is not allowed because he "divideth not the hoof; he is unclean to you." This is also seen as symbolic of the social hierarchy and staying within one's own class. Those who don't are seen as not whole, and thus unclean. The pig and camel symbolize this because while they fit part of the clean definition, they do not fit the entire definition, and thus are not actually in a category. This non-classification is seen as abominable, both between human classes and animal classes. Thus, by creating written dietary laws, they strengthen moral and social codes.
The ecological interpretation explains that the dietary laws were based on cost and benefit survival schemes that were already in place at the time, and therefore did not impose a burden upon the Israelites when the laws were codified. The land in the Middle East was, and is more-so today, better suited to raise cattle, sheep, and goats. These animals have four stomachs, allowing them to digest cellulose-dense foods such as shrubs and grasses, which made up most of the landscape in the Israeli area. Pigs have stomachs much more like humans (they cannot digest those cellulose-dense foods), and are better suited to forest landscapes which were sparse in the region. Also, pigs put another burden on those who wished to raise them—pigs demanded foods that humans needed to eat themselves. So, raising pigs was much more costly than raising ruminants like cattle, sheep, and goats. The same types of analysis can be applied to other animals which the kosher diet forbids, and the results will likely be that it was more beneficial at the time to follow the dietary laws anyway.
While there is truth to the different interpretations, there's got to be some motivation from those in charge of the religion to make these dietary laws. When making new laws, it would not go over well to forbid eating any of the ruminants—the result would be too-high priced food, and likely not enough to go around. A law like this would overturn the entire society. People would have learn entirely new ways of raising livestock (most of which would be costly and unsuitable to the environment), or else revert to hunting. This complete change in a way of life would also affect social and economic status—some who previously were doing well raising ruminants might not still be the best when raising animals like pigs. Adding a law that did not fit with the current way of life would have effectively caused a major lens shift for the Israelites, one through which the religion might not have survived. No, if the religious leaders were to make dietary laws, they would not ban the very foods the society depended upon.
But why make dietary laws at all? If we look at what "wrong" laws could do to the society, we can imagine what the "right" laws would do. Dietary laws that fit with the best strategy of life, while at the same time strengthening moral and social codes already in place would create a stronger society. First, by encouraging the most beneficial livestock-raising strategy, it would create a better economy. The strengthening of moral and social codes would reduce dispute between people. This is done through the elimination, or reduction of the amount of people and behaviors occupying the "unclean" space in between different classifications: it would give people an easier-to-read more black-and-white view of the world. Lastly, it creates cohesion throughout the entire group by distinguishing the Israelites from others around them. Thus, the kosher dietary laws, at the time, created a better whole society.
References: Harris, Marvin. Food and Culture: A Reader. "The Abominable Pig". New York and London. Routledge. 1997
Again in my Nutritional Anthropology class we talked about food and religion. (If you haven't already, you should read my earlier post on religion and obesity…and please comment…I'm quite curious). This time, though we talked about religious dietary restrictions, specifically the kosher diet for Judaism, and its possible motivation. We looked at a couple different interpretations, including symbolic and ecological. But, adding a perspective from religious studies on why we have religion and how religions survive, I've come to an encompassing conclusion of my own.
The symbolic interpretation says that the dietary restrictions, or laws on which animals are clean or unclean for consumption, are allegorical for social order and moral codes. It likens the body to a temple—only pure things may enter each. Only the physically pure (those without physical deformities) may enter the temple. Also, those who have touched or eaten unclean foods may not enter the temple. Pigs and camels are seen as unclean because they do not fit into the category of clean animals—"Whosoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat." The pig is not allowed because he "cheweth not the cud," or in other words is not a rudiment. The camel is not allowed because he "divideth not the hoof; he is unclean to you." This is also seen as symbolic of the social hierarchy and staying within one's own class. Those who don't are seen as not whole, and thus unclean. The pig and camel symbolize this because while they fit part of the clean definition, they do not fit the entire definition, and thus are not actually in a category. This non-classification is seen as abominable, both between human classes and animal classes. Thus, by creating written dietary laws, they strengthen moral and social codes.
The ecological interpretation explains that the dietary laws were based on cost and benefit survival schemes that were already in place at the time, and therefore did not impose a burden upon the Israelites when the laws were codified. The land in the Middle East was, and is more-so today, better suited to raise cattle, sheep, and goats. These animals have four stomachs, allowing them to digest cellulose-dense foods such as shrubs and grasses, which made up most of the landscape in the Israeli area. Pigs have stomachs much more like humans (they cannot digest those cellulose-dense foods), and are better suited to forest landscapes which were sparse in the region. Also, pigs put another burden on those who wished to raise them—pigs demanded foods that humans needed to eat themselves. So, raising pigs was much more costly than raising ruminants like cattle, sheep, and goats. The same types of analysis can be applied to other animals which the kosher diet forbids, and the results will likely be that it was more beneficial at the time to follow the dietary laws anyway.
While there is truth to the different interpretations, there's got to be some motivation from those in charge of the religion to make these dietary laws. When making new laws, it would not go over well to forbid eating any of the ruminants—the result would be too-high priced food, and likely not enough to go around. A law like this would overturn the entire society. People would have learn entirely new ways of raising livestock (most of which would be costly and unsuitable to the environment), or else revert to hunting. This complete change in a way of life would also affect social and economic status—some who previously were doing well raising ruminants might not still be the best when raising animals like pigs. Adding a law that did not fit with the current way of life would have effectively caused a major lens shift for the Israelites, one through which the religion might not have survived. No, if the religious leaders were to make dietary laws, they would not ban the very foods the society depended upon.
But why make dietary laws at all? If we look at what "wrong" laws could do to the society, we can imagine what the "right" laws would do. Dietary laws that fit with the best strategy of life, while at the same time strengthening moral and social codes already in place would create a stronger society. First, by encouraging the most beneficial livestock-raising strategy, it would create a better economy. The strengthening of moral and social codes would reduce dispute between people. This is done through the elimination, or reduction of the amount of people and behaviors occupying the "unclean" space in between different classifications: it would give people an easier-to-read more black-and-white view of the world. Lastly, it creates cohesion throughout the entire group by distinguishing the Israelites from others around them. Thus, the kosher dietary laws, at the time, created a better whole society.
References: Harris, Marvin. Food and Culture: A Reader. "The Abominable Pig". New York and London. Routledge. 1997
Jane Addams: Secular Fellowship
In this post, I would just like to comment a bit on the question of whether Jane Addams' motives were religious or secular. I believe that her motives were secular, but she found inspiration in religion: she understood the benefits of religion to the individual, and transferred those ideas to Hull House.
As we have talked about in class, one of the characteristics of organized religion is that it gives members a sense of identity—that, among the wide array of people, there are those that share similar, if not the same beliefs. This comradery is strengthened by the identification of a meeting place which all the members share. Over time, however, in some religions, the comradery stems mostly from the outward traditions, not always the inward beliefs. It is this "fellowship" that can strengthen communities, thus creating a more efficient society.
Jane Addams recognized this advantage to religion when she joined the Presbyterian church. Although she did not agree with all of the doctrine, she "long[ed] for an outward symbol of fellowship, some bond of peace, some blessed spot where unity of spirit might claim right of way over all differences." She realized that it was not really strict adherence to doctrine (although some adherence is necessary) which brought the members of the Presbyterian church together, but simply that they all outwardly identified with the same institution.
At Hull House, Addams realized that this kind of fellowship was needed in the neighborhood. She hoped, "that it should unite in the fellowship of the deed those of widely differing religious beliefs." While this at first may seem to be a religiously motivated statement, it is actually secular. She wanted those who previously identified themselves with different groups to realize that one of the reasons for religious identification was the benefit of fellowship, and that fellowship could be found anywhere, and among people an individual had previously thought to have nothing in common with. Therefore, while she recognized fellowship among religious groups, one of the reasons Addams founded Hull House was to create a similar fellowship free from specific religious association.
As we have talked about in class, one of the characteristics of organized religion is that it gives members a sense of identity—that, among the wide array of people, there are those that share similar, if not the same beliefs. This comradery is strengthened by the identification of a meeting place which all the members share. Over time, however, in some religions, the comradery stems mostly from the outward traditions, not always the inward beliefs. It is this "fellowship" that can strengthen communities, thus creating a more efficient society.
Jane Addams recognized this advantage to religion when she joined the Presbyterian church. Although she did not agree with all of the doctrine, she "long[ed] for an outward symbol of fellowship, some bond of peace, some blessed spot where unity of spirit might claim right of way over all differences." She realized that it was not really strict adherence to doctrine (although some adherence is necessary) which brought the members of the Presbyterian church together, but simply that they all outwardly identified with the same institution.
At Hull House, Addams realized that this kind of fellowship was needed in the neighborhood. She hoped, "that it should unite in the fellowship of the deed those of widely differing religious beliefs." While this at first may seem to be a religiously motivated statement, it is actually secular. She wanted those who previously identified themselves with different groups to realize that one of the reasons for religious identification was the benefit of fellowship, and that fellowship could be found anywhere, and among people an individual had previously thought to have nothing in common with. Therefore, while she recognized fellowship among religious groups, one of the reasons Addams founded Hull House was to create a similar fellowship free from specific religious association.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Jerry Falwell: Religion and Obesity
I found this interesting…
In one of my other classes, Nutritional Anthropology, we are reading a book called "Fat Land", by Greg Critser. It attempts to explain the growing health issue of obesity in the US. In the first couple chapters, two each explain the questions, "Who got the calories in?" and "Who let the calories in?" The first question's answer is about the marketing strategies of food companies who made it possible to buy very calorie dense foods and very cheap prices. The second is different, in that it explains how family, school, culture, and even religion (aha!) allowed these cheap, high-calorie, low-nutrient foods into so many Americans. I wanted to make the distinction between the two chapters so that the idea that religion allowed calories to be taken in was not mistaken for religion promoting the calories to be taken in.
What the author of "Fat Land" argues is that there was a switch between (mostly Presbyterian) ideologies in the past fifty years (between the boomer and X generations) which made it okay for people to disregard their health in terms of weight. When boomer generation was growing up, Critser argues, there was the ideology of the "body as a temple", and taking care of it is just as important to living a good life as your actions in relation to others. Many, including Sylvester Graham, inventor of the graham cracker, thought, "overeating was a form of oversimulation," which could then lead to other kinds of sinful, indulgent activities. Others linked religion as a positive force for loosing weight, such as Charles Shedd, who wrote Pray the Weight Away. It included prayer-focused activities and exercises, and was used into the 1970s.
When the X generation began to be born, things were changing both in the secular world, and in the religious world. As we have discussed with other religion's changes, these changes came from a need to keep afloat in the changing environment of the secular world. Because the secular world was becoming more enticing as a mold to form your life into, religions needed to change in order to keep people coming to church. Two things happened—1. Churches began to allow slips on the smaller sins, like gluttony, and began advocating against larger sins, like abortion, and 2. There began the rise of the Fundamentalist movement, separating the body and soul, thus allowing the "natural" form of the body to take shape (which was usually overweight, because it's just all too easy to become fat in America). Churches changed their stance on sins like gluttony because they needed to "[hold] the flock together." One way of doing this was to be more all-inclusive, and not to point out differences between people among "the flock." In terms of weight, this showed itself in turning obesity into a self-help, or self-acceptance issue instead of a sin. The positive attitude change allowed people to feel okay with being overweight within their moral circle. Thus, Religion (as stated, mostly Presbyterian) had a role in allowing people to eat so many calories, and thus contributed to the current obesity issue in the US.
I would really like to hear others' opinions on this theory. I think it has some weight, but that religion was not a major player in allowing obesity. I think the other causes (family, school, and culture) had bigger roles. The discussion made our class think about the recent death of the prominent televangelist Jerry Falwell. He died of heart disease, likely caused by obesity. But, was his strong religion a major contributing factor to his ultimate death?
In one of my other classes, Nutritional Anthropology, we are reading a book called "Fat Land", by Greg Critser. It attempts to explain the growing health issue of obesity in the US. In the first couple chapters, two each explain the questions, "Who got the calories in?" and "Who let the calories in?" The first question's answer is about the marketing strategies of food companies who made it possible to buy very calorie dense foods and very cheap prices. The second is different, in that it explains how family, school, culture, and even religion (aha!) allowed these cheap, high-calorie, low-nutrient foods into so many Americans. I wanted to make the distinction between the two chapters so that the idea that religion allowed calories to be taken in was not mistaken for religion promoting the calories to be taken in.
What the author of "Fat Land" argues is that there was a switch between (mostly Presbyterian) ideologies in the past fifty years (between the boomer and X generations) which made it okay for people to disregard their health in terms of weight. When boomer generation was growing up, Critser argues, there was the ideology of the "body as a temple", and taking care of it is just as important to living a good life as your actions in relation to others. Many, including Sylvester Graham, inventor of the graham cracker, thought, "overeating was a form of oversimulation," which could then lead to other kinds of sinful, indulgent activities. Others linked religion as a positive force for loosing weight, such as Charles Shedd, who wrote Pray the Weight Away. It included prayer-focused activities and exercises, and was used into the 1970s.
When the X generation began to be born, things were changing both in the secular world, and in the religious world. As we have discussed with other religion's changes, these changes came from a need to keep afloat in the changing environment of the secular world. Because the secular world was becoming more enticing as a mold to form your life into, religions needed to change in order to keep people coming to church. Two things happened—1. Churches began to allow slips on the smaller sins, like gluttony, and began advocating against larger sins, like abortion, and 2. There began the rise of the Fundamentalist movement, separating the body and soul, thus allowing the "natural" form of the body to take shape (which was usually overweight, because it's just all too easy to become fat in America). Churches changed their stance on sins like gluttony because they needed to "[hold] the flock together." One way of doing this was to be more all-inclusive, and not to point out differences between people among "the flock." In terms of weight, this showed itself in turning obesity into a self-help, or self-acceptance issue instead of a sin. The positive attitude change allowed people to feel okay with being overweight within their moral circle. Thus, Religion (as stated, mostly Presbyterian) had a role in allowing people to eat so many calories, and thus contributed to the current obesity issue in the US.
I would really like to hear others' opinions on this theory. I think it has some weight, but that religion was not a major player in allowing obesity. I think the other causes (family, school, and culture) had bigger roles. The discussion made our class think about the recent death of the prominent televangelist Jerry Falwell. He died of heart disease, likely caused by obesity. But, was his strong religion a major contributing factor to his ultimate death?
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Quick Response
Response to Kelly D. and Sarah J.
Both Kelly and Sarah talked about how Rastas do not "seem to want to see cannabis become fully legal. They accepted that there were laws prohibiting the use; it seems they thought the ban was necessary." I understand that this view has come from the wikipedia article, but I would like to disagree to some extent on this. While some Rastas may have come to terms with the illegality of cannabis, there are definitely many who advocate for its legalization:
(I was going to have a link so you could hear the song right here, but I will just have to tell you about it, and you can find it yourself on iTunes or something.)
The song I immediately thought of was "Legalize It", by Peter Tosh. If the title isn't obvious enough already, here are some of the lyrics:
Legalize it
Don't criticize it
Legalize it Yea-ah Yea-ah
And I will advertise it.
Some call it tamjee
Some call it the weed
Some call it marijuana
Some of them call it ganja
Never mind, got to...
Legalize it
Don't criticize it
Legalize it Yea-ah Yea-ah
And I will advertise it.
This is not the only song of the kind. I do not mean to say that this is common, and I definitely don't mean to say that it is advocated by all Rastas. It is simply common enough to take note of.
Both Kelly and Sarah talked about how Rastas do not "seem to want to see cannabis become fully legal. They accepted that there were laws prohibiting the use; it seems they thought the ban was necessary." I understand that this view has come from the wikipedia article, but I would like to disagree to some extent on this. While some Rastas may have come to terms with the illegality of cannabis, there are definitely many who advocate for its legalization:
(I was going to have a link so you could hear the song right here, but I will just have to tell you about it, and you can find it yourself on iTunes or something.)
The song I immediately thought of was "Legalize It", by Peter Tosh. If the title isn't obvious enough already, here are some of the lyrics:
Legalize it
Don't criticize it
Legalize it Yea-ah Yea-ah
And I will advertise it.
Some call it tamjee
Some call it the weed
Some call it marijuana
Some of them call it ganja
Never mind, got to...
Legalize it
Don't criticize it
Legalize it Yea-ah Yea-ah
And I will advertise it.
This is not the only song of the kind. I do not mean to say that this is common, and I definitely don't mean to say that it is advocated by all Rastas. It is simply common enough to take note of.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Reggae and Christian Rock
In class on Wednesday, we discussed the similarities and differences between Christian Rock and Roots Reggae (Reggae specifically associated with the Rastafari movement). The class seemed to agree that Reggae was more integral to Rastafari than Christian Rock was to Christianity. At the time I was skeptical, but did not have enough information to disprove this theory. Well, I have done a bit of research, and have concluded that Roots Reggae and Christian Rock do serve the same purpose for Rastafari and Christianity, respectively.
Here are three ways of looking at our misconceptions:
1. First, I believe that this misconception of Roots Reggae comes from our lack of understanding of other cultures' music. We know first hand that there is more to Rock than Christian Rock (most of you have probably just exclaimed, "duh!"). However, when we only know surface bits of a culture, we automatically assume a very serious connection between all the bits, likely stemming from the serious nature of studying. While we should not discount anything we learn while studying, we should not automatically assume that all Rastas are serious about reggae just because we have suddenly become so.
2. Another misconception that comes with our lack of knowledge is the assumption that Reggae music was conceived of as religious music, and had thus had religious roots. I'm not sure if anyone specifically stated this in class, but it is a logical next step, assuming the class's logic. We assume this because of this all-encompassing grouping of Roots Reggae and Rastafari. We have decided that Roots Reggae is integral to Rastafari, thus we might assume that it could only have been conceived of as Rastafari music.
3. I also feel that we translate the popularity of the music (or our own level of liking the music) into a measurement of the affect or importance the music has to the group it is associated with. We young Americans generally like reggae music. Because it was built upon hip-hop, R&B, and soul, you could say it is a cousin of modern American popular music. When we learn that much of it is spiritual music, we automatically assume that all Rastas love it also (both because it is "their" spiritual music, and because we happen to like it). But, just because Bush supports the Iraq war does not mean the war will automatically support him. This is a case of unrequited love.
I do not mean to say by this that those who play and listen to Roots Reggae are not serious in their meaning, feelings, and beliefs. I mean to say that Roots Reggae, while important to some, is not integral to the entire religion—and thus is not taken seriously by all Rastas. In fact, "some orthodox Rastas disdain reggae as a form of commercial music and a 'sell-out to Babylon.'" While many of the creators of Reggae were Rastas, it was, and is not an entirely spiritual music. The ancestors of Reggae music are also not entirely religious—original Reggae was inspired by ska, which was in turn inspired by popular American music and African rhythms. "But Roots Reggae is entirely spiritual", you say. Yes, but it is not the main spiritual music for Rastas, and it is not spiritual to all Rastas. The main spiritual music, the kind used in worship ceremonies is called nyabinghi, and "is the most integral form of Rastafarian music." It has its roots in East Africa between 1850 and 1950. Use of nyabinghi in the Rastafari movement includes rhythmic chanting of many Christian texts, including Psalms and hymns.
Thus, it seems that Roots Reggae actually serves quite a similar purpose to Christian Rock. They are both emotionally spiritual, and inspire many people around their respective religions, but they are harmonically and rhythmically secular. * Also, they are not spiritual to all in their respective religions. There is a traditional form of spiritual music for each religion—nyabinghi for the Rastafarian movement, and traditional hymns or Latin chants for Christianity.
*The base of both Roots Reggae and Christian Rock are secular, but some artists may choose to integrate spiritual music (hymns or nyaginghi). This does not mean that the music itself (not the text and emotional content) can be classified as completely spiritual.
Here are three ways of looking at our misconceptions:
1. First, I believe that this misconception of Roots Reggae comes from our lack of understanding of other cultures' music. We know first hand that there is more to Rock than Christian Rock (most of you have probably just exclaimed, "duh!"). However, when we only know surface bits of a culture, we automatically assume a very serious connection between all the bits, likely stemming from the serious nature of studying. While we should not discount anything we learn while studying, we should not automatically assume that all Rastas are serious about reggae just because we have suddenly become so.
2. Another misconception that comes with our lack of knowledge is the assumption that Reggae music was conceived of as religious music, and had thus had religious roots. I'm not sure if anyone specifically stated this in class, but it is a logical next step, assuming the class's logic. We assume this because of this all-encompassing grouping of Roots Reggae and Rastafari. We have decided that Roots Reggae is integral to Rastafari, thus we might assume that it could only have been conceived of as Rastafari music.
3. I also feel that we translate the popularity of the music (or our own level of liking the music) into a measurement of the affect or importance the music has to the group it is associated with. We young Americans generally like reggae music. Because it was built upon hip-hop, R&B, and soul, you could say it is a cousin of modern American popular music. When we learn that much of it is spiritual music, we automatically assume that all Rastas love it also (both because it is "their" spiritual music, and because we happen to like it). But, just because Bush supports the Iraq war does not mean the war will automatically support him. This is a case of unrequited love.
I do not mean to say by this that those who play and listen to Roots Reggae are not serious in their meaning, feelings, and beliefs. I mean to say that Roots Reggae, while important to some, is not integral to the entire religion—and thus is not taken seriously by all Rastas. In fact, "some orthodox Rastas disdain reggae as a form of commercial music and a 'sell-out to Babylon.'" While many of the creators of Reggae were Rastas, it was, and is not an entirely spiritual music. The ancestors of Reggae music are also not entirely religious—original Reggae was inspired by ska, which was in turn inspired by popular American music and African rhythms. "But Roots Reggae is entirely spiritual", you say. Yes, but it is not the main spiritual music for Rastas, and it is not spiritual to all Rastas. The main spiritual music, the kind used in worship ceremonies is called nyabinghi, and "is the most integral form of Rastafarian music." It has its roots in East Africa between 1850 and 1950. Use of nyabinghi in the Rastafari movement includes rhythmic chanting of many Christian texts, including Psalms and hymns.
Thus, it seems that Roots Reggae actually serves quite a similar purpose to Christian Rock. They are both emotionally spiritual, and inspire many people around their respective religions, but they are harmonically and rhythmically secular. * Also, they are not spiritual to all in their respective religions. There is a traditional form of spiritual music for each religion—nyabinghi for the Rastafarian movement, and traditional hymns or Latin chants for Christianity.
*The base of both Roots Reggae and Christian Rock are secular, but some artists may choose to integrate spiritual music (hymns or nyaginghi). This does not mean that the music itself (not the text and emotional content) can be classified as completely spiritual.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Catholic Chips
I would like to respond to Oliver's post on the Ever Dividing catholic Church of Christ. Of course, this is one of the topics that is most interesting to me (and most personal), but I will try to be as objective as possible.
First, I will not disagree that the Catholic Church's attempts to bring different religions together under Pope John Paul II could cause a split in the church. However, I would like to point out a few things. Oliver says, "the addition of more commentary slowly chips off sections of the conservative base of a religion." In this class we have been constructing our idea of religion as always-changing…the "conservative base" is always changing. I don't think you can say that the base is always conservative—it is simply a base. In the case of the Catholic Church, it may be richer in formal tradition, but that is different from conservatism. People often confuse the strong traditions—which are simply actions—for a conservative philosophy. While I realize that John Paul II was new in bringing different traditions together, I hardly think his impact was small on the "base" of the church (the Vatican). Therefore, the description of the base of a religion as "conservative" is not always accurate.
Also, Oliver indicated that the "chips," or minority in religious splits are always not conservative—in other words, the minority is liberal. In the case of the Vatican today, it is hard to tell which way it will go. However, John Paul II was an extremely popular pope, so I doubt that only a small portion will agree with him on this issue. (This opinion also comes, in part, from my personal contact with the Catholic community, so…) In any case, I would like to caution against stereotypes that strongly traditional religions are always conservative, and that splits always leave a majority of conservatives in the "base" of the religion. However, that is not to say the Oliver is not correct that this "warming" to other religions in the Catholic Church will not cause a major split.
First, I will not disagree that the Catholic Church's attempts to bring different religions together under Pope John Paul II could cause a split in the church. However, I would like to point out a few things. Oliver says, "the addition of more commentary slowly chips off sections of the conservative base of a religion." In this class we have been constructing our idea of religion as always-changing…the "conservative base" is always changing. I don't think you can say that the base is always conservative—it is simply a base. In the case of the Catholic Church, it may be richer in formal tradition, but that is different from conservatism. People often confuse the strong traditions—which are simply actions—for a conservative philosophy. While I realize that John Paul II was new in bringing different traditions together, I hardly think his impact was small on the "base" of the church (the Vatican). Therefore, the description of the base of a religion as "conservative" is not always accurate.
Also, Oliver indicated that the "chips," or minority in religious splits are always not conservative—in other words, the minority is liberal. In the case of the Vatican today, it is hard to tell which way it will go. However, John Paul II was an extremely popular pope, so I doubt that only a small portion will agree with him on this issue. (This opinion also comes, in part, from my personal contact with the Catholic community, so…) In any case, I would like to caution against stereotypes that strongly traditional religions are always conservative, and that splits always leave a majority of conservatives in the "base" of the religion. However, that is not to say the Oliver is not correct that this "warming" to other religions in the Catholic Church will not cause a major split.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Building Ethiopia
While looking at the pictures of Ethiopia (and reading the Kebra Negast), it struck me how isolated they were, and yet how many other cultures influenced theirs. Not only did they influence Ethiopian culture, but Ethiopians also took whole chunks of "defining" images from other cultures. For example, many of the architectural elements are directly borrowed. There was one church that was strikingly similar to Greek (and to some extent Roman) temples, like the Parthenon. Another Ethiopian church adopted Mosque-style ornamentation. Although other cultures have borrowed building styles, it is striking that in Ethiopia they would borrow from other religions' architecture for their own religion's architecture. When Christians began building churches, they borrowed from the style of building used for government purposes in the Roman Empire. They would not have taken the temple plan because it would come with too many cultural associations.
The Kebra Negast seems similar to the borrowing of architectural elements. It takes stereotypical, or well-known images in Christianity and creates a new book with them. In the process, some of the stories are a bit jumbled and changed. For example, the Holy Trinity is part of God's plan from the beginning in the "Genesis" part of the Kebra Negast, where as the Bible does not allude to Jesus or the Holy Spirit until much later. But what is startling is that these elements of other cultures have such a seemingly large impact on Ethiopian culture. However, by "impact", I don't mean that these other cultures always profoundly change Ethiopian culture. I mean that they leave a very bold stamp of identity on Ethiopian culture—it's as if they were writing the stereotypical "--- was here" on Ethiopia.
However, this is not the only way Ethiopia is influenced by other cultures. It seems that because they are isolated, all the information they get about other cultures either comes through telephone-like, in small trickles, or in single, bold statements. Thus the emphasis on the possession of metal crosses and crowns. Missionaries who went to Ethiopia would probably bring crosses to immediately identify them. Some might have brought elaborate-looking crosses in order to "wow" the people they were trying to convert. Ethiopia is not so hard to get to that they never have contact with other cultures, but it is far enough away that other cultures' symbols (like the mosque-style architecture) do not have many cultural associations. Therefore, because of their relative isolation, Ethiopia is able to take aspects of other cultures that they find have surface-appeal, and without cultural baggage, easily incorporate them into their own culture.
The Kebra Negast seems similar to the borrowing of architectural elements. It takes stereotypical, or well-known images in Christianity and creates a new book with them. In the process, some of the stories are a bit jumbled and changed. For example, the Holy Trinity is part of God's plan from the beginning in the "Genesis" part of the Kebra Negast, where as the Bible does not allude to Jesus or the Holy Spirit until much later. But what is startling is that these elements of other cultures have such a seemingly large impact on Ethiopian culture. However, by "impact", I don't mean that these other cultures always profoundly change Ethiopian culture. I mean that they leave a very bold stamp of identity on Ethiopian culture—it's as if they were writing the stereotypical "--- was here" on Ethiopia.
However, this is not the only way Ethiopia is influenced by other cultures. It seems that because they are isolated, all the information they get about other cultures either comes through telephone-like, in small trickles, or in single, bold statements. Thus the emphasis on the possession of metal crosses and crowns. Missionaries who went to Ethiopia would probably bring crosses to immediately identify them. Some might have brought elaborate-looking crosses in order to "wow" the people they were trying to convert. Ethiopia is not so hard to get to that they never have contact with other cultures, but it is far enough away that other cultures' symbols (like the mosque-style architecture) do not have many cultural associations. Therefore, because of their relative isolation, Ethiopia is able to take aspects of other cultures that they find have surface-appeal, and without cultural baggage, easily incorporate them into their own culture.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Religion and Politics
In response to Catrina's post on April 17
In one of her posts, Catrina talked about how we should not assume that all the texts written by people of “one” religion have the same message. Although these texts “[were] written by men who deeply believed in and followed God,” writes Catrina, “religious texts are still written by men, with all of their faults and humanity.” I would like to agree with and expand this idea while making a connection, if somewhat dangerous, to political and/or secular theorists.
I think we talked about, at the beginning of the term, how one main aspect of religion was to give a guide for how to live your life. In a similar way, political theorists write about how a group of people together can live their lives. In come cases, more common many years ago, religion and politics are one in the same. However, while we view political theorists as often updating or refuting prior theories, often changing the entire meaning of the group—as have democrat and republican theories in the US—religion often seems fixed, at least in the main ideas of the group. However, if both are telling people how to live, why is there such a difference in how we read each group’s writings?
It is not just that religious texts have been around for many more years, because they haven’t. For many, many years, in many places, a monarchy was the main political form. Also, democracy is not a new idea—the Romans instituted the first infamous democracy. It is also not just that categorized-as-religious theorists have always been inspired by a deity. In Chuang Tzu’s Basic Writings, he does not reference a higher power, and teaches only that one must follow “the way”. Nevertheless, Chuang Tzu’s writings are definitely spiritual.
Between Chuang Tzu, religion being the same as politics (as is trying to be formed in Iraq), and flowing into more “traditional” religions and political theories such as Christianity and Communism, there seems to be a kind of continuum between the two groups. It is only our imposition of the categories of “religion” and “politics” that we read these things differently. Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating that religion and politics be mixed in practice. I am simply saying that they serve similar general roles—teaching people how to live—and that that their theoretical writings should be read in similar ways. People may choose which theory (or theories, in the case of, say, a Jewish Democrat) they identify with.
In one of her posts, Catrina talked about how we should not assume that all the texts written by people of “one” religion have the same message. Although these texts “[were] written by men who deeply believed in and followed God,” writes Catrina, “religious texts are still written by men, with all of their faults and humanity.” I would like to agree with and expand this idea while making a connection, if somewhat dangerous, to political and/or secular theorists.
I think we talked about, at the beginning of the term, how one main aspect of religion was to give a guide for how to live your life. In a similar way, political theorists write about how a group of people together can live their lives. In come cases, more common many years ago, religion and politics are one in the same. However, while we view political theorists as often updating or refuting prior theories, often changing the entire meaning of the group—as have democrat and republican theories in the US—religion often seems fixed, at least in the main ideas of the group. However, if both are telling people how to live, why is there such a difference in how we read each group’s writings?
It is not just that religious texts have been around for many more years, because they haven’t. For many, many years, in many places, a monarchy was the main political form. Also, democracy is not a new idea—the Romans instituted the first infamous democracy. It is also not just that categorized-as-religious theorists have always been inspired by a deity. In Chuang Tzu’s Basic Writings, he does not reference a higher power, and teaches only that one must follow “the way”. Nevertheless, Chuang Tzu’s writings are definitely spiritual.
Between Chuang Tzu, religion being the same as politics (as is trying to be formed in Iraq), and flowing into more “traditional” religions and political theories such as Christianity and Communism, there seems to be a kind of continuum between the two groups. It is only our imposition of the categories of “religion” and “politics” that we read these things differently. Don’t get me wrong, I am not advocating that religion and politics be mixed in practice. I am simply saying that they serve similar general roles—teaching people how to live—and that that their theoretical writings should be read in similar ways. People may choose which theory (or theories, in the case of, say, a Jewish Democrat) they identify with.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Garments of "The Concealed One"
I found some of the Zohar chapters very vague and a little confusing, but I would like to try and interpret a little, if I can. Please respond if you feel I am way off.
It seems to me that Elohim and the light—talked about in the third section—are very similar concepts. I am proposing that “the Concealed One” created two layers of a garment, so that the people he created would understand. These garment are explained in two different ways…through Elohim, and through light.
Elohim is said to have been created by “the Concealed One.” They describe this “One” as “the Concealed One”, because it is something we can have no concept of—knowledge of it is concealed from us. This is why (I think) Elohim was created. It is a translation of a concept into terms we as humans can understand—it translates to the idea of God. This makes sense with the text’s reference to Elohim as a palace. The idea of God—Elohim—is the one way “the Concealed One” shows ‘himself’ to those ‘he’ has created. Elohim is a tribute to the “One”, ‘his’ palace on earth. Within this garment, we usually substitute the word “God” for Elohim, or the idea of God. We think we are talking about “the Concealed One”, the highest possible power, but we can really only talk about Elohim, because it is all we have knowledge of. Therefore, we are sometimes confused between God, “the Concealed One”, and God, “Elohim.”
The second layer of garment is the light. The light created is said to have been created by God. I interpret “God” in this instance (and in most instances) as our attempt to allude to “the Concealed One.” This light is knowledge of the concept of the “One,” or Elohim. Few have seen all the light. Only a handful of prophets have been priviledged to have all the knowledge of “the Concealed One” we as humans are capable of. A few rays of light—a few rays of knowledge of the idea of God—filter in here and there and continue to keep “the Concealed One’s” palace alive.
Here is a rudimentary image of this complicated system:
It seems to me that Elohim and the light—talked about in the third section—are very similar concepts. I am proposing that “the Concealed One” created two layers of a garment, so that the people he created would understand. These garment are explained in two different ways…through Elohim, and through light.
Elohim is said to have been created by “the Concealed One.” They describe this “One” as “the Concealed One”, because it is something we can have no concept of—knowledge of it is concealed from us. This is why (I think) Elohim was created. It is a translation of a concept into terms we as humans can understand—it translates to the idea of God. This makes sense with the text’s reference to Elohim as a palace. The idea of God—Elohim—is the one way “the Concealed One” shows ‘himself’ to those ‘he’ has created. Elohim is a tribute to the “One”, ‘his’ palace on earth. Within this garment, we usually substitute the word “God” for Elohim, or the idea of God. We think we are talking about “the Concealed One”, the highest possible power, but we can really only talk about Elohim, because it is all we have knowledge of. Therefore, we are sometimes confused between God, “the Concealed One”, and God, “Elohim.”
The second layer of garment is the light. The light created is said to have been created by God. I interpret “God” in this instance (and in most instances) as our attempt to allude to “the Concealed One.” This light is knowledge of the concept of the “One,” or Elohim. Few have seen all the light. Only a handful of prophets have been priviledged to have all the knowledge of “the Concealed One” we as humans are capable of. A few rays of light—a few rays of knowledge of the idea of God—filter in here and there and continue to keep “the Concealed One’s” palace alive.
Here is a rudimentary image of this complicated system:
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Lamentations as Social Commentary with Religion in a Supporting Role
Lamentations is more of a political and social writing, with the religious elements simply supporting the social aims. I am not saying that the religious elements are not as important. In fact, they are the means by which the social agenda is put forth.
After such a devastating attack such as the sack of Jerusalem, which left people with no means at all with which to fight back, the first step in the rebuilding of the society is to hold together group identity. As we talked about with early Holocene peoples, organized religion is one thing that holds a large group of people together. Lamentations connects to the people by empathizing with what they are feeling, and holds them together as a cohesive group by referencing both the Lord and Jerusalem. The writing takes the anger, sorrow, and hopelessness people must feel and, through allegory, says that this happened to everyone together, not just individuals (using the “you are not alone” technique).
When such a wholly devastating event occurs, it is hard for people to take in the truth—that an enemy has simply become more powerful. Thus, religion is used as a tool for explanation. Not only is religion something that is common among the people of Jerusalem—and functions in bringing the group closer together—but it can function as a means of social change. With no way to fight back, the group simply needs to survive. This means they must prepare for a hard life with patience and humility, until they save up enough strength and unity to free themselves from their conquerors. Through religion, Lamentations achieves these means. Humility is invoked by blaming the sack of the city on God’s anger, which is caused by the sinfulness of the people themselves. God being like a father figure, it is a natural reaction to be at first ashamed when a father is angry, and continue on with humility. Patience is invoked by saying that God “will not reject forever.” Eventually, the conquering people will become weak, as Jerusalem had, and, as long as the people stick together, those now oppressed will be able to break free. Although this is explained as happening when God wills it, the fact that the writing talks about political rising and falling as time goes on shows the understanding of society’s workings—one cannot be continuously on top. However, this viewpoint is usually not very popular, so religion is used to achieve the same social aims.
One issue I am uncertain about is how this writing would have affected the mass of people. Would people have heard prophets, or learned men reading from the writing? Would that have been too dangerous among their conquerors? Or would only the literate be informed about the writing, and then passed on their knowledge in different versions to the mass of people? Or is what is emoted in this work simply written down as the general belief of the people? In any case, I believe it has much more to do with the keeping of social order and cohesiveness, and religion simply supports these aims.
After such a devastating attack such as the sack of Jerusalem, which left people with no means at all with which to fight back, the first step in the rebuilding of the society is to hold together group identity. As we talked about with early Holocene peoples, organized religion is one thing that holds a large group of people together. Lamentations connects to the people by empathizing with what they are feeling, and holds them together as a cohesive group by referencing both the Lord and Jerusalem. The writing takes the anger, sorrow, and hopelessness people must feel and, through allegory, says that this happened to everyone together, not just individuals (using the “you are not alone” technique).
When such a wholly devastating event occurs, it is hard for people to take in the truth—that an enemy has simply become more powerful. Thus, religion is used as a tool for explanation. Not only is religion something that is common among the people of Jerusalem—and functions in bringing the group closer together—but it can function as a means of social change. With no way to fight back, the group simply needs to survive. This means they must prepare for a hard life with patience and humility, until they save up enough strength and unity to free themselves from their conquerors. Through religion, Lamentations achieves these means. Humility is invoked by blaming the sack of the city on God’s anger, which is caused by the sinfulness of the people themselves. God being like a father figure, it is a natural reaction to be at first ashamed when a father is angry, and continue on with humility. Patience is invoked by saying that God “will not reject forever.” Eventually, the conquering people will become weak, as Jerusalem had, and, as long as the people stick together, those now oppressed will be able to break free. Although this is explained as happening when God wills it, the fact that the writing talks about political rising and falling as time goes on shows the understanding of society’s workings—one cannot be continuously on top. However, this viewpoint is usually not very popular, so religion is used to achieve the same social aims.
One issue I am uncertain about is how this writing would have affected the mass of people. Would people have heard prophets, or learned men reading from the writing? Would that have been too dangerous among their conquerors? Or would only the literate be informed about the writing, and then passed on their knowledge in different versions to the mass of people? Or is what is emoted in this work simply written down as the general belief of the people? In any case, I believe it has much more to do with the keeping of social order and cohesiveness, and religion simply supports these aims.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Response to Carissa Keith: Paleolithic Eden
I would like to respond to Carissa's idea of the Paleolithic Eden. First, I really relate to her approach of trying to weld two views together--I often find myself trying to do the same thing. Also, I can completely see where the idea of Eden may have come from--the change from a more individual-focused society with more equality to a society in which some people have much more than others. The Paleolithic must have seemed like Eden to those who did not have as much--they probably would have wondered why society now had to be different. However, some of Carissa's points are misleading. While Paleolithic peoples had much respect for one another and were relatively free from conflict, they were not completely free from hardship. If you take the garden of Eden to mean something more literal--that it actually was utopia, then I would disagree with the connection to the Paleolithic. Paleolithic life was certainly not easy. For one, Paleolithic humans, while free from war, were not completely free from conflict, as an article we read references evidence of human-inflicted injuries and/or causes of death. Also, it is not true that Paleolithic peoples never got sick--there is simply less occurrence of sickness, compared to the Holocene, due to less congestion of people. Also (and I'm not sure if Carissa meant it this way), I would not consider pain in childbirth a disease--even though Genesis might make it seem like a terrible punishment. I would consider it a very unfortunate side-effect of the way humans are built (if women had wider birth canals, we wouldn't be able to walk upright). However, despite these inconsistencies, I do believe that the two ideas can be welded, but perhaps with the story of Eden being a little less literally interpreted. Perhaps simply with the idea that some people of the Holocene told nostalgic stories about the Paleolithic past when life was simpler (without knowledge, as Genesis might say), but certainly not at all easy.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Religion and Spirituality in Prehistory
One major trend in prehistory is moving away from a focus on the individual and towards a focus on the community. With regards to religion, this would translate as a move from spirituality to organized religion. Even before modern homo sapiens, Neanderthals showed an intense knowledge of others in the group. Organizing cooperative hunts of large animals with no capacity for language requires a deep knowledge of each individual in order to understand the details of what others are trying to communicate. This deep knowledge of each individual keeps the group closely knit and quite social. Here I want to distinguish what I mean by “social,” and conversely, what I mean by “society.” To be truly social as the Neanderthals were, this intimate knowledge of others is crucial. Recursively, in order to create and maintain this intimate knowledge among a community, the members must be very social with each other—in other words, interact with each individual frequently. Society has less to do with how well each individual interacts with other individuals, but how well the group functions as a whole. For Neanderthals, the welfare of their society depended upon how social each individual was.
Although Neanderthals did not have the capacity for abstraction—which is a necessary component of language, spirituality, and organized religion—the first anatomically modern humans did have this capacity. Mixed with a Neanderthal-like lifestyle in small bands, it is my speculation that this abstraction created a sense of individual spirituality in humans. Although the art created by these early people is strictly representational, it is hard to imagine that people with the same capacity for abstraction as we have today would not wonder about the world—the big question being, “Why are we here?” It is my belief that spirituality, in its most basic form, is more of an abstract aesthetic sense, rather than a knowingness that many religions today talk of (although this “sense” is certainly part of religions). Therefore, spirituality is more flexible, yet also much more individually-focused. I imagine the Paleolithic spirituality as very personal—raw spirituality. Given their reliance on language, it is hard to imagine that these people would not share their spiritual thoughts with others. However, it is unlikely that their ideas lined up exactly. Within these communities, spirituality likely was not fixed, and often fluctuated due to the small number of people with which individuals interacted. Thus, the individual had more sway on the next generation’s ideas.
Although Neanderthals did not have the capacity for abstraction—which is a necessary component of language, spirituality, and organized religion—the first anatomically modern humans did have this capacity. Mixed with a Neanderthal-like lifestyle in small bands, it is my speculation that this abstraction created a sense of individual spirituality in humans. Although the art created by these early people is strictly representational, it is hard to imagine that people with the same capacity for abstraction as we have today would not wonder about the world—the big question being, “Why are we here?” It is my belief that spirituality, in its most basic form, is more of an abstract aesthetic sense, rather than a knowingness that many religions today talk of (although this “sense” is certainly part of religions). Therefore, spirituality is more flexible, yet also much more individually-focused. I imagine the Paleolithic spirituality as very personal—raw spirituality. Given their reliance on language, it is hard to imagine that these people would not share their spiritual thoughts with others. However, it is unlikely that their ideas lined up exactly. Within these communities, spirituality likely was not fixed, and often fluctuated due to the small number of people with which individuals interacted. Thus, the individual had more sway on the next generation’s ideas.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Genesis: Remnants of Previous Traditions
The first thing that struck me about the first few chapters of Genesis is how folk tale-like it is. It explains why things are the way they are, and also gives morals to live by. Actually, the explanation is more of a matter-of-fact telling than an explanation (“God said, ‘Let there be light’; and there was light.” 1:3) In other words, it is not an exploration of ways the world could have been created. Along with the matter-of-fact telling, the very nature-centric aspect of the chapters seems reminiscent of Native American (and other cultures’) folk tales. It seems that this form of story was held over from previous generations when people passed on stories orally. The matter-of-fact tone was probably much more effective when generations repeated the same story over and over again. This quality also seems recursive, as the tone was probably enhanced by many generations telling and revising the story. The best folk tales (the ones that could perpetuate themselves the most) were probably the ones that could keep order in a society by introducing and perpetuating morals. The main moral in these chapters of Genesis seems to be obedience to God, with a possible underlying moral of obedience to elders and/or parents. This obedience moral would definitely work to keep order and prevent conflicts, even if the elders/parents were unjust. Throughout the story of Adam and Eve, the two seemed likened to children--naive, new to the world, and under the supervision of someone wiser. Of course there are many other themes, but the tree of knowledge part seems similar to that of a parent telling a child not to touch anything in mom or dad’s office. God already had what the tree of knowledge had to offer, he seemed to be sheltering his children from this grown-up knowledge of life. Thus, when children heard the consequences for disobeying (being cast out of Eden, along with other hardships), they are much more likely to remain obedient and with their parents (which increases their survival) until they no longer can be naive to the world.
Other aspects tying the first few chapters of Genesis to the folk tale style is the organization of the writing. Not only are the chapters laid out matter-of-factly, they are also quite short. This is probably also tied to the idea that they were likely passed on orally for many generations before being written down--short and to-the-point stories keep people interested (and also make it easier to remember). Also, I don’t know about anybody else, but the chapters either seem to have been written at different times, or at least conceived of at different times and compiled later. Not only do the styles of the first two chapters seem different (the first is much more repetitive and rhythmic), but there seem to be inconsistencies. In chapter 1, God creates the animals, then man and gives man dominion over them. In the second chapter, God creates man and then the animals because he thinks man needs a partner.
There is another part that I found interesting and also reminiscent of cultures prior to the society from which Genesis grew out of. There are a few places where God refers to himself as “us” or “we”. For example: 2:26: “Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness...’” I am wondering if this is a remnant of a previous pagan religion. It is long before Jesus, so could not be referring to the trinity...
Other aspects tying the first few chapters of Genesis to the folk tale style is the organization of the writing. Not only are the chapters laid out matter-of-factly, they are also quite short. This is probably also tied to the idea that they were likely passed on orally for many generations before being written down--short and to-the-point stories keep people interested (and also make it easier to remember). Also, I don’t know about anybody else, but the chapters either seem to have been written at different times, or at least conceived of at different times and compiled later. Not only do the styles of the first two chapters seem different (the first is much more repetitive and rhythmic), but there seem to be inconsistencies. In chapter 1, God creates the animals, then man and gives man dominion over them. In the second chapter, God creates man and then the animals because he thinks man needs a partner.
There is another part that I found interesting and also reminiscent of cultures prior to the society from which Genesis grew out of. There are a few places where God refers to himself as “us” or “we”. For example: 2:26: “Then God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness...’” I am wondering if this is a remnant of a previous pagan religion. It is long before Jesus, so could not be referring to the trinity...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)