Mouse Taking a Break
[I will be privileged this afternoon to fly away to San Diego to witness the commencement of my youngest grandchild as he leaves high school and proceeds to a higher calling. I don't have time to think through a real blog so I'll just post a quotation from Spinoza's Treatise on Theology and Politics. These are the first two paragraphs from the Intoduction.]
Men would never be superstitious if they could govern all their circumstances by set rules, or if they were always favored by fortune; but being frequently driven into straits where rules are useless. and being kept fluctuating pitiably between hope and fear by the uncertainty of fortune's greedily coveted favors, they are consequently, for the most part, very prone to credulity. The human mind is readily swayed this way or that in times of doubt, especially when hope and fear are strugging for the mastery, though usually it is boastful, over-confident, and vain.
This is a fact I suppose everyone knows, though few, I believe, know their own nature. No one can have lived in the world without observing that most people, when in prosperity, are so over-brimming with wisdom (however inexperienced they may be), that they take every offer of advice as an insult, whereas in adversity they know not where to turn but beg and pray for counsel from every passer-by. No plan is then too futile, too absurd, or too fatuous for their adoption; the most frivolous causes will raise them to hope, or plunge them into despair. If anything happens during their fright which reminds them of some past good or ill, they think it portends a happy or unhappy issue, and therefore (though it may have proved abortive a hundred times before) style it a lucky or unlucky omen. Anything which excites their astonishment, they believe to be a portent signifying the anger of the gods or of the Supreme Being, and mistaking superstition for religion, account it impious not to [seek] to avert the evil with prayer and sacrifice. Signs and wonders of this sort they conjure up perpetually, till one might think Nature as mad as themselves, they interpret her so fantastically.
[Okay. With these ominous -- and no doubt true -- words in mind, I will be crossing my fingers and toes, carrying a rabbit's foot and a four-leaf clover, and beseeching the God of Spinoza to make sure that the pilot's time does not come before mine is due. I beg you to pray for the same fortuitous outcome to today's and next Sunday's challenge, to the end that the struggle between the law of gravity and the laws of aerodynamics will be settled in the latter's favor. Amen.]
Men would never be superstitious if they could govern all their circumstances by set rules, or if they were always favored by fortune; but being frequently driven into straits where rules are useless. and being kept fluctuating pitiably between hope and fear by the uncertainty of fortune's greedily coveted favors, they are consequently, for the most part, very prone to credulity. The human mind is readily swayed this way or that in times of doubt, especially when hope and fear are strugging for the mastery, though usually it is boastful, over-confident, and vain.
This is a fact I suppose everyone knows, though few, I believe, know their own nature. No one can have lived in the world without observing that most people, when in prosperity, are so over-brimming with wisdom (however inexperienced they may be), that they take every offer of advice as an insult, whereas in adversity they know not where to turn but beg and pray for counsel from every passer-by. No plan is then too futile, too absurd, or too fatuous for their adoption; the most frivolous causes will raise them to hope, or plunge them into despair. If anything happens during their fright which reminds them of some past good or ill, they think it portends a happy or unhappy issue, and therefore (though it may have proved abortive a hundred times before) style it a lucky or unlucky omen. Anything which excites their astonishment, they believe to be a portent signifying the anger of the gods or of the Supreme Being, and mistaking superstition for religion, account it impious not to [seek] to avert the evil with prayer and sacrifice. Signs and wonders of this sort they conjure up perpetually, till one might think Nature as mad as themselves, they interpret her so fantastically.
[Okay. With these ominous -- and no doubt true -- words in mind, I will be crossing my fingers and toes, carrying a rabbit's foot and a four-leaf clover, and beseeching the God of Spinoza to make sure that the pilot's time does not come before mine is due. I beg you to pray for the same fortuitous outcome to today's and next Sunday's challenge, to the end that the struggle between the law of gravity and the laws of aerodynamics will be settled in the latter's favor. Amen.]
posted by Benedict S. at 9:00 AM
24 Comments:
Enjoy this time with your family. These are the things that truly matter...
"It was not flesh and blood that taught you this . . . "
Have a safe trip and I will pray that the plane and pilot both are mechanically sound.
Congrats on your grandson's graduation.
Once again we have an example of Mouse missing the obvious. It might be his time and everyone else on the plane is paying the price of his preferred choice of transportation as God, in an eternal quest for divine efficiencies, decides to move all them to the express check-out.
John (S): You are abolutely right. I never before realized quite so literally how important my life (or death) may be to my fellow travellers . . . or theirs to mine.
Just hav'in a little fun with you mouse. Glad to see you back safe and sound
John (S): This time I caught on right off that you were funnin' me. I'm usually too serious "by half" (as Miss Finding might say). But actually, I'm still in San Diego...got two more hops to go before I'm safe. I'll be home Sunday night, and will try to blog something new Monday.
Hej Robin,
I thought I would answer you over here, a step away from the maddening crowd.
I wouldn’t get to hung-up on that “high IQ” thing. I would suggest a wonderful book by the late, evolutionary biologist; Stephan J. Gould titled the “Mismeasure of Man” as a thought provoking reflection on the limitations of science. Another one of his is a collection of essay’s “Leonardo’s Mountain of Clams and the diet of Worms”. He’s great writer and I would recommend anything he’s written as he makes science a wondrous thing.
While I also found the article in the LA Times hilarious, I was particularly amused by its ecumenical nature. The part that made me laugh the most was the idea of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad freshening-up Tehran for return of the Mahdi. You know a new traffic circle there, some new taxis here and perhaps a new paint job on the old American Embassy.
I don’t agree with your conclusion that, “The Christians of the world seem desperate, maybe science is gaining a foothold after all, logic and reason rule man.” I would argue that science and it’s foundations in logic and reason as an aspect of human inspiration has been, since man’s first footstep on the moon been, losing ground. Indeed scientific progress rather than being seen as fulfilling the inspirational needs of vast majority of mankind is now perceived as threat to our very existence both as a species and the very personal nature of what we consider to be human.
There are many reasons for this and I actually participated in a conference on the subject of science’s growing negative image with the public in 1999 at Chalmer’s University here in Göteborg. One of the more interesting aspects of this conference was a conversation I had with a biologist friend of mine, which focused on the changing nature of science and it’s expressions in technology changing from the visual, physical and understandable mechanical technological benefits of the past to the unseen, amorphous, computer, biological, and ecological focus and results of the future.
What terrifies me the most about the shift of humanity’s viewpoint from world of science to the world of religious fundamentalisms, is the fact that three of the world’s major religions are now nuclear armed (Pakistan) and working for the same end of history. The fact that the extremist have a foundation of billions of enablers, such as mouse and ce, who refuse to entertain the fact that their ground religious beliefs of an end time where they are not, ”Left Behind” pose a serious threat to all of us believers and non-believers alike. But hey as long they get to their imagined heavens why should the sacrifice of couple billion of the rest of us stand in their way.
Well I have to go now and celebrate the pagan “Holiday of Midsummer” by having a few beers, snaps, and dancing around the “Midsummer Stöng” (pole). It’s an official holiday here in Sweden and it gives me some hope that saner, more down to earthscience minds, will, do and can prevail.
Will be back on Monday. Best to you all.
"The fact that the extremist have a foundation of billions of enablers, such as mouse and ce, who refuse to entertain the fact that their ground religious beliefs of an end time where they are not, ”Left Behind” pose a serious threat to all of us believers and non-believers alike. But hey as long they get to their imagined heavens why should the sacrifice of couple billion of the rest of us stand in their way."
Wow, what an unfair statement. I won't speak for the mouse, but from what I know of him he hardly fits into this category. As for myself, I categorically deny that I have the feelings that you are attributing to me regarding "endtimes, and what do I care as long as I get to go to heaven". You are starting to look as foolish as the people you say deny the reason of science, a statement I would assume is basically founded in disputes about evolution.Let me just say this for the record so you understand, I am not looking forward or hoping for nuclear holucaust and I really don't know anyone who is; my hope is that war will end ,and that mankind survives and thrives. As to the world's three major religions having nuclear bombs, I know a place where I can be reminded daily that America "is not a Christian nation." I think you should examine your own narrow mindness, and get back to me.
Have a great holiday.
CE: Don't be too hard on John(S). He's got me pegged perfectly. My "end times" lie in the not too distant future. As for an ascendance into heaven, too late. I'm here already and loving every minute of it.
Besides, John(S) was probably just foolin' around. That bit where he pointed to dancin' around a Maypole as evidence of a new wave of scientific enlightenment (or whatever) ought to have told you he was just funnin' again. It's a pity the blogspot folks don't afford commenters access to those little smiley face things.
New word for the day (for me): meliorism. It's a frame of mind reserved for pagans like me who still harbor hope for humankind. Sounds pretty good, too . . . meel-yer-ism . . . very poetic . .. rhymes with orange.
Let's get right to the heart of the matter,it was me that called ce a jerk on another site,I have never insulted him here and I sure didn't relize that we were having a bloody war between us.First I knew of this.ce is paranoid,I faced his delusions when I first encountered him,he also wears his religion on his sleeve,one peep against Christianity and he believes he is being personally attacked.
John S.While I'm not Robin I do consider myself a mathematical scientist and I do agree with your assessment on science today but only in the hands of mad men.In the 20th century, modern science reached its apex with the splitting of
the atom, followed shortly thereafter by the discovery of the DNA double helix. The first discovery led to the development of the atomic bomb,leaving humanity to ponder for the first time the prospect of an end to its own future on Earth. Now, a growing number of military observers are fearful that the other great
scientific breakthrough of our time could soon be used in a comparable
manner, posing a similar threat to our very existence.
Jeremy Rifkin, author of "The Biotech Century" (Tarcher Putnam, 1998), is resident of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington.
The mind that finds itself never accepts another man's map,but makes its own.I believe I can state honestly that mouse is not a religious fundementalist,he has his own map.I will perhaps burn in hell,but since I don't believe in hell?Talk about a powerful revelation, here's one: You and your life are one and the same thing. If you see this and truly
understand it you will have the power of invisible vision.
What is invisible and whole is only one thing.
Everyone have a nice weekend.
Are you sure your not Robin John A?
Ahhh, I'm just being paranoid...
; )
Think I'll switch back to anonymous again so nobody will know me.
Yikes, did you guys hear that?
I mean, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."
This blog has become like a chat room with the mouse absent! What fun! (When the mouse is away...how does that go? Hmmm.) I wish I had something to say about the downfall of science in the 20th Century and the replacement of traditional religion in the 21st. But go ahead without me, I'll keep posting about the downfall of Single Tax on my own blog.
I just went for a walk over to Starbucks, daughter and I actually. With genuine coffee in hand (not the caramelized goop they peddle) she guided me over to a pet store. What a surprise to see what passes for a pet in Southern California. There were snakes, rats (YES! rats!), iguanas, hairy (lion-faced) rabbits, ghekos, and (would you belive it?) even a few puppies. The rats were no doubt bred for the purpose. They were brown and white, cute little devils, though I was in no way tempted to buy one. (Price $4.50 each -- marked down from $50 "For Quick Sale.")
Yeah, Miss Finding, more like a chat room than a forum for the solution of all the world's problems. But you've got admit: nothing like a good measure of anonymity to bring out core "honesty."
(I intended to blog something new today, but after reading your post, I realized I have nothing to say.)
(Hmmm, Yes, you're right. That never stopped me before.)
Hey anon,show thyself,show your true self,stop hiding behind being anonymous.If John A. and I were the same person then that would mean I have one hell'va split personality,do you have the credentials to dx me as having a split personality? If not then stop asking such dumb questions.But then again I am a Gemini,the only twins of astrology so maybe I am two different personalities.
Paranoia is a bad place to be,I once believed that all men were bastards,I really had to get some help for that,so ifin you are truly paranoid get help now.
John S.I am not hung up on my IQ,the only reason it was even mentioned is because I didn't want all you folks here to think I am only a dumb 22y/o.Gotta be at work in an hour.
My ex-brother-law once brought a pair of rats for my two nieces. Perhaps he planned it this way, but as it turned out the rats happened to be male and female who doing what comes naturally soon bore a litter of eight. As these furry creatures grew it became clear that something would have to be done to get rid of them, they were starting to stink and they were crammed in a cage that had little room for more than two rats.
Being a dutiful brother-in-law and an obedient husband, I was elected to "take care" of this little rat problem. At the appointed hour I was instructed to come and gather the rats in a box and to transport them to a local pet store where Ted, the rat guy, would take them off my hands.So doing as I was instructed I went to my wife's sisters house and gathered the rats, putting them in a cardboard box and placing them in the back of my van. I drove to the pet store, being carful not to hit too many bumps on take any of the turns too quickly; I was determined not to let the contents of the box spill out into my van( being paranoid I had visions of one or two of the creatures getting loose and taking up residence there in my Ford Areostar).With great relief I pulled into the parking lot of the pet store and after counting my furry cargo more than once I happily carried the box into the pet store. "I was have some ratshere," I said , "I was told that you would take then off my hands."
The clerk raised his eyes without raising his head and mumbled."Can't take the rats on Sunday, the rat guy isn't here."
"But I was told to bring them to Ted today!" I exclaimed, fearing that if I put that box back into my van my worst fears about spilling them would come true.
"Come back tommorra",said the clerk,"the rat guy will be here tommorra."
Discouraged I took the rats, and counting them once again I put them into the back of my van and gingerly drove off. Weighing my options I came to two conclusions, I would either dump the rats in a nearby woods, or I would take them to the pet store in the nearby mall.Of course I didn't have the heart to dump them so I drove to the mall, where hoping that their version of the rat guy was in I counted the rats two or three more times and then carried my box into the mall."Is your rat guy in?" I asked the clerk at the mall store.
"What are you talking about?" asked the clerk.
"I got some rats here, and I want to get rid of them. Is your rat guy in?
"We don't have a rat guy ", said the clerk.
'Oh, a- will you take these rats then?" I asked probably sounding as desperate as I felt.
"I'm not going to pay you for them!" asserted the clerk.
Feeling hopeful at this response I excalimed,"Lady, I'll pay you if you'll take them form me!"
Having on loaded my cargo I happily returned to my van, after a thorough inspection I was satisfied that no rats were still on board I drove home satsified that my work was done.
Two weeks later there was a report on the local news, a family of rats escaped from the mall's pet store and could not be found. Traps where set to avoid infestation...
Some day I'll tell, you about my sister-in-laws cats...
PS: No time to edit,sorry.
Gooood morning all,
After a refreshing and invigorating weekend, away from all technology (including indoor plumbing), TVs, cell phones and overly sober computerized conversations, eating the hearts of reindeer, sitting around a campfire listening to strings of acoustical guitars complimented by voices of wife and friends, as they sang ancient songs dedicated to the sun of a longest day that holds the black of night, so that no other stars can compete with its grip upon the destiny of man, I have returned to Blogville.
Before we get too mystical here, the summer solstice was actually on Thursday and Swedes spent the longest day wildly celebrating their 1-1 tie with England in the World Cup.
Mouse: While I was having a little fun and play on words “down to earthscience” we must recognize that the marking of the solstices was, if not the first, certainly one of the earliest scientific achievements in celestial mechanics and major religious events. Even christainity owes much of its dating of important events to the pagan scientific calendar of solstices.
John A: I’ll stand by the word “enablers” to describe progressive, moderate and mainstream christians, muslims and jews when it comes to providing solid support system for the views and actions of the more addicted, extreme and disturbed members of their respective religious beliefs. Although I generally frown upon analogies I can’ resist this one. While they themselves may not be the loud, incoherent, Alcoholics of their faith, they certainly build, stock and tend the bars that serve them.
In terms of the current perception of the fear of science, in the mind of the general public, I would argue is not based on the madman or military potential for abuses but rather on the growing awareness of the immorality that is at the heart of science itself. Science to be effective and progressive must function and operate without morals and because of that science as paradigm, around which life, society and civilization can be organized, is unacceptable. The current fears are more grounded in its growing connections with another similarly immoral sphere of human activity, business (profit being the function factor). Eg: the patenting of genes, stem cell research, cloning, genetically modified plants and animals, etc, etc. So of course, as you correctly point out it is the double helix that presents the greatest threat to humanity and life as it exists especially as it now given a real life potential by the power of the computer and misapplication by global corporate business.
If for a moment, you take the view that Religion, Science, and Macro Economics are Symbolic enterprises in which we are trying to align our human sensual world of experience to a symbol system, god in religion, mathematics in science, and monetary value in economics, each of which is inhuman, unlivable, and cannot be experienced or described in human terms, then you can see the problem and the fear faced by humanity.
This was actually the basis of a speech I gave at Göteborgs Culture Center when I first came here in 95 on “Art, the Language and Paradigm of the Coming Millennium”. In which I argued that the three paradigms, around which western civilization has attempted to organize, religion, followed by science, followed by business, have all been found inadequate in human terms in providing a coherent morally acceptable human view and perspective of the world and a sustainable purpose for its continued civilization. That can only be acheived by Art.
I’ll leave it at that for now.
Art Who?
Art Carney or Artman I can't make up my mind.
John (S): Your obervations on the amorality of science landed square in the middle of a little talk I am to make Sunday morning in Fredericksburg. The following excerpt summarizes the theme of the talk (the subject being Spinoza's philosophy).
The unification of body and soul denies them fundamental separateness, and thus denies significantly separate roles for religion and science. Those things considered important and proper for religious man to think about, now become equally important and proper for scientific man to think about. As Spinoza might have said, “The order and connection of religious matters is the same as the order and connection of scientific matters.” In short, a man cannot truly exist who is religious but not scientific, nor a scientific man who is not religious. The scientist may not know he’s religious. The religious man may not know he’s scientific. And even when reminded of the inescapability of their dual nature, both may doubt that they are the other. But if Spinoza has got the straight of it, the truth of science constitutes a critically inseparable part of the religious man’s truth. What’s true of God is true of the world, what’s true of the world is true of God.
PS. You were absolutely right about the soltice celebration; it is as closely related to science as it is to religion. (How 'bout that?)
mouse-What’s true of God is true of the world, what’s true of the world is true of God. This statement is truth but only if we are positive of what God's truth is.We can't logically believe in a God that contradicts physical reality.
Einstein's God which so parallels along side with Spinoza's God,is implicated in the existence of the universe and its laws, but that God is utterly unconcerned with human belief and morality.
Thus Einstein's God is something like a cosmic force that has nothing whatever to do with the God of institutional religion.
John (A): Have to diagree a trifle, John. What's true of God and the world remians true even if we never learn of it. Perhaps the difference between what's true and what we think is true explains a part of the human condition.
I'm glad you mentioned the difference between Einstein's God (who was, he said, "the God of Spinoza") and the "God" spoken of in churches. That difference may overlap the difference I mentioned in the previous paragraph.
A lot of our confusion relates to the fact that the word "God" has been co-opted by the minions of superstition, and so completely integrated in the minds of most people with qualities that defy belief, we have a difficult time talking about God w/o running into disagreements over words.
Maybe if we keep this up long enough we may strip the word of any meaning other than the one Spinoza and Einstein gave it . . . but I do not expect to live that long.
Hej Mouse,
Thanks for catching me on amorality. That was word I was looking for, amoral, not immoral. Sometimes due to a lack of English input here I loose a word now and then. Although I wonder if in this case it was just a Freudian slip.
I would agree with Spinoza only in terms of the role of human beings in the issue. Science and Religion, as amoral absolutes, one based on mathematical proof and the other based on faith, are both unattainable in human sensual terms. I would argue, on a reality level or even a mental level a person cannot accept or identify completely with either without losing their soul and/or their connection with reality and humanity. Symbolically trying to rationalize and unify science and religion as some sort continuum or mirror images of each other leads one to the kind endless and continuous “chicken or the egg” “god as first cause”, schizophrenic type arguments, rationalizations and constructions we’ve seen here and in Spinoza.
This type of schizophrenic thought is most prevalent and essential as the foundational premises of Judaism, Christianity* and the Muslim religion. Since they are based on monotheistic god, that cannot be imaged or personalized without desecration by definition, they are forced to choose the “word” as god. With this choice we open the floodgates of the righteous verbal arguments of god’s intention or laws and strict adherence to commonly and locally accepted definitions.
Certain effects of this choice are laid out in an interesting book, “The Alphabet vs. the Goddess by Leonard Shlain also the author “Art and Physics Parallel Visions in Space Time and Light”. I highly recommend both books as they are original and thought provoking. One of the unfortunate contemporary effects of this totally abstracted symbolic thinking are religious wars of conversion. This doesn’t occur in natural religions, where people, nature and spirituality were in complete anthropomorphic relationships and all perceptions were accepted as validly observable. The spirit of the beaver are the attributes of the beaver and my name is “One who walks with the Beaver”. I can’t help myself, at this point I have to defer to the god and goddess, Ward and June, and “Leave it to Beaver”.
Another result has been the complete masculine appropriation of religious authority. Even to point of creating glaring inconsistencies unity for those who take the bible as literal.
JA: I believe the best way to argue against the bible and it’s mythologies as the literal word of god is not arguing about abstract first causes but pointing out if this is true, that can’t be true, inconsistencies within belief system.
For example: “god made man in his own image” an impossibility for a god that is a totally spiritual being encompassing the whole universe. For the story to be accurately consistent to all of it’s elements and for man to be ultimate creation, it would first have to have been a goddess or a feminine spiritual element. Why? The ultimate act of creation is to generate the exact opposite of one's being, not a copy. It is the total negation of self. So for a feminine spiritual entity the ultimate creation becomes a masculine and physical entity, Man. Our goddess being totally spiritual and feminine cannot interact or even relate with something that is a totally physical and masculine negation of her self. Therefore she must generate a second feminine physical being as an opposite of her creation to act as a surrogate, Woman. Man in his naïve innocence accepts the surrogate as the goddess, the woman as her own physical being cannot fulfill the goddess role and gives man the fruit of this physical knowledge of being and purpose. Man fall in love with the surrogate the Goddess in a fit of jealousy throws them both out of the garden. (To be continued).
Have a great day all.
John (S): The unity of God and Nature is a bit difficult to hold as an idea. The subject-object orientation that language (and apparent reality) forces on us makes it hard to see the world as a "one." The problem has been compounded by the religions that see God as an "other." "Thingness" also infuses pre-quantum science.
It's easy to see how the quandary of so-called "first cause" or "prime mover" was necessitated by our way of seeing, but when we accept (without grasping) the total oneness of whatever is, the "contradiction" slips away that all things have causes and God doesn't; God is not a thing.
I'll add the Shlain books to my reading list, but be advised, the list is already hundreds long. Nevertheless, I promise wholeheartedly to read all the books . . . and what better way top assure immortality than to make such a promise and stick to it?
You might add to your list Spinoza's Treatise on Theology and Politics ("TTP" to us disciples). It's far more accessible than his Ethics and does a fair job of clearing up the purpose and function of religions and holy books. The book -- written in 1670 or there abouts -- is credited by most observers as the foundation document for the higher criticism of the Bible that began in earnest in the late 19th century.
CE: You might, by a reading of the TTP, deepen your understanding of God and the Bible. It may discolor a few of your Christian beliefs, but I won't tell anyone if you skip over those parts.
Post a Comment
<< Home