"The heroic soul does not sell its justice and its nobleness. It does not ask to dine nicely, and to sleep warm. The essence of greatness is the perception that virtue is enough. Poverty is its ornament. It does not need plenty, and can very well abide its loss.
But that which takes my fancy most, in the heroic class, is the good-humor and hilarity they exhibit. It is a height to which common duty can very well attain, to suffer and to dare with solemnity. But these rare souls set opinion, success, and life, at so cheap a rate, that they will not soothe their enemies by petitions, or the show of sorrow, but wear their own habitual greatness."
Emerson's quote regarding the essence of greatness strikes a strong, resonating chord. And, it can be taken as a report on material posession or fortitude of the giving soul. However you relate, I feel that it's an immensely important concept. It's infinitely altrustic yet self-satisfying. If there is a gentle god, this embodies his lessons without myth or structure, and more so than anything that can be learned while under the umbrella of pious duty. Such duty and instruction invites the bending of any goodness around one's individual desires.
Can you imagine a community that abides by virtue first and foremost? Start from this bedrock and forget antiqued story-telling. Take away the crutch of religious ceremony and all of it's social context. Relieve the pressure that innately couples belief in an unknown and unlikely afterlife, and subscribe to an unflinching, unyielding push for the virtuous present. It will translate into greatness within your life, and what more can you control?
Do you think that a book of sensational anecdotes edited by the power-wielding men of the time has more value that an amiable spirit? Do you think a god would be so selfish as to think that universal virtue must come through the jaded teaching of a book or fellow man? It is no longer honorable to be naive. Greatness in life is not the sheepish following of mysticism...it is being virtuous without instruction to be so.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
From the Pious Mind: Justifying Religion's Role
In a recent publication on a TruthDig website, Chris Hedges claimed that Sam Harris is a racist who wants to initiate a nuclear attack on all predominantly Muslim countries. Anyone who has read Sam Harris knows that this claim is absurd. But, that is for Sam to rebut. In doing so, he provided a link to a debate with Chris Hedges.
The piece that I took from it, which I want to share for rhetorical purposes, stems from Sam Harris's opening statements in said debate. In regard to justifying religion's role in society, here is what he had to say. Suffice it to assume that non-believing groups/individuals will provide argument against all three(3) claims:
1. The pious will claim religious authenticity and truth-value.
2. The pious will claim religious utility, as a positive societal function.
3. The pious will claim that non-belief (atheism) is just as much a religion as any monotheistic or polytheistic sect.
I think it is important to think about this. I am going to leave any further commentary aside, because I want you to ponder these claims. If you are a believer, which resonates with you? If you are not a believer, which claim(s) do you think needs the most opposition?
The piece that I took from it, which I want to share for rhetorical purposes, stems from Sam Harris's opening statements in said debate. In regard to justifying religion's role in society, here is what he had to say. Suffice it to assume that non-believing groups/individuals will provide argument against all three(3) claims:
1. The pious will claim religious authenticity and truth-value.
2. The pious will claim religious utility, as a positive societal function.
3. The pious will claim that non-belief (atheism) is just as much a religion as any monotheistic or polytheistic sect.
I think it is important to think about this. I am going to leave any further commentary aside, because I want you to ponder these claims. If you are a believer, which resonates with you? If you are not a believer, which claim(s) do you think needs the most opposition?
Monday, May 16, 2011
The Romance of Reason
What does the word "reason" (in its noun-form) conjure for you? Does its factual connotation denounce or pronounce its value, for you? Does it present itself with a face of arrogance, or perhaps a discord with creative thought? Does it pop, or does it fizzle?
In conversations about the topic of reason, with those in favor of and opposed to secular thought, I often get the feeling that reason lacks romantic appeal. For clarity, I am suggesting that romantic appeal is the sentimental capsule for love, hope, kindness, and empathy. That being said, its as if reason, or a belief in concepts that evidentially align with fact, are worse for the wear because they protect reality, rather than foster mysticism.
Upon thinking about this, my natural instinct said to form a case against the romanticism of belief in unreasonable and antiquated concepts. But, like in any debate, the more time one spends dogging on the opposition, the more likely the opposition is to close their mind and put up a barrier. So, I'm going to fight that instinct and spend your valuable Internet-time bolstering a case for the romance of reasonable thought. Herein:
Creativity is a rich, often therapeutic way of seeing and thinking about existence, and beyond. Its a medium of thought that allows the mind to either break from the restraints of our linear life path, or at the very least, loosen them a bit. Creativity often translates into art of many kinds. Its safe to say that we all find value in the art of language, canvas, invention, sculpture, sustenance, etc. Even when intangible and metaphorical, creativity can bond individuals because its a forum for subjective thought. Fact is not required; fiction is as welcome as any other characteristic.
Creativity can translate to fact, especially when it comes to invention. It does not have to remain in dysfunction with fact. Before planes became the norm, the idea of flying like a bird was a radical idea reserved for dreamers. As we all know, it took creative, innovative minds to discern that flight is possible, and can be factually diagnosed. This can be said for a number of staples in our life today, from unlikely food combinations to space exploration.
However, the inverse of its ability to translate into something factual is its ability to remain fanatical. Creativity more commonly translates to fiction. I will not give examples or go into detail, because we can all reference stories, books, and tall-tales that exemplify creative genius, but have no home on the plane of fact.
We harbor adoration for this type of creativity. It may be in the form of a child's imagination. We do not fault a 6-yr old child for thinking that whales could flap their tail and fly out of the water into the sky. In fact, we find it cute! It demonstrates a richness of the mind, and a stage in learning. Creativity can be beautiful, even when naive. It cultivates a random, spontaneous thought and molds it to the taste of the thinker. For those in my age range, it can turn ordinary turtles into pizza-loving crime fighters, with a giant rat sensei. That's entertaining!
Drawing you back to my original point, when advocating reason as it relates to pious or secular topics, the romantic appeal of fictional creativity is at play. Its romantic to think that one has a relationship with an unknown, unspoken deity and is both nothing and everything, simultaneously. Its romantic to think that a spared life in a brutal car accident is an act of God. Its romantic to believe that we have an individual purpose on this planet, one that nobody can take away from us. This is fictionally creative because we have no evidence to suggest that any of this is true.
Reason becomes flat and unappealing. When arguing that the pious individual is simply talking to himself, that the spared life is nothing more than a complex physics equation, or that purpose on this planet is to reproduce like all other living species, those speaking on the behalf of reason look like a Debbie Downers. I can see how this is the case, because we are trained from our youth to be creative and romantic. Art and music are staples in most school curriculum, and excelling in these fields brings about local, if not national honor.
For this reason, I posed the question about how the word "reason" resonates with you. If it boxes you into a mindset of textbooks and science tests, take this opportunity to adopt a new likeness:
Reason is one of the most rich and personal concepts that we are fortunate to experience. It blends the past, present, and future of our experience and emotions. It is dynamic and honest. As individuals, do we not seek honesty before deception? Is it not more appealing to know what IS, rather than what ISN'T likely? Factual creativity is more useful in our adult world because ideas turn into inventions, such as airplanes.
This is not to say that fictional creativity is useless. It is not. Its a catalyst for our youth. But, as our concept of reason develops with age, it is criminal not to apply it. It is criminal to allow child-like creativity to guide our understanding of this life. As children, we were spurred towards creativity because of its catalytic and developmental value. However, as adults, we would be better to apply this creativity to music and art, and separate it from our existential opinions. Ignorance towards reason as it relates to religious thought is an allowance for fiction...the same fiction the guides our youth. Ask yourself: as much as you may love your child, would you allow him or her to repair your car, operate on your spouse, or explain the laws of physics?
Now, if a child was diagnosed a genius of the functional sort, would you allow a him or her to conduct any of these activities? What separates a genius from his or her peers? ...the ability to reason at an age when reason has not generally developed. The ability to learn, more quickly, how reason dictates our being is a prime characteristic of a child-genius.
The indisputable answers do not always lie in reason, but the likelihood does. The absolute truth is not available to any of us, but it leans towards reason. Reason is an ally. Reason does not yearn to deceive you. Reason is clear and sunny in a sky where religious manifestations cloud. Reason offers free thought in an existence that perpetuates irrationality through child-like religious ideas. While many succumb to this romance of the religious imagination, reason awaits your better judgement.
In conversations about the topic of reason, with those in favor of and opposed to secular thought, I often get the feeling that reason lacks romantic appeal. For clarity, I am suggesting that romantic appeal is the sentimental capsule for love, hope, kindness, and empathy. That being said, its as if reason, or a belief in concepts that evidentially align with fact, are worse for the wear because they protect reality, rather than foster mysticism.
Upon thinking about this, my natural instinct said to form a case against the romanticism of belief in unreasonable and antiquated concepts. But, like in any debate, the more time one spends dogging on the opposition, the more likely the opposition is to close their mind and put up a barrier. So, I'm going to fight that instinct and spend your valuable Internet-time bolstering a case for the romance of reasonable thought. Herein:
Creativity is a rich, often therapeutic way of seeing and thinking about existence, and beyond. Its a medium of thought that allows the mind to either break from the restraints of our linear life path, or at the very least, loosen them a bit. Creativity often translates into art of many kinds. Its safe to say that we all find value in the art of language, canvas, invention, sculpture, sustenance, etc. Even when intangible and metaphorical, creativity can bond individuals because its a forum for subjective thought. Fact is not required; fiction is as welcome as any other characteristic.
Creativity can translate to fact, especially when it comes to invention. It does not have to remain in dysfunction with fact. Before planes became the norm, the idea of flying like a bird was a radical idea reserved for dreamers. As we all know, it took creative, innovative minds to discern that flight is possible, and can be factually diagnosed. This can be said for a number of staples in our life today, from unlikely food combinations to space exploration.
However, the inverse of its ability to translate into something factual is its ability to remain fanatical. Creativity more commonly translates to fiction. I will not give examples or go into detail, because we can all reference stories, books, and tall-tales that exemplify creative genius, but have no home on the plane of fact.
We harbor adoration for this type of creativity. It may be in the form of a child's imagination. We do not fault a 6-yr old child for thinking that whales could flap their tail and fly out of the water into the sky. In fact, we find it cute! It demonstrates a richness of the mind, and a stage in learning. Creativity can be beautiful, even when naive. It cultivates a random, spontaneous thought and molds it to the taste of the thinker. For those in my age range, it can turn ordinary turtles into pizza-loving crime fighters, with a giant rat sensei. That's entertaining!
Drawing you back to my original point, when advocating reason as it relates to pious or secular topics, the romantic appeal of fictional creativity is at play. Its romantic to think that one has a relationship with an unknown, unspoken deity and is both nothing and everything, simultaneously. Its romantic to think that a spared life in a brutal car accident is an act of God. Its romantic to believe that we have an individual purpose on this planet, one that nobody can take away from us. This is fictionally creative because we have no evidence to suggest that any of this is true.
Reason becomes flat and unappealing. When arguing that the pious individual is simply talking to himself, that the spared life is nothing more than a complex physics equation, or that purpose on this planet is to reproduce like all other living species, those speaking on the behalf of reason look like a Debbie Downers. I can see how this is the case, because we are trained from our youth to be creative and romantic. Art and music are staples in most school curriculum, and excelling in these fields brings about local, if not national honor.
For this reason, I posed the question about how the word "reason" resonates with you. If it boxes you into a mindset of textbooks and science tests, take this opportunity to adopt a new likeness:
Reason is one of the most rich and personal concepts that we are fortunate to experience. It blends the past, present, and future of our experience and emotions. It is dynamic and honest. As individuals, do we not seek honesty before deception? Is it not more appealing to know what IS, rather than what ISN'T likely? Factual creativity is more useful in our adult world because ideas turn into inventions, such as airplanes.
This is not to say that fictional creativity is useless. It is not. Its a catalyst for our youth. But, as our concept of reason develops with age, it is criminal not to apply it. It is criminal to allow child-like creativity to guide our understanding of this life. As children, we were spurred towards creativity because of its catalytic and developmental value. However, as adults, we would be better to apply this creativity to music and art, and separate it from our existential opinions. Ignorance towards reason as it relates to religious thought is an allowance for fiction...the same fiction the guides our youth. Ask yourself: as much as you may love your child, would you allow him or her to repair your car, operate on your spouse, or explain the laws of physics?
Now, if a child was diagnosed a genius of the functional sort, would you allow a him or her to conduct any of these activities? What separates a genius from his or her peers? ...the ability to reason at an age when reason has not generally developed. The ability to learn, more quickly, how reason dictates our being is a prime characteristic of a child-genius.
The indisputable answers do not always lie in reason, but the likelihood does. The absolute truth is not available to any of us, but it leans towards reason. Reason is an ally. Reason does not yearn to deceive you. Reason is clear and sunny in a sky where religious manifestations cloud. Reason offers free thought in an existence that perpetuates irrationality through child-like religious ideas. While many succumb to this romance of the religious imagination, reason awaits your better judgement.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
A Rolling Rant...
I abhor Rolling Stone magazine in this musical era. The magazine has few rock musicians on the cover (undertones about the lack of presence of "rock stars" in today's music), and now dotes on general celebrity figures…politicians, movie stars, etc.
They have an article per magazine that is solely charged by the left-wing propaganda, and this comes across as equally guilty as Fox News in skewing facts around their agenda (which is a huge bull's eye for them)
The advertisements are extensive, and to top this hate-sundae with a bitter-cherry, they took away the vintage, thin paper material and over-sized dimensions that made it stand-out when I was a younger lad. I used to have cut-outs of rock stars and rap moguls throughout my room, locker, and folders, back in high school.
But, that being said, I still receive it and read it, depending on the topic. The most recent RS has Adele on the front, whom I understand is fantastic. I am not familiar with her music, but I’ll have to dig in a bit, as I understand that she incorporates a lot of piano. At this point in my musical-taste-progression (which is ever-subject to change and mood), it goes 1. Piano, 2. Harmonica, 3. Guitar.
Anyway…RS is tough for me to appreciate, but not impossible.
This issue has an interview with Bill Maher. OK, yes...I am VERY biased in his direction, so sift thru my elation as you see fit. The article was great. He generates in me vigor to be more pronounced in my views, and rely more consistently on what I believe to be all-too-often a concept loss in translation: simplicity. Where common-sense and comedic wit cross, you will find Bill Maher. Some may not enjoy his aggressively jaded views, but they are jaded on conceptual simplicity, which does not get its fair shake in today's world.
If you get time, read it...its a 5-minute read. I laughed aloud for portions of it. For instance, he was asked about his support towards legalizing pot, and says that its partially a personal benefit to his life, and partially "a great way to save a metric fuckton of money." I want a metric fuckton of savings…sounds beneficial to mine and the lives of many Americans.
Now that I think of it, RS has been on a roll, putting Ricky Gervais in the previous issue, with his unforgiving satire and distaste for effusive religious motivation (better said, he hates everything about the religiously fervent).
I'll leave this rant with a few old RS covers that evoke better times in RS history, and musical history alike.
They have an article per magazine that is solely charged by the left-wing propaganda, and this comes across as equally guilty as Fox News in skewing facts around their agenda (which is a huge bull's eye for them)
The advertisements are extensive, and to top this hate-sundae with a bitter-cherry, they took away the vintage, thin paper material and over-sized dimensions that made it stand-out when I was a younger lad. I used to have cut-outs of rock stars and rap moguls throughout my room, locker, and folders, back in high school.
But, that being said, I still receive it and read it, depending on the topic. The most recent RS has Adele on the front, whom I understand is fantastic. I am not familiar with her music, but I’ll have to dig in a bit, as I understand that she incorporates a lot of piano. At this point in my musical-taste-progression (which is ever-subject to change and mood), it goes 1. Piano, 2. Harmonica, 3. Guitar.
Anyway…RS is tough for me to appreciate, but not impossible.
This issue has an interview with Bill Maher. OK, yes...I am VERY biased in his direction, so sift thru my elation as you see fit. The article was great. He generates in me vigor to be more pronounced in my views, and rely more consistently on what I believe to be all-too-often a concept loss in translation: simplicity. Where common-sense and comedic wit cross, you will find Bill Maher. Some may not enjoy his aggressively jaded views, but they are jaded on conceptual simplicity, which does not get its fair shake in today's world.
If you get time, read it...its a 5-minute read. I laughed aloud for portions of it. For instance, he was asked about his support towards legalizing pot, and says that its partially a personal benefit to his life, and partially "a great way to save a metric fuckton of money." I want a metric fuckton of savings…sounds beneficial to mine and the lives of many Americans.
Now that I think of it, RS has been on a roll, putting Ricky Gervais in the previous issue, with his unforgiving satire and distaste for effusive religious motivation (better said, he hates everything about the religiously fervent).
I'll leave this rant with a few old RS covers that evoke better times in RS history, and musical history alike.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Pragmatism Lost
Ted Williams, the "Golden Voice," has made a gluttony of appearances in various media outlets in 2011. Most recently, he was on The Today Show, answering viewer emails about his career path, family life, future plans, and his struggle with addiction. Formally on the streets of Columbus, OH, he has now been through addiction treatment and continues to do voice-over work for commercials and other media circles. This new found sobriety and lease on life has been a public inspiration for others who have found themselves stuck in the mud of self-loathing.When asked about the key to actuating his new exhilaration, his response was simple: prayer.
Before reading this blog piece, most of you are aware of my views on prayer. If not, you can read my previous blogs and understand the springboards from which I bound. Knowledge of my stance assumed, I am asking for your consideration on the relationship between an addict's daily plight and Ted's key to remission: prayer.
We have all seen the reality shows that follow the life of addicts, celebrity and otherwise. According to doctors, addiction specialists, and addicts themselves, the urge to relapse never goes away. For some, it does not even diminish. In order to promote a remission and maintain hope for a healthy life, a daily struggle with addiction is the hand that one has been dealt. One must avoid associating with enablers and avoid contact with addicting habits of all kinds (alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex, etc.).
This is where prayer comes into play. Prayer is both a spontaneous and regimented act that allows you to separate from the reality of your being at the best and worst of times. When you are feeling susceptible to relapse, you pray for holy support. When you are succeeding with your daily goals and avoiding temptation, you pray in thanks. Either way, the doomed state of incessant conflict that addict specialists and doctors alike have drawn out for you is still what constitutes your being. It is still waiting for you.
For addicts, prayer is used to hide from the reality of your chemical being, because it disassociates your body from your soul. In this capacity, prayer has value. The body of the addict is weak, and prayer is the crutch that keeps it up. Near scientific-consensus says that an addict is prone towards chemical and psychological addiction no matter what he or she does to avoid it. The only lessening medicine is the concept of communicating with a body and soul that is NOT inflicted with this illness.
Let me make this abundantly clear: I see value in prayer when it functions as a crutch for the chemically weak. It breeds hope, and gains momentum with time.
Let me make THIS abundantly clear: Prayer's positive effects on the weak do not support its value within the reality of existence. An atheist can pray, without contradiction, if he or she feels that it is a force that separates the weaker body from the stronger soul. Like a child's imaginary friend, creating a support network is a known function of the mind.
By means of the Old Testament, many fundamentalist trains of thought on religion, and to an extent Milton's Paradise Lost, prayer is the weapon by which the Godly stave off The Devil. Within an addict's reality, this makes sense. An addict can manifest an epic if it means that he betters his existence as a result. In no way, however, does this support the need, truth-value, logic, or larger-scoping benefit of prayer, or religious piety.
Those that have an addictive nature are also prone towards a sensationalist and imaginative one! Addictive personalities do not only suffer from a raging desire for substance or action, they suffer from holistic instability. They suffer from the conceptualization that the reality of their actions can be separated from the reality of their consequences (immediate harm to themselves or others, disease, financial loss, etc.). In other words, they are good at being addicts, and good at justifying it. They have an imagination that supports their habits, both in the realm of addiction and their grasp on reality.
In this regard, Ted and Charlie Sheen have something inversely in common: They both let addiction drive their reality. The inversion is that they are driving in different directions. But the operative vehicle for both is the imagination. Pragmatic in their day-to-day cycling, the addict forms reality around a step-by-step program (be it in remission or relapse). Each individual's program separates him from the reality of his being. That is my primary point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)