I don't know if this is necessarily Meta in that sense, perhaps more metaphor, but I've thought, ever since reading some Jung, about how to interpret the Bible metaphorically. As many of you know, I grew up in a fundy church (Assembly of God, the same as Johnny boy Ashcroft and Elvis muthafuckin' Presley). So, everything was literal. But as I realized I didn't believe in that deity/belief-system, I was able to see the Bible in a different context. I wrote a thing a long time ago about "the fall" being symbolic of our fall from childhood innocence into adulthood and the onset of sexual awareness.

I also was aware of the metaphor of our body as "the Temple of the Holy Ghost"... This was one thing that we were taught. We should respect our bodies as that which holds the spirit of God. How very un-gnostic... Now, when I moved into pantheism, I could see that metaphor for the divinity within all life... The Prana, if you will... The universal force of motion, life, vitality. Not necessarily in it's biological sense, though, that too. I also recalled the Book of Revelation has a point where the Anti-Christ enters the temple and declares himself God. I realized that perhaps one could interpret that not in a literal way (OMG, the Jews are gonna build a new temple and that means we need to destroy al-Aqsa and then the antichrist will really go in there, and look out ARMAGEDDON!!!!), but rather, what is the anti-Christ and what happens if it enters the temple? If YOU are the temple, what do you need to guard against.

Again, this is quite elementary to pretty much any non-fundy, but it's still something I want to do sometime. Go back and read parts of the Bible in it's proper allegorical context (and maybe not so proper... that is... recontextualize it in my terms).

Anyways, yeah. And god... and the bible... and all that...

(no subject)

Jan. 15th, 2006 03:17 pm
symbioidlj: (amish)
Recently, in this thread I noticed that I had an opportunity to go a bit into my thoughts concerning what I'd consider the roots of my spiritual philosophy.  Or something like that...

Essentially, the issue is that of the individual vs the collective.  Or at least, that is what it seems to be at first, but one can abstract it out even further.  And that's what I do.

[livejournal.com profile] zboson notes that it's absurd to criticize cultural assimilation, at least, if it's done in the name of unity.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  The cultural differences are essentially... well, here, let me pull the quote:


"Well, yes and no. While I believe cultural heritage can be important to people emotionally, most people know that ultimately I don't care much for what Vonnegut called "granfalloons" - artificial and arbitrary methods of classifying ourselves as "same" or "different" from others. Countries are a very good example of granfalloonery, so I tend to laugh at those who get very attached to the idea of being from a certain country. The whole idea seems ludicrious to me. I realize that others take it seriously, though - so seriously they kill each other over it."


And I wholeheartedly agree with this, but maybe not as much as I once did... 

When I asked "So cultural assimilation is a good thing?", [livejournal.com profile] cuplan replied:

Actually, assimilation of culture is the natural state of affairs. The idea of cultural distinctiveness is basically performative stereotype that, by and large, is inexorably tied to nationalism. Distictiveness is artificial and ideological in nature.

Which, I think is what is hinted at in [livejournal.com profile] zboson's reply.  But I believe this goes deeper, and is not so much a mere "artificial" and most certainly not "ideological" in nature.  In fact, here's where I bring in my philosophy.

Differentiation arises primarily from one thing not being another.  This is the very root, and it starts with "Being".  Being is the root of that which is not.  In other words it's opposite:  Not Being.  Being, we can represent as 1, and Not Being (or No Thing/nothing) as 0.

This is the source of differentiation.  Symbolically, these two things represent the dyad of taoism.  Yin and Yang.  Reality arises not from one or the other, but the interplay between 0 and 1, yin and yang.  The reality is the line of flow between the two.  In this case, cultural assimilation is the force of evolution, playing between these two.  This culture IS this, and it is NOT that.  But eventually this culture takes some of that.  Reality, in this sense, is infinite, in the same sense that once can create an infinitely arbitrary division between 0 and 1.  In this sense, Zero, represents void, or pure nothing, and One represents infinite everything.

1 is the linear, it is western, it is male, phallic and aggressive.  It is yang.  0 is cyclical, it is eastern, it is female, yonic and passive.

Interestingly, it is the Zero which is the unificative force, and it is the One which is divisive.  That is because the One seeks to embrace itself as One.  It stands apart with it's expression of itself.  Zero, on the other hand, has no meaning apart from one.  Zero embraces One... Zero embraces all, and encompasses all within itself.  Zero, is the unificative process.  When everything is assimilated, there is no identity, no-One to stand out.

The mental processes that feed these two things are at the very root of our nature as biological creatures, and this is where I disagree with [livejournal.com profile] cuplan, because distinctiveness, on the pure essential level of "being" is natural and material.  It is the very foundation of what I consider the "biological imperative" and that is natural selection... Genetic survival of the individual set of genes and it's variants through progeny.  Now, what I think he means to say is that certain arbitrary divisions are artificial, and in this sense, it's true.  Culture is an epigenetic force.  Why I mean is that it changes the apperance of an entity, without changing it's heritable foundations (phenotype is not altered by genotype)...  When we shed much of our physical traits and subsumed clothing, we created a phenotype that is not inherited, but created by mind), Fashion...  Mating behaviors are no longer big poofy tails, but big poofy hair, and that evolved to something else in fashion.  It's an adaptive behavior.  And these are arbitrary divisions that we, as a society, create.  Am am this (One), and you are not (Zero)...

We maintain an identity through cultural associations, and these cultural associations are fluid, and so, in this sense I can agree with both [livejournal.com profile] boson and [livejournal.com profile] cuplan, however, on a much more fundamental level, I disagree, because I do believe that ultimately, there is a process of differentiation which has this biological imperative as it's root.

When I talk about the "mental processes" I am referring to what I call the roots of two very different world views:  The scientific and the religious.  These two things are at very real odds, if one takes an etymological approach to the very words themselves.

1. Science: comes from the root (at least, through one derivation of the word) "Scire" which means to separate or cut. (also, apparently,the root of our word "scissors")
 
see:
http://www.infofocalpoint.com/science.html
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/brownbag0203/conybeare.html

2.  Religion: arises through the latin term religare, re-ligare, meaning to tie or bind.  which interestingly is what the term Yoga means (and by extension Yoke, as in a cattle-yoke).

see:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion

The scientific mind or process is one of division.  It is that which separates, it is a forward looking endeavour of knowledge...  This begins with our first chipping of flint to start fire, and ends as of now, with us smashing atoms together to create a different kind of fire... 

The religious mind, however, is a unificatory one.  It seeks to bind together.  Of course, in the meaning of the term, it is to bind oneself to ones' chosen deity, which is also binding oneself, ultimately, to a set of culture.

So the two tendencies of aggregation and separation, on a cultural and mental level, at least, arise from these two distinctive patterns of behavior.  Being that we live in a messy world, the world that exists between the Zero and One, and we have no pure duality, each of these takes on the traits of the other.

Science seeks an explanation that unifies all answers, all the forces of nature (electro-weak, gravity, strong)...  It does this through the process of division.  Religion, seeking to unite itself to something, creates an enemy, a division between "Our God", and that which is not our god.  Seeking to bind and unify, they create a divisive atmosphere which leads to all kinds of holy wars.  So the irony is that the mindset which purposefully seeks division in order to understand reality, is ultimately searching for unity, and the process which seeks unification under a rule, does so by the process of differentiation.  And the two are not necessarily exclusive in this regards.

The energetic power of 1 inscribes itself upon the matter/body of the zero.

This is where the messy idea of assimilation comes in.  If one looks at a dominator culture, it is one that assimilates and co-opts differentiating trends in order to monolithically force subcultures into it's own paradigm.  The question becomes one of "what is a dominator culture"?  Why is it bad for this to occur?  Why do people fight it?  This, of course, is something for another time, as this post is long enough as it is.

Please note that this is just a touch on a much larger issue, and I'm only hinting at certain aspects of my larger view.

And you WILL find contradictions, because that's sort of the whole point... There are no clear, clean categories, things blend and melt into each other, and hence, one cannot simply state "This is fact" and "this is false" because you will find some of each in everything.  This is how evolution occurs, between competing, assimilating processes...  This is but one more arbitrary division seeking to explain and understand the process of knowledge and social processes.  And it, too, has appropriated that which has come before it... Eastern and Western.  So perhaps I am a hypocrite to denounce cultural appropriation.  It is my desire to stand out as One, when another takes that which differentiates me upon itself, that I get offended.  This is due to my Western thought process, my individualist/ego base.

---
for future reference:
Culture, Genes, Mind and Evolution (by Charles Lumsden and EO Wilson)
"Father Daniel who is accused of orchestrating the crime is said to be unrepentant.

"God has performed a miracle for her, finally Irina is delivered from evil," AFP quoted the priest as saying."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4107524.stm

(no subject)

Jun. 10th, 2005 01:29 am
symbioidlj: (Default)
interesting:(wikipedia, candomble article)

"...in recent years the lessening of religious and racial prejudices has given rise a "fundamentalist" movement in Candomblé, that rejects the Christian elements and seeks to recreate a "pure" cult based exclusively on African elements."
For those who are unaware, Professor Dawkins is the author of "The Selfish Gene" which is the book that coined the word "memes" He's a staunch evolutionist, and great apologist for it. This is a good read on the bullshit that creationists utilize to press their agenda. I Recommend it for more wonderful insight...

"The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-196-1619264,00.html

(no subject)

May. 28th, 2005 10:45 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
Have you ever been awakened early in the morning by a Jehovah’s Witness?
Maybe you’ve been accosted by a crazy street preacher with a megaphone?
You turn on your TV, and there’s Tammy Bakker, Jerry Falwell, that
Reverend Scott guy who never sleeps. Has it ever dawned on you that heaven
might be a very annoying place? 

- Rick Reynolds, Only the Truth is Funny

(no subject)

May. 28th, 2005 10:39 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
Primates often have trouble imagining a universe not run by an angry alpha
male.
- Source unknown

(no subject)

May. 28th, 2005 10:29 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
Jesus "loves the little children" in the same way *Susan Smith in 1995 loved her two kids that she drowned.

-- jcnot4me.com

(no subject)

May. 25th, 2005 01:13 am
symbioidlj: (Default)
"Religion in the Toltec Empire was dominated by two major deities. The first, Quetzalcoatl, is shown as a plumed serpent. This deity of learning, culture, philosophy, fertility, holiness and gentility was absorbed from earlier cultures in the area. His rival was Tezcatlipoca, the smoked mirror, known for his warlike nature and tyranny."

<a href="http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/latinamerica/meso/cultures/toltec.html">mnsu.edu</a>



This makes me think of the verse in the Bible:

"Though now we see through a glass darkly, yet then we shall see face to face." 

I really had no fucking clue what that meant until I read Philip K. Dick's novel A Scanner Darkly.  I didn't interpret glass as looking glass/mirror, but as a cloudy frosted glass that we see through, like a window pane distorting our view of the truth.

But as a mirror, it really relates to my philosophy of inversion that I think shows itself in sacred literature throughout the ages.  I say "my" not in a literal sense, but as more generalized "I also agree with this train of thought."

The truth, represented by Quetzalcoatl (who you'll find, if you do the research, has a strong resemblence to the Christian mythos...) anyways, a beautiful plume, like the Logos, or Word projecting itself in the mirror, it's opposite/antithesis, to be distorted, by illusion, by Maya.

(no subject)

May. 16th, 2005 04:25 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
then again, here's a (not so) nice point the poster of previous article said:

"Now we know that the anti-gay and religious fundamentalist groups in this country are not to be bothered by facts and science and research. They're not to let reality get in the way of their blind bigotry and abject hatred. Nothing will ever convince them that homosexuals aren't recruited, brainwashed and trained by the gay mafia so that they can attack family values and rape their children in public schools while destroying Christianity. These people are not rational, so dealing with them rationally is pointless."

(no subject)

Apr. 30th, 2005 03:05 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
According to the nonprofit Bible Literacy Project, 98 percent of the country's "best" high school English teachers said students need to know about the Bible to fully understand numerous religious references in Western literature.

"Leading English teachers reported students without Bible knowledge take more time to teach," said Marie Wachlin, the report's author. She called the Bible "the most important single source of all our literature."

The complete works of Shakespeare have more than 1,300 biblical references, says the report, released Tuesday (April 26). "Call me Ishmael," the introductory line of Herman Melville's nautical tale Moby Dick, according to the report, is lost on most students who do not know Ishmael was a famous castaway in the Bible.

The Fairfax, Va.-based Bible Literacy Project is dedicated to research and public education on the academic study of the Bible in public and private schools. In September 2005, it will launch a new textbook for academic study of the Bible in public schools that is being billed as the first of its kind in nearly 30 years. The textbook will aim to respect the views of major faith groups, while endorsing none, organizers say.


...


"We believe this research will show the need to include more study of the Bible as literature ... ," said John Templeton, Jr., president of the foundation that funded the report, "and that this will open the door to more freedom to discuss all kinds of ideas in the classroom."

--------------------------------------

Is that so, John Templeton, Jr? Well, I happened to look your name up on google. Don't take it personally, it's just that when someone is pushing getting Bibles in classrooms, I tend to think they may have an agenda.

Now, I know you said you're aiming to respect the views of major faith groups (Catholic/Protestant??? or do you mean, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, Islam, Judaism as well?) So, I did this search, see, and found your name as the National Chairman of National Bible Week.

In that context, you ended up saying "The Bible is God’s gift to us, His children, as an everlasting means of affirming truth. It is teacher and encourager, an expression of purpose for our very being, and a voice of love."

Now, I know you mean well and all. But something tells me that this is just one more insidious move to push religion on us. If this move to get a bible study program came from a secular foundation with a proven track record of non-doctrinaire actions, I may put a little more faith in it (no pun intended). But as it is, please forgive me if I distrust you, due to your agenda. I still wouldn't appreciate a Bible textbook from a secular institute without appreciation of all other religions, even if it's not "hostile" or doesn't support "one religion over another" as you claim this will do, it still lacks mention and focus of these other groups.

(no subject)

Apr. 21st, 2005 02:30 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
Hunab Ku - Mayan "God of gods"

(no subject)

Apr. 20th, 2005 01:42 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
"This God fella must really be a pussy, it seems it's everybodies job to stick up for him."

User substrate posted that on MeFi.  that's good.

(no subject)

Apr. 19th, 2005 11:19 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
from a reply I wrote on a friends post:

"Let us fall to the security of a universal truth that never changes."

---

In reference to their need for comfort in an undying truth as opposed to a living science that can change and adapt.  They need the dead, unyielding corpse of so called immutable Truth (with a capital T) to recline their souls upon, just like spiritual Ed Geins.

I choose to dwell among sprites and muses.  Amongst trees and gardens, of pleasures divine, the earth swelling with delight, and the glorious smells of the present life that's given to me.  NOT some wretched eternal thing called heaven where I've got to sit my ass down all day bowing down all the fucking time praising God just so this sadistic fuck can feed his ego.

Give me Lucifer, the light-bringer, the one who shall give knowledge and illuminate darkness.  Give me Reason, true Logos, true Word, not some false dead scripture and dogma.  The world itself is the word of god, and we are all actors in it.  We all dance, and sing, and cry and hurt, and love and hate and this is part of life.

Give me the true light of the Sun, Solar power that drives and gives all beings their energy, like the Holy Spirit itself, impregnating the womb of Mother Earth with motion.  We are the word made flesh.  We are the code of DNA incarnate.

This is part of my belief.  I choose to let the earth reveal herself to me in her own way and time.  I do not need "revealed" scripture.  It is the cause of so much misery throughout the world and it feeds the leeches with evergrowing wealth.

It does not have to be like this.  Religions exists for a need.  There is a psychological purpose for it.  But there are those who are masters at manipulating this need, and in the process of doing so, proceed to gain wealth and power.  Sure there are some good things that religion does, it would be absurd of me to say there was absolutely nothing of value in religion.  But it's damn near close in my opinion.

And by religion, I mean, more than anything, Dogma.  And this goes for Scientific Dogma as well.  I am one who believes that there are fanatic scientists as well as fanatic xians (sorry, Brent, I know you hate when I spell "christians" like that.)

(no subject)

Mar. 21st, 2005 01:20 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
one more example of the absurdity of copyright laws.  i hope this gets tossed.

get this, some asshole "guru" has "copyrighted" 26 asanas(yoga poses), which are actually part of the historical yoga, and he's suing people who are teaching these postures under copyright law.  Claiming they need to pay a license fee and go through training, and if they teach it outside his school, they need to pay franchise fees as well.

how utterly fucking ridiculous, and how can people not see a charlatan like this for what he is.  same for that "qabalah" dipshit that madonna is all into.  wtf??? come on people.

materialism

Jan. 18th, 2005 12:46 pm
symbioidlj: (Default)
philosophical materialism vs religious paternalism. already i've discussed patri vs matri, matri: root of matrix, maternal and matter.

the religious hate materialism, that which declares this "here and now" to be the supreme true reality, that which is perceived as it is, with no "other" to move it.

They hate it. I just find it interesting: Communism is a materialist philosophy(as is Atheism), etc... the linguistic root is again reflective of the hatred of the mother in these fuckers eyes...

Profile

symbioidlj: (Default)
symbioidlj

November 2015

S M T W T F S
1 234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 24th, 2017 10:36 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios