European/Christian Genocides in the New World

I don't in any way deny that many Europeans were guilty of the worst sort of genocidal excesses, nor that those who call themselves Christians were often leading the charge and handing out the rifles. What I always objected to was how the anthropology sub-culture I was a part of failed to see their own ethnocentrism in painting millions of individuals with such broad strokes. After all, it can't be denied that millions of Christians and/or Europeans also fought against those excesses and condemned them from the pulpit and the papers. Nor can it be denied that there were many Americans-of-less-recent-Asian-descent (indigenous peoples) who engaged in similar behaviors.


My question to my professors who were atheists or naturalists was always, "How can you say that anyone was right or wrong? Whether they be Aztecs or Aryans? How can one say that killing off, by bullet or blight, anyone for whom they didn't care was bad? A strict naturalist/evolutionist can only say that one survived and the other didn't. There is no right or wrong, no good or bad, no moral meter stick by which to measure such things. Morality must come from outside the system or it is still a part of the system and subject to the same random processes that allowed life in the first place, at least according to the naturalist's ideology/faith.


Undoubtedly, the Church, all over the world, has made a practice of building cathedrals and shrines on top of the temples and sacred sites of those they followed. In fact, I read a really interesting letter once from a cardinal (I believe) in Mexico back to the authorities in Rome complaining that their strategy had backfired on no less a site than the Cathedral of the Virgin of Guadalupe (I'm working from memory here, so cut me some slack on the details). Apparently the hill on which the Virgin appeared had been the holy hill of an Aztec goddess, and after the cathedral was built on that site, the priests were horrified to find their new converts praying to the Virgin and calling her by the name of the goddess. In fact, the pictures you see of the Virgen de Guadalupe, standing over the stars and crescent moon and dressed in black, are direct correlates to symbols used in the worship of the Aztec goddess.

Some claim that the Incas and other indigenous American civilizations didn't force religious ideology on their conquered peoples, only political. But how do we know, and what's the difference?

I'm not being a smartass. I'm really wondering. How do we know what the Inca's forced on their conquered peoples as far as religious ideas? Is there archaeological evidence (or even historical) that might answer that question? Besides, politics were based in religion, so wouldn't a change in political ideology imply a change in religious ideology? The only reason that the practice of taking the conquered peoples' gods captive, rather than wiping those populations out with warfare, seems more civil to us is because we don't believe in those gods. To us, they are stone statues and quaint caricatures of the natural forces, but to the conquered peoples they may have been worth more to them than their own lives.

Archaeologists and Religious Artifacts

It's often seemed to me that archaeologists tend to interpret any decorative and/or otherwise unexplainable item (from buildings to bowls) as having a religious purpose. In 10,000 years they will probably refer to us as the "Mouse Worshippers" because of all the Mickey Mouse artifacts. On second thought, maybe that's not so far off.

I recently came across a nice quote by Ian Tattersall which illustrated the tendency. He was showing an Acheulean point (a stone arrowhead) to an interested journalist; a point that weighed roughly 25 pounds and would have been unwieldy for even two users. Tattersall noted that it's difficult to imagine what such a monstrosity could have been used for and must have had "some symbolic significance."

I can think of lot's of possible uses for such an implement that have nothing to do with symbolism, however, they rely every bit as much on guesswork as does Tattersall's statement. A
"symbolic significance" for it's creation is so much more interesting, however, than "just for the hell of it." What famous ethnologist was it that noted the high correlation between risky undertakings and the tendency to seek magico-religious assistance?

Bronislaw Malinowski wasn't it? Didn't he have a brother named Kohlslaw...invented a salad with mayonnaise and cabbage? Kidding.

Malinowski's proposed a theory about magic in response to what he observed among the Trobriand islanders. He noted that there was a lot of magical ritual surrounding the dangerous undertaking of sailing the high seas, but very little magic invoked in the safer task of fishing inside the lagoon. I read another paper in which the author's results confirmed this theory by looking at which activities in baseball garnered the most superstitions and talismans. Those activities that were less certain, such as pitching and batting, garnered more superstitios rituals and objects; lucky socks, for example.

At any rate, religion and magic are often used to make sense of that which can't otherwise be made sense of, according to Malinowski. I agree with this, as do many archaeologists, but it makes me take their explanations of certain sites, artifacts, and structures with a grain of salt when they attribute magico-religious purposes to them.

NOTE: This is not to say that any and all explanations relying on magic or religion are wrong.

The Naturalist Paradox

The view we have of religious fervor is very skewed by our own Western/Rationalist world view, since we tend to define "religion" in such a way that we can still see ourselves as rationalists unencumbered by such muddy concepts as "faith" and "free will" and "God." But we deceive ourselves.

Even the most ardent naturalist has basic assumptions that rest on faith and faith alone. For example, the naturalist believes in a concept called "randomness;" a belief that cannot be proven.

By definition, anything that can't be reliably replicated or predicted (at least with regards to specific events, such as a single flip of the coin) is called "random." The theist might equally claim that there is no such thing as random; that each result springs from the actions of a deity. The naturalist thinks such ideas are ridiculous, but thinking they're ridiculous requires the initial unproven assumption that they are wrong.

A functionalist explanation of how religion works within a society--for example; belief in the sweet-by-and-by helps keep the downtrodden from rebelling and upsetting the apple cart--doesn't in any way allow us to determine the truth or falsehood of the belief itself. After all, if there is a God, wouldn't a religion based on his/her/its teachings have to function within the society in which it occurs? On the other hand, if the religion is false, it won't survive for long if it doesn't give some functional payoff. Either way, the religion is functional.

Don't believe in the supernatural? Isn't that a faith-based belief? Is it even possible to prove such a thing? "Super-natural" means "above" or "outside" nature--that is, it is not a part of the natural cause-effect world in which we and all our sensory inputs exist--and therefore it is beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. Science can't say "yea" or "nay" because the supernatural is, by definition, beyond our means of natural observation.

If Bronislaw Malinowski was right when "He posited that what [people]believe is a reflection of their psychological needs.", then what does the rationalist's faith in the non-existence of the supernatural say about their psychological needs?

Ultimately, the naturalists CAN'T be right. If they are, then their beliefs are meaningless and further discussion is meaningless as well. Their beliefs are the result of the random motions of atoms. The Trobriand Islander's (that Bronislaw Malinowski studied) beliefs also--according to the rationalist--are the result of the same random motions. There is, therefore, no way for the naturalist to say what is good, bad, right, wrong, better, worse, superior, inferior, worthy of discussion, worthy of anything. They are a product of their world and a slave to its forces every bit as much as is a rock. The logical syllogism might read...

IF there is nothing beyond nature,
THEN all things are the result of ultimately random physical forces,
SO logical thinking is the result of random physical forces,
THEREFORE this syllogism is without meaning.

It's a version of Epimenide's Paradox.

Why I don't write

I've thought about writing novels, and every once in awhile I'll get on a kick and write quite a bit. My problem is plot...I don't have one. I do great with characters, dialogue, etc., but it never really goes anywhere. I have a hundred and one interesting ideas, but I can never come up with a good story to string them all together. The difference between a pile of pearls and a necklace is the string, and no one wears a pile of pearls.

Angels and time

(excerpt from email to friend)

I was very intrigued by the question of whether or not angelic beings are bound by time. While I agree that they are non-corporeal except on rare occasions, I can't see that they are non-temporal.

They are linear in relation to time (to use the geometry analogy), I think, just as we are. That is, like a geometric ray, they have a definite start, but no end. Their position in time can be plotted on that ray, and they cannot move themselves willing backwards or forwards...in other words, they are bound by the flow of time just as we are. I don't know that I can support that view, but I don't see a reason to suppose them non-temporal.

Our physical bodies, on the other hand, are a geometric line segment with a definite beginning and end, but our souls are rays, continuing into eternity yet with a definite beginning. Although, what about the risen, glorified body we will have?

God, unlike any other being, cannot be plotted in my geometric analogy. He is without beginning or end, and has total freedom of perception so that he can look at any/all beings at any point along their ray of existence. He can study each and every point on any ray/segment outside the bounds of time...true ominiscience. Christ willingly chose to be incarnated and chose daily to exist within the confines of a human body...a ray in relation to time. It makes God's glory,--and Christ's humility--much more awesome to me.

Best Books, Archetypes, and Archaeologists

Some of the best books I've found recently were on the 25 cent shelf. Tells you alot about what our society values when you can find Aristotle in the bargain bins and Paris Hilton on the talk shows. On the other hand, I did find five different copies of Leonardo DiCaprio's biography on the bargain shelves as well, so maybe there's hope.

It's always a risk recommending books/music/movies to someone else. What if they hate it, or worse, find it juvenile? I like some stuff that I'm completely embarrassed to admit to; Voyage of the Space Beagle, for instance, by A. E. VanVogt (no joke.) Despite the name, it's an excellent book--I just don't tell many people about it. Harry Potter is another of my secret peccadillos. I think I'm embarassed that my tastes turn out to be so plebian. Nevertheless, Harry Potter books are very good, mainly, I think, because they tell well a great story built around the archetypical themes Joseph Campbell and Karl Jung identified (among others).

I'm really fascinated by those archetypical themes. It's like psychology for the whole human race! It's one of the things I really love about Anthropology. Why do humans do what they do?

I really don't mind it when novelists breathe life into history as long as their history (or prehistory) isn't completely inaccurate. I expect them to add flesh to the skeleton of facts. What I object to is when archaeologists engage in some historical fiction and act as if they aren't. I think all scientists should clearly identify their facts and their suppositions. They should note, right up front, what their political leanings and personal philosophies are so that readers would be able to draw their own conclusions. After all, if I can convince you that my theories have merit even after having told you that I'm a Shiite Communist and lifetime member of the NRA, then I've really made some progress.

Cabeza de Vaca

http://www.library.txstate.edu/swwc/cdv/book/1.html

This is the account of Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca in which he tells of his experiences in North America in the 1520s. It takes a few hours to read and is absolutely fascinating, with wonderful first hand accounts of the tribes living here in Texas before any significant European contact.

Cabeza de Vaca undoubtedly walked right through the Brazos Valley and down the string prairie that later became the Villa Real/Old San Antonio road (now Highway 21 from Bryan to Bastrop and San Antonio). He also walked right up the Llano River.

The physical journey is amazing enough. However, his spiritual journey and conversion from Conquistador Catholic (kill'em all and let God sort'em out) to a man with a real affection and love for los indios is just as gripping.

Stuffed Puppy Dogs

I read recently about a family therapist who got a call from a fifty-four year old woman whose marriage was crumbling because of her obsessive collecting of stuffed-puppy dolls. The walls of her house were lined with shelves, and every square inch of space was occupied by every variety of stuffed puppy available. The woman's normally sedate and long-suffering husband had finally had enough and wanted a divorce. She came to the therapist in desperation looking for some way to stop her compulsion.

The therapist was able to help her trace the problem to an almost forgotten event that had happened to her as a four year old. She had a stuffed-puppy doll, Patches, that she loved above all other things. She took it with her everywhere. It was tucked lovingly under her arm at play and occupied the place of honor on her pillow each night. Too much love and attention had patinaed the dog doll with dirt and fraying threads and the little girl's father tried and tried to get her to part with her pet, but her heart wouldn't let go. Finally, in a fit of anger and frustration, he tore the pet from her hands, ripped it's head off, and threw it in the trash, as his little daughter screamed in anguish for him not to hurt her beloved.

He thought she would quickly forget the stuffed pet and move on. He thought the hurt would quickly heal. But the crying didn't stop for days. He finally tried buying her a new Patches, but the child would accept no substitutes. After many nights the crying gave way to quietness.

Fifty years later, unhealed wounds were still hurting her. Fifty years later she was still looking for what she lost.

Very sad, I know, but how revealing. How many wounds do I have that still cause me pain? That still cause pain to those who love me? How have I wounded my children? Yet "love covers over a multitude of sins." I'm sure we equally bear the marks of forgotten kindnesses and kisses. I must examine my compulsions with more experienced eyes and bind up the old wounds.

Waking up in the dark

I remember when I was a child, waking up in the pitch dark late at night and climbing out of bed to make my way to the bathroom. I thought I was in my own house, but I was confused and was actually at my grandmother's. I remember my utter confusion when I couldn't find the light switch in the usual place. I remember my surprise when I banged my shin against a chair that didn't exist in my mental picture of reality.

As an adult (more or less), I now experience this same surprise and confusion when life doesn't work the way I think it should; when people behave in ways that I never even thought possible. My mental picture of reality is off, and I realize I'm stumbling around in the dark. I need to pay attention when these surprises occur and realize that life and reality are what they are; that my surprise results from a false mental image of the way things are.

Re: [Lest You Forget] 3/17/2005 09:44:48 AM

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:53:51 -0500, TB wrote:
> Ahhh, you're reading too much into it. Even without a god, our
> ethics/morality can be boiled down to some form of "You don't hit me in the
> nose and I won't hit you in the nose", which keeps us, most of the time,
> from walking around with sore noses... So, that's a good, assuming that our
> general happiness here on this world is a good. Whether or not there is a
> purpose to us outside of this world is a separate question...

I can see why, following that logic, you might say *one's own*
happiness is a good, but why then should one worry about others who
aren't in a position of influence? The argument only holds as long as
the other person is in a position and of the inclination to return the
favor.

And what about the con man? If I can--in cowbird fashion--fool others
into treating me well while I'm actually using up their own survival
resources, is that good or bad? Think of the televangelist duping
little old ladies out of their life's savings. Avoiding a country
full of bloody noses doesn't seem to address that type of moral
turpitude.

But back to the main question...is such behavior good or bad? By what
authority can one say? If one is a strict naturalist, then one cannot
say it's either good or bad. The words have no ultimate meaning, but
only an individual meaning--I can say its good for me (meaning it
serves my current desires) or that it's bad for me (meaning it
doesn't), but the crooked televangelist is free to interpret it
according to his or her self interests as well.

For the naturalist there is no good or bad apart from individual self-interest.

Picture; Alpine Meadow

Picture; Tree-lined lane

Can Morality Exist if There is No God?

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 07:45:38 -0800 (PST),

Anonymous wrote:
>So can morality exist even if there is no god? I say that it
> can, and is "real", and serves us all as a society... Morality is a social
> contract of sorts, and, in total, does things like keep your kids relatively
> safe...

Depends on what you mean by "morality." The social contract you speak of sounds more like ethics than morality, but it's a semantic distinction, I suppose.

If you begin from a naturalistic perspective--and have faith that there is no supernatural reality--then morality is a human/societal/natural construct, no more or less valid than the rules by which bees and birds and slime molds and boulders act. This gets us back to the basic problem; if our existence/thoughts/etc. are the result of only-nature then they are ultimately based on the random motions of atoms and cannot be said to be either good or bad. This holds true if you are speaking of an individual or a society, so one cannot say that Hitler or Stalin or Gandhi or Mother Teresa did things that were good or bad. "Might makes right" rules the day (although "right" is meaningless).

The only way there can be a true "good" or "bad" is if those things are defined from outside the natural system. It needs a supernatural mover, although not necessarily the Christian God.
If God is real, then what he does, as the Creator, is--by definition--Good. His Will defines what is good. That's why the Christian definition of sin is so broad. A sin is not just something that goes against the Ten Commandments, it's anything--thought, word, or deed--that goes against God's will.

Picture; Closeup of a flower

The Beauty of Competition

Every flower is competing for pollinators. Those with the brightest,
most attractive colors and smells (at least to their pollinator), will
get the most attention and reproduce most successfully.

As the wildflowers come out on the roadsides in the next few months,
we will be seeing the results of competition. And sex.

Three Trout

Once upon a time there were three trout, all of them brothers. They
spent their days swimming in the swift currents of a small, clear
river, catching juicy bugs and playing among the green and gray
stones.

But one of the brothers was unhappy. "Why must we constantly swim
against the current yet never get anywhere?" he asked his brothers.
"I, for one, am no ordinary trout. I will go further than anyone else
ever has before." With a sudden burst of speed he shot up the river
and was soon out of sight.

He swam and swam, all day and all night. Soon the river began to
narrow. The water became shallower and colder and bounded down rocky
cataracts and over white, misty falls. The trout would not give up.
He leaped every obstacle and pressed on, high into the mountains. At
last the water turned to a mere icy trickle, and with one valiant
leap, the trout landed himself next to a melting snow bank where he
lay gasping and heaving in the summer sun until a passing bear spotted
him and ate him in a single gulp.

The second brother was unhappy too. "Why fight the current? It's
never-ending. What's the point?" And with that he stopped swimming
altogether. He let the river carry him down towards the sea. The
river widened and slowed and food was abundant. The second brother
finally found himself in the open sea. "How beautiful! And look at
all the food." At that very moment he was gobbled up by a salmon
heading back up the river to spawn and die.

The third brother was no different from the others. The current was
tiring and relentless but he was afraid of going upstream or down. He
searched along the river's edge for some solution and chanced upon a
small inlet that led him into a calm pond. Food was plentiful and
there was no current. After a few weeks living the good life he had
become fat and happy. "This is the life!" But soon he noticed that
the pond was getting smaller and the water was uncomfortably warm. He
tried to go back to the river, but the inlet had long since dried up.
In another week he found himself gasping for air in the muddy goo of
the fast evaporating pond, now a mere mud puddle. He too was eaten by
a passing bear.

In the river, the other trout would often wonder about what happened
to the three brothers. But in time, they forgot all about the
brothers as they swam in the swift current, catching bugs, and playing
among the stones.

Negative Hallucinations

How many times have you looked for something repeatedly, such as your keys, and then someone else finds them right where you had already looked. It's quite possible to NOT see things that ARE there. Take a look at this article, for example.

But just because I don't see it doesn't make it not there. If objective reality were controlled by my mind (as in The Matrix), then people coked up enough to think they can fly wouldn't die from falls off high buildings.

Therefore, just because someone doesn't believe there is a God has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, so one can have a wrong opinion about this matter.
If there IS a God (or more broadly, a supernatural reality), the wrong opinion on this matter has eternal consequences. If there IS NO God and one holds that opinion, there are no eternal consequences, but your opinion on the matter is meaningless. It is the result, ultimately of the random motions of atoms, and has therefore, precisely the same validity as does rolling a die to decide one's opinion.

The Right Question

You are asking the right question, the question most men don't even think about and don't have the courage to face. If there is no eternity, then what we do here DOES NOT MATTER.

Be a rapist, a child-pornographer, a terrorist, a Mother Teresa, a Buddha, or a Christ. If there is no eternity then it does not matter.

Be a great architect or surgeon a Billy Graham or a Genghis Khan. If there is no eternity it does not matter. We are all just the ants on the proverbial log, building shit-castles as the toilet flushes.

But if there is an eternity then what you do here and now "echoes through eternity."

He is no fool, who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. -Jim Elliot

Blink by Malcolm Gladwell

Just got finished reading Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point. This guy is a great author, and the concepts he unveils are absolute mental crowbars. They give insight into so many different areas.

Blink deals with how we are able to sometimes make very accurate assessments with minimal information, often without even knowing how we do it. For example, think of the art antiquities dealer who can instantly spot a fake statue, but can't explain how she knows it's a fake. We do this in everyday life as well. Sometimes you see a friend or relative and know somethings bothering them immediately, even though they seem to be acting quite normal to an outside observer.

Gladwell discusses how to cultivate this ability and also it's limitations. Particularly interesting is the research on how too much information is actually counter-productive, and the application of this process by Paul Ekman to mind-reading (at least it seems like mind-reading). He really is talking about detecting when others are lying. Ekman uses his techniques to train the Secret Service, FBI, and others.

Read it!

Those Who Criticize Others

It seems to me that those who most readily criticize others--whether it be with malicious comments or jokes at their expense--are attempting to bolster their own lack of self-worth and feelings of inferiority. The truly confident person has no need to look for others' shortcomings and even less to comment on them. I think it's also true that we tend to criticize most in others those flaws which we have to the greatest degree.

No great insight there I guess. It's been said before. But it struck me forcefully because of recent events. God forgive me for criticizing others.

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.
--Matthew 7:1-2

Controlling My Thoughts

Because of recent events, I have had trouble controlling my thoughts. I get angry about some past offense, and my mind gets into a pattern of imagined diatribes or vengeful actions against the object of my anger. I fill with rage and sorrow and may go for hours repeating the same thoughts and getting more and more upset. I feel the blood run to my face and neck, and my stomach sours. I try various ways of distracting myself. Sometimes these work, but often they don't. The negative thoughts keep blazing up anew.

This struggle has caused me to realize just how important thought-control is to achieving our goals; whether the goal is getting a good nights sleep, doing well on an upcoming exam, or treating others the way we should. Imagine what it would be like if you perfectly controlled every thought. You would never feel lonely or angry or defeated unless you wanted to.

This ability to control ones thoughts seems to be what is lacking in Stoic philosophy. Stoicism points out that our minds can control our emotions, and therefore happiness or calm is always within our power. But Stoicism only tells us we have the power, yet doesn't get us closer to using that power. It's all well and good to know that your child's sudden death need not upset you--that instead you can recall the happy times and count yourself lucky for having known him, but being able to pull this off in the midst of the tragedy is quite another thing. Still, memorizing Stoic sayings, such as those that pepper this blog, has helped tremendously. Such sayings make guest appearances in my thoughts throughout the day (and night, often enough).

My Christian faith points to several solutions as well, and actually gives aid, rather than just encouragement. "Ask and you shall receive, that your joy may be made complete." "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." "I am the Lord your God, who takes hold of your right hand and says, do not fear, I will help you." The reading of verses such as these, combined with prayer and singing, has often pulled me from the thoughts that I wrestle with. But not always. I also feel that many of the other solutions I'm mentioning here have been given to me by a loving and compassionate creator. Especially this next.

Friends can certainly help. At least three different people have provided comfort and help in three different ways. One, having gone through similar things, is able to encourage me by showing that there is life on the other side of the crisis. And not only life, but a better life. Another, has given me the very manly advice, "get over it." "Stop being a wimp and a fool." That seems harsh, but it was actually very needed and helpful. The third friend is a master at distracting me. He engages me in conversation about other things, refuses to feed my obsessive comments, and gets me playing chess or watching movies.

Still other help comes from psychology. Thought-stopping--noticing the start of the unwanted thoughts, mentally screaming STOP!, relaxing myself with a few deep breaths, and then rewarding myself with pleasant thoughts--is very effective. It would probably be even more effective if I rehearsed the behavior when I don't need it, rather than in the midst of the crisis. Another helpful method is in talking to myself as a friend. I can lend myself encouragement and praise myself for the things I've done well that day.

Exercise has also given me relief. It's hard to think when you are struggling to catch your breath or lifting a heavy weight. This breaks the destructive thought patterns. Exercise also floods the body with endorphins, lending natural good feelings that combat the negative thoughts.

The Limits of Naturalism

Naturalism begins with two premises. First, Nature is all that there is, and second, that life exists. From this, the conclusion is drawn that life results solely from natural processes. The flaw is in the first premise. How can one either prove or disprove that Nature is all that there is?

One can't. First, one can't disprove that Nature is all that exists because confounding evidence is not admitted. If an ardent naturalist sees a supernatural occurence, he will not admit that it is supernatural because (Premise 1) there is nothing beyond Nature. He will say that the event, while not explainable, is never the less, natural. The first premise, therefore, cannot be disproven.

Secondly, one cannot prove that Nature is all that exists. To prove it would require perfect and complete knowledge of all things, especially those things that are outside of the Natural world (see premise 1).

When a scientist confronts a theory that cannot be proven or disproven, he rightly terms it an article of faith, and therefore, in the realm of religion rather than science. So the scientific naturalist has a real problem. His initial premise is an article of faith. Therefore, he must join the ranks of the believers (whatever their creed), and divorce himself from all claims of strict scientific thought at the most basic level of his philosophy.

Wisdom is wise because it works

Wisdom is wise because it works. I'm not just indulging in consonance--it's true. Those who live wisely may not be wealthier or better off than others, but they will always be wealthier or better off than they would have been had they behaved foolishly. My own foolishness has certainly given me cause to regret it.

It rains on the just and the unjust, but the wise man will have brought his umbrella (and maybe rubber boots as well). If you act with wisdom, then even if things go poorly for you--because of circumstances outside your control--you will at least be able to take solace in the thought that you behaved your best. If you act foolishly and things go poorly, you will rue your own foolishness (assuming you're wise enough even for that) and won't know whether or not your pain could have been avoided by wise actions.

It is better to be good...

It is better to be good, than to be thought good.

Picture; Fat Baby and Hotei Figurine

What was I saying about archetypes?

The Limits of Science

Science will never be able to prove or disprove *anything* that is
supernatural. "Supernatural" means "above or outside of nature," and
science can deal only with the realm of cause and effect that is nature.
It deals in consistent and repeated observations of nature, theories
concerning the patterns of those observations, and replicable
experimentation. If something--God or ghosts or the Force or the human
spirit--is supernatural it is, by definition, outside the realm of
science and science cannot say anything, positive or negative, about it.

Archetypes

Take a look at this site on archetypes. Fascinating how the same story elements keep cropping up again and again throughout mythology and popular fiction.

Who was it that was raised by step parents, but always felt like they didn't belong. Around puberty they suddenly found out the truth about their true destiny and were ushered into a world where they could achieve that destiny. Am I talking about King Arthur? Cinderella? Neo from The Matrix? Luke Skywalker? Harry Potter? Hercules? Can you think of others?

Follow the Yellow Brick Road

To avoid pitfalls, "follow the yellow brick road." Model yourself on someone who did it right rather than trying not to do it wrong.

Concentrate on Changing Myself Rather Than Others

I am finding that the more time I spend about thinking about how others have wronged me, or about what they *should* be like, or about how they will get their comeuppance, the more unhappy I am. The more time I spend concentrating on what I am doing *right now*, the happier and more satisfied I am.

God Gives Me What I Want

I think that God generally gives me what I truly want. The trick is in wanting what I should. If God knows all things and truly loves me, then I can make sure I want the right things by wanting what He wants. My ultimate happiness is directly tied to this.

Most people tend to delude themselves into thinking that freedom comes from doing what feels good or what fosters comfort and ease. The truth is that people who subordinate reason to their feelings of the moment are actually slaves of their own desires and aversions. They are ill prepared to act effectively and nobly when unexpected challenges occur, as they inevitably will. --Epictetus 

It all depends on your opinion of it, and that depends on you. Choose to renounce your opinion and you will find yourself like a sailor, rounding the head land, on a calm sea, in a bay without waves. --Marcus Aurelius 

Typical Mayan Dress in Highland Guatemala

Lake Atitlan in Guatemala

Lake Atitlan in Guatemala

Lake Atitlan in Guatemala

This is a view of Lake Atitlan in Guatemala where I was in college. The cloud covered peaks are volcanoes. When we climbed up to where this photo was taken, the Indians who saw us ran from us. 

Brazilian Waterfall

Cynic's Are Always SO Negative

Upon reading some of my posts, my buddy felt that I was being "a bit cynical." Always helps to hear things through someone else's nose, and I can definitely see where he's coming from. Nevertheless, "just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you."

Cynicism isn't my aim or my general stance. I'm grasping for lucid thinking about human nature, and my rose-colored glasses have recently been busted, although I'm sure it's all for the best.

That doesn't mean I'm cynical about life and existence in general (note the previous posts on stars, and sand, and BIG). I think life, and the Universe, and God, and ... everything! ... are absolutely, jaw-droppingly, amazing!

People are amazing and wonderful too, or can be. But they're very hard to admire when they're rifling through your wallet and stomping on your heart.

I can't believe he thinks I was being cynical.

Picture; Andromeda

Puts Your Problems Into Perspective

Astronomers count the stars

Astronomers in Australia say there are 10 times more stars in the
visible Universe than all the grains of sand on the world's beaches and
deserts.

Talk Isn't Cheap and People Usually Put Themselves First

Some say, "Talk is cheap." That is incorrect. Talk is very costly.
It costs us when we take others at their word and they break their
word. It costs us when we give our word and then have to make good.
It especially costs us when we give your word and fail to make good.

I read once that people can be divided into three categories;

(1) Those who seek their own interests, even at your expense, while
concealing their intentions,

(2) Those who seek their own interests, even at your expense, and make
no secret of it,

(3) And those who don't set out to put their interests above yours,
but will given the right circumstances.

In general, I find this to be true. The exceptions to this are so few
and far between that we can act as if they don't exist. However, we
shouldn't hold this against people...it's probably true of us as well
in regards to our interactions with most people.

That means, the only people you can trust in this regard are those
whose own self interest coincides with yours (often relatives) and
those who have a track record of living by right principals even when
it is very costly to them.

"I had just forgotten...how BIG!" -Joe Banks in Joe Versus the Volcano 

One horse-power car. Technology without infrastructure is expensive junk.  

The Good Old Days 

A Challenge for the Materialist

If you believe that there is no supernatural creative force, that all
which exists is the result of random chance and time, then I issue a
challenge to you. Flip a coin. Heads, you stick with your current
views. Tails, you become a rabid religious fundamentalist. It is no
more or less valid a way to decide your view than any other.
Ultimately, your view doesn't matter anyway, if you hold to your
philosophy.

Who do you love?

Why do you love the people you do? Come up with a list if you like.
What are the reasons you love one person more than another.

Here are some possibilities...
--physical relatedness
--similar values
--attractiveness
--long association

Add your own, but take a close look. You will find that there are some
people you love who don't have some of these, or have less of these than
others who you don't love. For example, you may have a brother
(physical relatedness) who does not share your values that you
nevertheless love with all your heart, and another sibling or parent
with similar values that you don't care for as much. Many people adopt
babies who have none of the qualities we would consider love-worthy, yet
they love them nonetheless.

What this tells me is that we love who we choose to love, and usually
don't spend time justifying the emotion. If love is a choice, often
arbitrary and capricious, then is anyone really more worthy of love than
anyone else? If so, how do you know? Is this true in your own life?

If there is a God who created us all then wouldn't God's choice of who
to love be a better criteria than any we could come up with? Then we
should love others equally, without reservation. All men are my
brothers.

Yes, but spend those most time on those within our sphere of influence;
those whom we have the greatest ability to affect. God has also given
us a responsibility to spend more time and effort on some rather than
others; spouses, children, parents, etc.

Infinite Universes...Infinite Idiots

A theory has been proposed to explain the existence of life in our
universe in light of the hard-edged math that finds it's existence
improbable in the extreme, given the age and size of our universe. The
theory indicates there are an infinite number of universes and therefore
an infinite number of chances for life to exist. One universe was bound
to exist that harbors life as we know it.

If the number of universes is really infinite then this doesn't go far
enough. Infinite isn't just a big number. It's an unending number.
Therefore there must be an infinite number of universes where life
evolved. There must be an infinite number of universes identical to
ours. There must be an infinite number of universes identical to ours
except for the position of one item. And so on. Therefore, there must
be an infinite number of universes in which we are all exactly alike
except that the persons proposing the infinite universe theory are
idiots masquerading as enlightened scientists.

How do we know we aren't in that universe?

Am I a Dog, Professor Pavlov?

Do you respond to pleasures and pains which come from outside your Self? Then you behave as an animal and should not wonder that you are led around as a bull by his nose.

As Epictetus notes,

Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.

and again,

No man is free who is not master of himself.

Do not allow things outside of you to affect you willy-nilly, but evaluate the environment and circumstances of life from inside yourself, with wisdom and clear thinking, so that you will not be at the mercy of others, of the outside environment, or even of the hormones and nerve impulses of your own body. This is how animals live and you are not only an animal.

But the vehicle of your soul, for a time, is an animal--the "human" part of "human being." The part that is You is the "being." Let the being control it's animal vehicle as a fine horsemen does his mount. At times that he deems right and proper he may allow his steed to feed and sleep and play and procreate; yet it is always he who decides when and where and for how long. But when there is a task to be done, the mount must respond to the master promptly and perfectly.

But take care. As a being you rarely react to the environment as it truly is; rather, you react to your opinion of the environment. You react to more than a pain in your chest, for example. You also react to your opinion of what that pain represents. Is it a heart attack or indigestion? How long will the pain last? Am I being punished for some imagined misdeed? Did I overindulge in spicy food? Do I suspect the pain will soon go away or that, if not treated promptly, I am in mortal danger? Your actions and anxiety hinge on your assessment. The environment provides only information. Let the rational being calmly and clearly assess the information and choose a course of action. If you let the animal choose you will act like an animal.

Sometimes, however, letting the animal act may be best. This is especially true where split-second decisions about physical dangers are involved. Reflexes are there for a reason. But do not let reflexes and blind responses rule when it is not appropriate.

The Measure of a Man

This is off the Yahoo Buzz Index and lists the most common searches (leaders) and the most increased searches (movers). What a fascinating look at who we are. This is what we are most interested in. Disaster, fame, wealth, entertainment...

The measure of a man is the worth of the things he cares about.
--Marcus Aurelius

As a man thinketh, so is he.
--The Bible

Leaders							Movers
Rank		Prev.	Subject (Days on Chart)	Move	Score		Rank	Subject	1-Day Move
1	-	1	Tsunami (9)	-474	813		1	Andrea Yates	Breakout!
2		21	Jennifer Lopez (73)	+232	304		2	California Earthquakes	1164.22%
3		2	Ashlee Simpson (73)	-113	256		3	Thinksecret	551.99%
4		3	Delta Air (14)	-146	131		4	Wickedly Perfect	538.02%
5		4	Britney Spears (894)	-103	129		5	Marianne Leone	496.55%
6		9	Lindsay Lohan (73)	-7	92		6	Taps Ghost Hunters	444.84%
7		11	Internal Revenue Service (14)	0	91		7	Anna Benson	434.98%
8		5	Paris Hilton (73)	-64	85		8	Caltech	416.74%
9		13	PlayStation 2 (49)	-3	70		9	Taps	375.24%
10		45	Earthquakes (9)	+26	66		10	Barbara Boxer	358.95%
11		18	NBA (51)	-1	64		11	Jennifer Lopez	325.94%
12		19	NFL (105)	0	64		12	Emergency Closings	320.55%
13		17	WWE (73)	-3	63		13	C-reactive Protein	297.95%
14		16	Usher (73)	-8	63		14	Rolex Watches	285.56%
15		10	Jessica Simpson (73)	-40	60		15	Celebrity Big Brother	264.96%
16		23	Oprah Winfrey (14)	+4	60		16	Lipsync.us	252.84%
17		22	Drudge Report (14)	-2	57		17	Mercedes Championship	250.77%
18		98	The O.C. (8)	+32	57		18	Reggie White	247.53%
19		57	White Noise (4)	+19	54		19	Life As We Know It	247.49%
20		8	Harry Potter (73)	-50	53		20	Gavin Newsom	243.62%