Things I don't understand:

[jianantonic]

I don't understand people who don't wash their hands after using the bathroom. I understand neglecting it a time or two, I'm not saying people piss all over their hands - it's just that bathrooms are dirty and wouldn't people be conscious about that? What disturbs me even more is when you are in a crowded restroom - people are uncomfortably aware of you because they are waiting on you to finish what you're doing so they can do what you're doing - and people, even though they KNOW they are being observed, leave without washing their hands. It's one thing not to care what others think of you, but DAMN.

There was something else I was going to add to this list along the lines of comedy, but I can't remember what it was, so I'll just continue with things that aren't funny.

I don't understand 17 year olds who get engaged. I understand 17 year olds who think they're in love - but here's the breakthrough - I don't think they are. I think that VERY few teenagers know enough about themselves to clearly define their own character, let alone decide who they love (outside of family, which is a given, because it's more like a rule than a feeling, although it is both - nevermind, not the real point) says the girl who knew who she was marrying at 19. To my credit, I'd had a lot of character-defining experiences by the time I was 19. I had a heart attack when I was 17, spent a summer in Guatemala, spent another summer with my transient boyfriend in Massachusetts, worked real jobs since the age of 8, and played professional bridge by 11. Anyway it's not 19 year olds that are the problem, anyway, so I need not defend myself. There's a girl that works with me who is 17. She's had one boyfriend her whole life. They've rounded the bases together and now plan to marry, and they want kids by 18. My God. Do I even need to explain what's wrong with this?

I don't understand language. Alfred Whitehead (I take after my husband in that both of us cream our pants when a discussion of this philosopher ensues) said that language is theory-laden. In other words, you can't have a thought without language, and the language you use not only determines the thought but IS the thought. It's like in 1984 (the book), where the whole idea of the language of Newspeak is to take all the negative words out of language so people can't even think to gripe about big brother. Now here's my latest revelation. It wasn't my revelation, but it had a profound impact on me. We don't use the word "myth" in reference to religions of the Near East (aka religions of the book - whether you want to admit it or not, Islam is very similar to Christianity and even based on it to a large degree, and thus is included in this category along with Judaism and Christianity). We call Zeus and his cast of characters "myth," we call Gilgamesh "myth," Siva is "myth," so why isn't anything in the Bible myth? Is it any more likely that people lived 900 years, or the sun stopped in the sky so some folks could win a battle, or a valley of dry bones rose to life, or a serpent talked in a magical (maybe magical is taking it too far) garden than any of the stories of Zeus and the rest actually happened? In western minds it is, because we don't use the word myth. But FUCKING THINK ABOUT IT. It's NOT.
I was going to say something along the lines of "As lovely as the Bible is, it's not any more realistic..." but then I realized that when I read the Bible, most of it really bothered me. So much of the Bible is depressing - the story of Job, for crying out loud! Why worship that?

Okay, and why the cross? Why is the cross such a big deal? Why do people worship crosses? If we modernized that image, we could all wear electric chairs on our gold chains instead of crosses! But that's not as pretty, is it...
Not that I ever wore a cross, but from now on, when you see me with a peace sign - be it a pendant, a pin, or a drawing on my philosophy notes - that is my tribute to Jesus. Maybe you don't think he was a pacifist, (no offense but how could you NOT?!) but surely there's something better than a cross to pay tribute to your favorite deity. Pick your favorite part of his life, his teaching - and use that - not his method of execution.
I guess I do get the cross thing - they represent the sacrifice he made...it's just hard for me to accept that because I don't necessarily believe in the divinity of Jesus or sacrifice at all for that matter - but I do believe he existed and set a fucking great example. I guess wear your crosses if you want but when I see them, it's like looking at an electric chair - and I hate Texas.

That's enough for tonight. Thanks for reading. Thoughts?

Peace.

Comments

Everything's a Myth

[artsygeek.livejournal.com]

Any story which explains why things are, whether true or not, is a myth. There's a great book you might like, by Alan Watts, entitled "Myth and Ritual in Christianity". Also, there's another book by Watts in the BC library entitled "Behold The Spirit: A Study in the Necessity of Mystical Religion". Check both books out. I know you can get the former on interlibrary loan. You'd like like both books.

nope, no thoughts here

[flamingophoenix.livejournal.com]

None at all. :-D

1) Not washing hands: YEEEEURGH. That is one of the most disgusting habits I have ever seen. Ugh. Almost as bad as people who hover over the toilet instead of sitting on it and spray everywhere. (My apologies if anyone who reads this does it. If you put the seat up first, I'm not grossed out by you.) Also, I don't like public restroom doors that open inwards. WHAT THE HELL? ahem.

comedy--"And we can even spring for some of that blue shit for the toilet."

2) I know someone who knew who she wanted to marry when she was 16. I am very glad she didn't follow through on that.

I suppose the difference is in the follow-through, though...

3) Language is crazy shit, man.

Who ever said Islam wasn't related to Christianity and Judaism? (Okay, okay, lots of crazy fundamentalists.) But they're morons if they think that. I mean, come on, people. What part of "ABRAHAM" don't you understand?

A lot of modern Christians do consider the Old Testament to be mythology--stores told by and to people in an earlier civilization, in order to encourage/enforce certain standards of behavior that were necessary at that time to maintain society. ::inhale::

And I do think that the story of Job is beautiful, in its own way. Job believed something, and no matter what was done to him, he did not stop believing it. (Given the conditions of the story, what he believed was truth.) It's the "believing in God even when life sucks" that I admire. I guess I don't really know why...I mean, I believe in God, but it's not tied to any particular experience or lack of experience I've had. Life sucks, or it doesn't. This doesn't have ANYTHING to do with God, or with anything he does. Does that make any sense? Probably not. It's very hard to explain.

I've never read the whole Bible. But have you ever read the Psalms? The Proverbs? The Gospels? The story of Judith? The story of Abraham and Sarah? The story of David? I'm not saying they're all happy-go-lucky the whole time--sucky things happen, because they are all human. But they can be so inspiring.

4) We were actually just talking about the cross the other day in Old English. Did you know that during the Middle Ages, the only relics of Jesus anyone could think to look for were 1) Blood from/pieces of the True Cross, and 2) The Holy Foreskin. Hahahaha...that just cracks me up. (only because it involves the word 'foreskin,' but still.) In early Anglo-Saxon religious writing, Jesus was depicted as a great warrior, climbing up the cross (instead of being hung on it) to fight Satan. So for them, it really was a symbol of triumph. As for modern Christianity...well, there are kind of two schools. Catholics typically use a crucifix in their symbolism, where the body of the suffering Jesus is present on the cross. This emphasizes the ordeal he went through in order to save us. (I won't go into my own opinions on that here.) The Protestants, on the other hand, generally use the empty cross, to show that Jesus has risen indeed, to save us. This focuses more on the "yay we're saved" aspects than on the "be glad you're saved" ones.

oh, haha, I said that bit about Warrior Jesus without remembering your peace-sign comment. :-) Ah well. But I do agree, that in most situations Jesus would be a pacifist. (Not all situations. I believe that it is possible for war to be just. But it's rare.) (Textbook example--there is NO way Jesus would not want us to fight against Hitler. ....hmm, except I can't think of any examples off the top of my head where Jesus said "Protect others." that's interesting. maybe he was a complete pacifist? but that bothers me. I'll have to think about that some more.)



All right, that's it for today. Tons of love from your thought-provoked friend!
~Em

[donnagirl.livejournal.com]

Actually, I think Jesus was a rebel. "I am here to set the world on fire, to set sons against their fathers, and mothers against their daughters" and such sentiments. :)

[pwylltwiceborn.livejournal.com]

Dogma refers to Christian Mythology. I know that's a particular example, but there are numerous people who do so.

We discuss Greek/Roman Mythology because they're the particular stories of a particular culture...I would use the term theology to discuss Hinduism, et al., because (let's face it) that's what it is, no more or less so than Christian theology, or Judaic theology.

I think the presence of an active group of believers is what distinguishes "mythology" from "theology." But that may just be me--it is off the top of my head.

As to thinking in words...or thinking requires language...or whatnot. Do babies think, then, before they acquire language? Or are they automata? I don't really have an answer, but I like to think that a thought can exist without words to describe it.

[jianantonic.livejournal.com]

Nope, babies don't think. If they did, we'd have memories from then, right? At least, they don't think the way adults do. The language of their thought are the forms they recognize, but it's far from sophisticated thought and I'm not even entirely sure it can be called thought...

[pwylltwiceborn.livejournal.com]

I disagree...thought not=memory. Hence Odin's two ravens, thought and memory. ;) Or, if you prefer, Mo(with an umlaut)rnir's ravens.

They often correlate. Also, what about memories in pictural form? Pictures = 1000 words apiece, no? ;)

I know, I'm dragging my references from everywhere.

[jianantonic.livejournal.com]

Pictures can only equal 1000 words when you have words. I'm unfamiliar with your references, but I don't deny that people/things without language can make decisions and have memories...I just think that they are short term only and not quite the same thing as thought. I maintain that thought is bound to language, and written language makes that connection even harder to break.

i heart mörnir

[flamingophoenix.livejournal.com]

Written language does solidify language, and make it evolve less--look at the spelling of Middle English. The reason it's so wacky is because that's the same era as when the printing press was invented, and the printing press froze English spelling into what are nowadays nearly unrecognizable forms. Yet they pronounced them as spelled back then. Eventually English was standardized, where everyone spelled every word the same as everyone else, but to show etymologies a lot of wacky spellings were preserved. Like "night."

However, I think your argument (at least the way it's coming across to me) is fundamentally flawed. If people are really only capable of thinking what their language allows, then there would be no ideas and language would never have developed. People must be able to think of ideas not named in their language.

hmm, interesting tangent...do people only think of new ideas when those ideas already exist? Do we, in fact, only come up with names for things after these things already exist? For example, the Internet. It (I think) only came to be called the Internet once it started existing. However, Orson Scott Card described something VERY similar in Ender's Game, published in 1977.

Thought may be bound to language, but only loosely. Or, if you prefer, with bungee cords. Or orthodontic headgear. Actually, I really like the orthodontics metaphor. Thought and language are linked, but if thought stretches out a little bit, language will grow to accomodoate it.

okay, that was really weird.

And my take on Newspeak--Even if the government managed to limit language to that extent, such that Newspeak is the only language taught in schools, allowed to be spoken in public/in the homes/etc, people will STILL be unhappy. And I don't know how they could eventually overthrow the government, because of the invasiveness of the telescreens, but I am confident that somehow, eventually, the government would topple.

Did you notice that they IGNORE the proles? Completely? They aren't watched, they aren't educated, they don't speak Newspeak. (Or, I could be full of shit--it's been a couple of years since I've read it.) But that's the impression I got. Somehow. No civilization lasts forever, no matter how well organized and schemed. It may take lifetimes, but eventually they all fall.

And if people don't have the words to gripe about Big Brother, they will invent them. How do you think language developed in the first place? (I don't know either, I wasn't alive then. But that's not my point.)

[jianantonic.livejournal.com]

Ok, I need to back up. The whole thought without language thing needs further development on my part, but my original point (which I still firmly hold) is that the language we use dictates the way we think of a thing - like religion/mythology. This actually came up in class today and a lot of people got really upset. But I like that.