I never really got around to talking about the documentary we watched about Chauvet Cave even though I found it incredibly fascinating. I have since journeyed back to Netflix and seen the entirety of the film. As the earliest and arguably some of the most beautiful cave paintings, the works of art in Chauvet Cave raise tons of questions about the very roots of human cultural development. These roots would eventually become the Greek pantheon, the American Indian shape shifting tricksters, the benevolent rainbow serpent, YHWH, Shakespeare's plays, Victorian poetry, cheesy infomercials, Spongebob Squarepants, and everything else we've either fabricated out of sheer boredom or tried so hard to represent across whatever medium speaks to us.
The main reason these paleolithic drawings pull me in is they way they provide a window into the birth of complex artistic, rather than scientific, thought. These people were probably not even aware of what they were doing. They had seen animals, they had figured out you could create likenesses out of charcoal and a wall, and they went about their self-appointed task. With their lives consumed by fear of predators and the necessity of hunting, it only makes sense that the entirety of this proto-culture revolves around animal figures. In a way, it's much more interesting to speculate about the motives behind these creations than it is to do the same thing for contemporary art. even though we understand the depth that goes into modern day creative thought, we can't really wrap our heads around the 'first' creative thoughts because we can't remember our own. When was the first time, in your faded and sporadic memories of young childhood, that you created something? Imagination is just a given in our modern culture. From the moment we're born all we're seeing is the results of other people's creativity. We are immersed in unnatural and stimulating representations of physical objects and intangible ideas while our personalities are forming, so we can't even begin to simulate the mind of a paleolithic child.
Imagine being a young member of a tribe that stayed in that cave. You've only seen 'real' things your entire life. Every lion has been either a threat or a carcass. Every owl has been a thing of feathers and eyes that soars silently away. You walk into the cave and recoil in terror at the site of a veritable stampede. Your reaction is much like the people who saw the first films and jumped out of the way when they though a moving train would careen off the screen and into the theater.
Or is it? Do you grasp the concept almost immediately? Have you done this before in a less concrete way? Maybe your favorite thing to do is look up into the clouds and decide what they look like. Think about that. Somewhere on our timeline, some hominid looked up at a cloud and decided it looked like something. It wasn't convinced that it was that thing, just aware of the similarities. It was the moment our thoughts became creative. it was the moment we learned to draw artistic conclusions. We had art galleries back then. They weren't thousand dollar canvases obscurely portraying the plight of the artist, they were collections of clouds and derived images in the brains of hairy cave dwellers.
I first thought about this when comparing the trickster tales to Greek mythology but I didn't have a way to say what I wanted to until the cave was brought in as a cultural root for mankind. We're all prejudiced with the specific creative tenets in our cultures. Everyone's ability to tell a story or paint a picture is decided for them before they're even born. (picture one of those silly expectant mothers with headphones on her abdomen trying to upgrade her child's I.Q. with Mozart)
I think about this and I'm overcome with a desire to rewind. I want to extract these gargantuan but unidentifiable tenets of western European creativity and move back to the starting line. I'm a hominid. I've never stepped inside Chauvet Cave. I look up at the sky, or down at the ground, or close my eyes and see something that's not there. I create.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwW0JErbha1kTlGF55oxdU0g8HUCnmkuN1rJLRcOENQs5YQT1hV-GZqIoQ_ChrLWaNf-Kfm88KJK5z4j6AV9-o0OGjGrZoExxMWrAUgXQ1rxtVIbjBi8SH3xDovG2swycJOHQH6krqBOnb/s640/634x375chauvet-cave-rhino-painting_2351.jpg
Monday, March 26, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
Eagles
I saw something the other day, on one of the blogs I regularly read, that I thought would be very relevant to the class. I spent quite a bit of time thinking about this and have come to an opinion. First, I will explain.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46729054/ns/us_news-environment/#.T2ftZhHeBYA
The federal government is about to grant a permit to a Northern Arapaho tribe which will allow them to kill two bald eagles for the purposes of a religious ceremony. traditionally these tribes have usually applied for feathers and other eagle parts from a federal repository. it is extremely rare for one of these permits to be issued. Should it ever be issued at all?
This is an issue I've thought about from several angles and in several different frameworks. I land firmly on the side of the 'no' argument. Someone might ask what the harm is if this tribe is allowed to kill these eagles. After all, people are allowed to sacrifice certain animals if they wish. Chickens and goats are still slaughtered for religious ceremonies regularly. The bald eagle was taken off the endangered species list in 1995 and its status was officially improved again with its removal from the threatened list.
This person might also argue that we owe it to the American Indians to help them maintain any semblance of their culture that they want. Under most circumstances, I would agree with them. while I'm no fan of a 'white guilt' kind of effect, I do recognize that our government has historically stolen things from the various indigenous peoples of America. The difference here though, is in the substance of the culture. The death of an animal. The animal's life will be taken for the purpose of a ceremony. The purpose is not to eat the animal or make specific goods out of its body. the purpose is for a 'religious ceremony'. That means its one and only purpose is to further a superstition. I will, under no circumstance, support the taking of any kind of animal life based on superstition. it's inhumane.
As an omnivore, I understand why we raise and kill certain animals. There's always a line though, and I think the line of purpose is the best one to draw. I argue that religious freedom is never more important than a living creature of sufficient importance, rarity, intelligence, or capacity to suffer. No one has the right to increase the amount of suffering and death in the world without just cause. For me, just cause ends at entertainment and superstition. I oppose this permit in the same way I oppose hunting. Yes hunting is sometimes important and allowable for the control of various animal populations, but when the main purpose seems to be the joy of ending life, it's indicative of a harmful proceeding.
As a side note, my opposition has nothing to do with the bald eagle being our national bird. My disapproval does not come from some selfish sports-team-mascot kind of patriotism that can't bare to see a bald eagle killed the same way it can't stand to see an American flag burned. (After all, Benjamin Franklin wanted our national bird to be the turkey, and I think that was a swell idea. The somewhat homely but stubborn and resilient turkey would be a fine symbol) I do suffer from the same 'awe' bias as everyone else has for nature's more iconic animals. Although there's not much reason for it, it seems so much more sad when a panda or a rhino dies than it does when a cow or a rare type of worm passes on.
Regardless, my point is that religious freedom, even that of a badly oppressed culture should not take priority over a general life affirming public policy. After all, what happens when someone decides that they need to stab a baby dolphin 345 times with a corkscrew or they cannot attain salvation? What about the small but devoted sect that needs to publicly guillotine a live camel in order to communicate with their dead relatives? In the realm of religion all ideas are equal, so any request in that vein involving death or suffering must always be considered with extreme caution.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46729054/ns/us_news-environment/#.T2ftZhHeBYA
The federal government is about to grant a permit to a Northern Arapaho tribe which will allow them to kill two bald eagles for the purposes of a religious ceremony. traditionally these tribes have usually applied for feathers and other eagle parts from a federal repository. it is extremely rare for one of these permits to be issued. Should it ever be issued at all?
This is an issue I've thought about from several angles and in several different frameworks. I land firmly on the side of the 'no' argument. Someone might ask what the harm is if this tribe is allowed to kill these eagles. After all, people are allowed to sacrifice certain animals if they wish. Chickens and goats are still slaughtered for religious ceremonies regularly. The bald eagle was taken off the endangered species list in 1995 and its status was officially improved again with its removal from the threatened list.
This person might also argue that we owe it to the American Indians to help them maintain any semblance of their culture that they want. Under most circumstances, I would agree with them. while I'm no fan of a 'white guilt' kind of effect, I do recognize that our government has historically stolen things from the various indigenous peoples of America. The difference here though, is in the substance of the culture. The death of an animal. The animal's life will be taken for the purpose of a ceremony. The purpose is not to eat the animal or make specific goods out of its body. the purpose is for a 'religious ceremony'. That means its one and only purpose is to further a superstition. I will, under no circumstance, support the taking of any kind of animal life based on superstition. it's inhumane.
As an omnivore, I understand why we raise and kill certain animals. There's always a line though, and I think the line of purpose is the best one to draw. I argue that religious freedom is never more important than a living creature of sufficient importance, rarity, intelligence, or capacity to suffer. No one has the right to increase the amount of suffering and death in the world without just cause. For me, just cause ends at entertainment and superstition. I oppose this permit in the same way I oppose hunting. Yes hunting is sometimes important and allowable for the control of various animal populations, but when the main purpose seems to be the joy of ending life, it's indicative of a harmful proceeding.
As a side note, my opposition has nothing to do with the bald eagle being our national bird. My disapproval does not come from some selfish sports-team-mascot kind of patriotism that can't bare to see a bald eagle killed the same way it can't stand to see an American flag burned. (After all, Benjamin Franklin wanted our national bird to be the turkey, and I think that was a swell idea. The somewhat homely but stubborn and resilient turkey would be a fine symbol) I do suffer from the same 'awe' bias as everyone else has for nature's more iconic animals. Although there's not much reason for it, it seems so much more sad when a panda or a rhino dies than it does when a cow or a rare type of worm passes on.
Regardless, my point is that religious freedom, even that of a badly oppressed culture should not take priority over a general life affirming public policy. After all, what happens when someone decides that they need to stab a baby dolphin 345 times with a corkscrew or they cannot attain salvation? What about the small but devoted sect that needs to publicly guillotine a live camel in order to communicate with their dead relatives? In the realm of religion all ideas are equal, so any request in that vein involving death or suffering must always be considered with extreme caution.
Monday, March 5, 2012
'Spirituality'
I've never had trouble talking about my views on 'spirituality' so this might be the easiest blog post for me over the course of this entire class. I'm afraid my descriptions won't provide much substance for discussion though. Any time I open my mouth on this subject it tends to bring people down. I cannot elaborate on my views without asserting that most other human beings, plainly put, have the wrong idea about the whole concept of spirituality or an religion that they are associated with. I assure you that I do not wish to offend anyone, just express myself.
The best way to do this in this blog would be for me to use the concept of the medicine wheel from the book we've been reading. The Sacred Tree has the medicine wheel divided into four sections that are supposed to represent the various categories that everything in a person's life falls into. There's the physical, the emotional, the mental, and the spiritual. Now I absolutely hate to do this to the medicine wheel since four is my favorite number, but when it comes to my life (and again plainly, everyone else's life whether they accept it or not) I have to remove a piece of the wheel. Well, not so much remove it as collapse it into one of the other sections.
I'm an atheist. By atheist, I mean the form of agnosticism put forth by one of my favorite scholars Richard Dawkins. While I cannot prove that god doesn't exist, I find no reason to even entertain the idea of his existence in the same way that I cannot disprove fairies but still live my life as if they aren't there. While I believe the human imagination to be our second greatest faculty behind compassion and pay tremendous respect to several forms of fiction, I find it disrespectful of the world to put stock into false or untestable ideas that aren't admitted to be such.
This makes me object to the term 'spirituality' in several ways. First of all, it's too broad a term. It is often cast in very separate lights without anyone bothering to make note of it. For example, an atheist or agnostic can look at the grandeur of some natural landmark or Hubble telescope picture and say that it makes them feel spiritual when what they really mean to point out is a sense of awe or wonder or perspective. Meanwhile, a christian can go to church and talk about how praying makes them feel spiritual when what they really mean is that they think they are talking to the creator of the universe. There's something very different about these two interpretations.
My second objection to the word 'spiritual' comes from the first definition I offered. I feel it has no place in the vocabulary of an atheist because it implies something otherworldly, something that either cannot be understood by people or never will be. This first definition is the reason I wish to remove the category spirituality and let its slot be filled in by the 'emotional' section. For as an atheist who has felt small before the vastness of the universe and gigantic against the stretches of the microcosm, I know my reactions are nothing but emotions. They are powerful, sometimes frightening, and sometimes rewarding emotions but there's nothing 'transcendent' about them. There's nothing there that is beyond explanation.
Many people have asked me how I manage to not feel hollow in the face of such ideas. They ask things like 'Well then what's the point of being alive?' or 'How can you be happy without god's love?'
These are the most offensive questions imaginable. it is my personal opinion that life's value is the most obvious thing in reality. I can't even begin to answer the questions because the list is so long. To give you an idea though here are several reasons to be alive, each one on its own probably enough to prop up an existence. Love. Fun. Food. Entertainment. Awe. Contemplation. Sleep. Each one of these (and others I'm not bothering to list) can be broken down into innumerable configurations, sizes, colors, and intensities that make life worth preserving.
Even in the face of this answer people have asked me if I don't feel limited by the boundaries of reality. Of course I do. That is why I seek out stories. I love to hear of places that will never exist, of people too decent to be found, of objects currently beyond our cleverness. It's harmful to let those ideas to bleed into my perception of reality though. After all... is there anything smaller than a creation story compared to the science of human genesis? A creation story, like one of the trickster tales or the beginning of the bible, is a story that explains everything while explaining nothing. Supreme being existed forever, eventually decided to make the universe, then the planets, then some beings out of mud. For these stories to be taken seriously is to deny our world its dignity. Things are infinitely more complex than a godly touch turning dirt into humans. The big bang. The exceedingly long life cycle of stars. The precious water in our cells. The blind but moving process of natural selection. These are the ideas that truly contain the beauty of existence because they reflect it. To be spiritual in any supernatural or metaphysical sense is to punch the mirror of the universe and then insist that the cracks are the most important part. That is the small idea. That is the selfish view that limits us.
To answer the question of god's love... all I can say is that everyone else lives without it too. So perhaps now you can see why I feel so left out when I see a diagram that tells me that a quarter of my humanity is missing.
I am not a spiritual being. I'm an emotional, physical, and mental one.
The best way to do this in this blog would be for me to use the concept of the medicine wheel from the book we've been reading. The Sacred Tree has the medicine wheel divided into four sections that are supposed to represent the various categories that everything in a person's life falls into. There's the physical, the emotional, the mental, and the spiritual. Now I absolutely hate to do this to the medicine wheel since four is my favorite number, but when it comes to my life (and again plainly, everyone else's life whether they accept it or not) I have to remove a piece of the wheel. Well, not so much remove it as collapse it into one of the other sections.
I'm an atheist. By atheist, I mean the form of agnosticism put forth by one of my favorite scholars Richard Dawkins. While I cannot prove that god doesn't exist, I find no reason to even entertain the idea of his existence in the same way that I cannot disprove fairies but still live my life as if they aren't there. While I believe the human imagination to be our second greatest faculty behind compassion and pay tremendous respect to several forms of fiction, I find it disrespectful of the world to put stock into false or untestable ideas that aren't admitted to be such.
This makes me object to the term 'spirituality' in several ways. First of all, it's too broad a term. It is often cast in very separate lights without anyone bothering to make note of it. For example, an atheist or agnostic can look at the grandeur of some natural landmark or Hubble telescope picture and say that it makes them feel spiritual when what they really mean to point out is a sense of awe or wonder or perspective. Meanwhile, a christian can go to church and talk about how praying makes them feel spiritual when what they really mean is that they think they are talking to the creator of the universe. There's something very different about these two interpretations.
My second objection to the word 'spiritual' comes from the first definition I offered. I feel it has no place in the vocabulary of an atheist because it implies something otherworldly, something that either cannot be understood by people or never will be. This first definition is the reason I wish to remove the category spirituality and let its slot be filled in by the 'emotional' section. For as an atheist who has felt small before the vastness of the universe and gigantic against the stretches of the microcosm, I know my reactions are nothing but emotions. They are powerful, sometimes frightening, and sometimes rewarding emotions but there's nothing 'transcendent' about them. There's nothing there that is beyond explanation.
Many people have asked me how I manage to not feel hollow in the face of such ideas. They ask things like 'Well then what's the point of being alive?' or 'How can you be happy without god's love?'
These are the most offensive questions imaginable. it is my personal opinion that life's value is the most obvious thing in reality. I can't even begin to answer the questions because the list is so long. To give you an idea though here are several reasons to be alive, each one on its own probably enough to prop up an existence. Love. Fun. Food. Entertainment. Awe. Contemplation. Sleep. Each one of these (and others I'm not bothering to list) can be broken down into innumerable configurations, sizes, colors, and intensities that make life worth preserving.
Even in the face of this answer people have asked me if I don't feel limited by the boundaries of reality. Of course I do. That is why I seek out stories. I love to hear of places that will never exist, of people too decent to be found, of objects currently beyond our cleverness. It's harmful to let those ideas to bleed into my perception of reality though. After all... is there anything smaller than a creation story compared to the science of human genesis? A creation story, like one of the trickster tales or the beginning of the bible, is a story that explains everything while explaining nothing. Supreme being existed forever, eventually decided to make the universe, then the planets, then some beings out of mud. For these stories to be taken seriously is to deny our world its dignity. Things are infinitely more complex than a godly touch turning dirt into humans. The big bang. The exceedingly long life cycle of stars. The precious water in our cells. The blind but moving process of natural selection. These are the ideas that truly contain the beauty of existence because they reflect it. To be spiritual in any supernatural or metaphysical sense is to punch the mirror of the universe and then insist that the cracks are the most important part. That is the small idea. That is the selfish view that limits us.
To answer the question of god's love... all I can say is that everyone else lives without it too. So perhaps now you can see why I feel so left out when I see a diagram that tells me that a quarter of my humanity is missing.
I am not a spiritual being. I'm an emotional, physical, and mental one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)