Gawaine's profilePhilosophy cornerPhotosBlogListsMore  |  Tools Help |
|
January 11 Let's consider the age of consent The age of consent is something that gets people really emotional. In Japan the age of consent is 13, yet the Japanese are not less civilized than we are. In fact Japan has one of the lowest crime rates and one of the lowest levels of rape in the world. I'm not saying the age of consent here causes these things, what I am saying is that Japanese culture is its own and that we cannot stand in moral judgment of them. The age of consent is 16 in India, and here in the states it varies from 16-18. I believe Nebraska or Kansas just lowered the age to 13, the Christian theory here being that teens want to be sexually active anyway, so why not marry them off? Our social standards on this issue swing a great deal. When Jerry Lee Lewis, the fabulous piano player who wrote
Great Balls of Fire", married his 13 year old cousin in Missisippi. It was legal then in the mid 1950's with parental consent. He was astounded at the reaction it provoked. His career was completely ruined, simply because the rest of the country now believed that 13 was too early. I think it is too, but this is just an example of how quickly standards can change. For many thousands of years humans rarely lived past 40. The genetic pool remembered this, and gave us instructions to reproduce as soon as possible, which meant that girls were married at 13 and boys at 14. These genetic instructions still exist, but now most of us reach the age of 70, and early parenthood has lost its appeal. This happened within living memory. Each state has its own age of consent, but as far as the Federal Government goes, it's 18, period. This means that a 17 year old adult who has already been pregnant cannot make or even look at porn. The same standard overrules all the state standards. To me this is simply irrational. The laws against kiddie porn are so strict that if you stumble across a site with 17 year olds having sex, it is illegal to even look at the stuff. How do you know what site you're on unless you look at the screen? Sometimes browsers get highjacked by trojans and other malware to direct your browser to a chosen site. This is not the fault of the computer owner, this is the fault of the criminals who hacked the computer, but never mind, the computer owner is guilty anyway. I don't know about you, but for me it is really difficult to see the difference between an 18 year old face and a 17 year old face. I think a lot of other people would agree.
I am not defending kiddie porn. But consider this: a circuit judge in, I think, California ruled that drawings and cartoons of teens having sex is illegal. Drawings are not people, and cartoons aren't either. Some of the art on places like www.eroticillusions.com features elves who have sex. The elves have young faces. Is this porn? Elves aren't even human. And what if the face is youngish but the body is mature? Where does it end? Already scientists have developed a brain imaging device that allows them to read what a human is reading just through the machine. Soon these machines will be able to see our fantasies. Are fantasies going to become illegal too? If I write autobiographically about the teens I had sex with when I was a teen, is this kiddie porn? This is approaching hysteria.
Minors of either gender cannot give consent. I'm in favor of keeping the age of consent high for girls. Teenage girls are easily confused and are easily taken advantage of. We need to protect them.
With boys however I think it is a different matter. Have you ever heard of a 14 year old boy complain that a mature woman had sex with him? You might hear this from the sons of fundies who are forced to say they were traumatized, but really, can you believe it? Boys at this age desperately want to have sex, and I think 99% of them would be overjoyed to have sex with an adult woman. Thus, I think it is unnecessary to call it rape or sexual abuse when a mature woman has sex with a pubescent boy. The genders are equal, but there are differences, and the law should reflect those differences. The sexual abuse of young boys by men could still be
prosecuted as rape, if the boy was traumatized. The thought that a straight male can be turned into a homosexual through rape by a man is just nonsense. Being gay or lesbian is GENETIC, although the Christians will howl that it is a matter of choice and therefore sinful. I experimented with bi-sexuality, but it wasn't very interesting. Experimentation is not about choice in this matter, it is a matter about finding out who you are.
May 21 Lies Of the ChristiansLies of the Christians #2 Gawaine Caldwater Ross
The Bible is inerrant. Or, to state it more broadly, so that it includes the entire Abrahamic tradition, Jews, Christians and Muslims; Scripture is inerrant. I call it a lie because after taking a look at the facts it is evident that this claim is more than simply a statement of faith, it is a denial of reality. Biblical criticism, which began in earnest in the Age of Enlightenment, has produced shelves full of books catalouging the Bible's contradictions. Fundies and Evangelicals simply pretend this literature doesn't exist. This is why they must be continually reminded.
Embarassingly, the contradictions begin right in Genesis, on the first page yet. The order of creation has two accounts. In the first, on the 1st day, God separated light from darkness. On the 2nd, he separated the waters above from the waters below. On the 3rd, he created dry land and plants and growing things. On the 4th, he created the stars and the planets, the sun and the moon. (Note that the Sun appears after the fruiting plants, a physical impossibility.) On the 5th day he created fish and birds; on the 6th, wild animals and humans. On the 7th he rested. So is the account as it is laid out from Genesis 1:1 - 2:3.
But there is another account of the Creation, beginning Genesis 2:5. Here God created Adam before there was any vegetation. Next he created the wild beasts and all the birds of heaven. After Adam named them all, God created Eve out of Adam's rib (Adam is made from red dirt). It may seem trivial to object that there are 2 accounts of creation, but it's not. This is the first indication in the Bible that more than one hand was involved in its composition. Scholars have established that there are 4 sources for the Old Testament, called the P for priestly, the J for Yahwist, the E for Elohist, and the D for Deuteronomic. These sources couldn't always agree as to which version of a particular story was the best or holiest, so a sort of compromise was reached in which both (or more) versions would be held as scripture, with no editorial comment to link them. With this finding in mind, much confusion is eliminated. Unfortunately it also destroys the argument that God wrote it, because an omniscient being couldn't possibly evidence any confusion as to which version of a story is the right one. Once you accept the fact of these contradictions, you can find so many of them that to treat them adequately requires an entire volume, which is exactly what biblical scholars have done.
Adam and Eve were the first people. They had children together, which is natural enough. Those children had sex with each other, since there weren't any other people around, which means that they were incestuous. One fanatic tells me that this was OK because they were so close to God. So close, in fact, that the first son, Cain, murdered the second one, Abel. Cain's punishment is not the death penalty (as the law demands in 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'), but banishment, which is much more in keeping with what we know of the treatment of criminals in clans and tribes.
It is a lie that there is only one God. Right in Genesis 6:1 'the sons of God' saw that the daughters of men were pleasing, and married them. Jews pretend that 'sons' here means angels, but if they were angels, why didn't they call them that? This expression, 'the sons of God', occurs in multiple places in the Bible.
Rather than call the story of the Flood a lie, it is more charitable and accurate to call it a myth. Universal flood stories abound in the mythologies of the world, but they are not found everywhere. When the last period of glaciation ended it is thought that the Black Sea very suddenly filled with water, which could produce a long memory of a giant flood. Noah's ark was 300 cubits long by 50 cubits wide by 30 cubits deep. This gives a volume of 450,000 cubits. A cubit is about 18 inches, or half a yard. 450,000 x 18 in. = 8,100,000 cubic inches. Divide this by 36 and we will get the number of cubic yards, or 225,000. Now Noah had to put 2 of every kind of animal in this ark, plus enough food for them to eat for the entire duration of the flood. Since carniverous animals like tigers and pythons would need entire animals to eat, it is obvious that he needed to bring aboard more that two of every kind. The text makes no reference to whales, of which the ark couldn't possibly hold more than 4 adult whales. So maybe aquatic creatures were left out, but even so animals that spend a lot of time in the water but some necessary time on land, such as seals, turtles, penguins and so forth would still have to be brought aboard. There are over 500,000 species of animals, not including insects. Clearly this ark was much too small to harbor all these animals, even if they were all babies. As a myth it is colorful and meaningful. As scripture is is simply wrong, and it is wrong to insist that it was a fact.
In Genesis 17:1- 17-8 God gives to Abraham's descendants the entire land of Canaan in perpetuity. Historically, it hasn't worked out that way. First of all, the Jews had to conquer Canaan - what kind of a gift is it if you have to fight for it?- and secondly, they were taken out of it during their captivity in Egypt, in Babylon, and then again, most disastrously, after 70 c.e. when all the Jews were driven out of Palestine by the Romans. This diaspora lasted very nearly 2,000 years, a not inconsiderabe period of time for human beings. God lied or he withheld the truth. The Jews later explained this rupturing of the covenant by placing the blame on themselves for not being holy enough (even though they were the Chosen Ones, a guide and light to all nations).
God sends evil spirits.He sent an evil spirit to Saul ( 1 Samuel 14-23). Thus the claim that God is absolute goodness is false. Elsewhere in many places God claims to be jealous, vengeful and wrathful. Which of these qualities is good? In mythology many gods have an ambivalent nature - Zeus was a good and great god, but he had dozens of affairs. It is one thing to worship a god who has an abivalent nature, but to claim both that your god is absolutely good and yet also vengeful and wrathful is nonsense.
More lies will be exposed. May 12 Hymn To Pan
Hymn to Pan Gawaine Caldwater Ross
Before Morocco was Roman, you see, The music of Pan was African jazz.
At the Wednesday night prayer meeting The percussion discussion of Mingus goes on, Gettin’ all jumpy and sweaty inside. This is the time of the passionate stranger, Of bullfights and trumpets, of magic and lust. You should see that goat high steppin’ Playin’ his pipes for centaurs and satyrs While rivers of wine and buckets of beer Splash the maenads snaking with joy. Seven black dancers leap on the cliff Five different rhythms make them alive, It’s Music that spears them one at a time. One says “It’s crazy,” one says “It’s love,” Three new rhythms awaken the dead! Fertility spirits moan and shout As flutes and oboes evoke ancestors. A soprano echoes a baritone’s wail. The sky man wears a cloak of feathers, The earth woman wears a skirt of grass.
A neighboring tribe joins the fray Entering caves with torches aloft
Wearing masks of stallions and mares. The god who grants all desires arrives Riding a winged golden lion As twenty eight drummers climax at once.
I can believe that Joy is infectious I can believe that Music is Life. I’m going to jump and roar my approval! She’s going to ride a broad-chested centaur The people will tussle a long hungry python When Pan calls us in the middle of the night.
February 16 In Praise of the HumanIn Praise of the Human by Gawaine Caldwater Ross
We are accustomed to hearing people say “Praise the Lord!” and “Praise be to Jesus!” This is fitting and good if you happen to believe in them. But I find that people are nearer to hand, and even bad people are interesting, if you study them.
It may very well be that we are not the “Crown of Creation,” as the Jefferson Airplane once sang. But I believe we are close to it, and here's why: We belong to that very agile and intelligent order of animals known as primates. The word itself comes from the Latin primus, 'one of the first, excellent, noble.' And who cannot admire the dexterity of gibbons swinging through the trees, the clowning of chimpanzees, and the insatiable curiosity of monkeys? All of the primates have opposable thumbs. It is the long opposable thumb of humans and our large brains that give us our many artistic and practical abilities.
Humans dexterous? I would think that playing Flamenco music on the guitar would qualify. Not to mention we invented musical instruments in the first place, and invent more all the time. True, not everyone is a Segovia or a Clara Schumann. Some people use their dexterous hands to embroider, to quilt, to sculpt, to perform surgery, to make cabinets and houses, make and repair engines, and play baseball. Nor are humans as weak as is commonly supposed. The weight lifter who can lift and press a thousand pounds is probably as strong as a gorilla. We are better climbers than monkeys and other primates too: the sport of freestyle rock climbing (in which the climber uses no ropes or pins or other tools) shows that human climbers can climb up massive overhangs by jamming their hands and feet into cracks and inching themselves along. This makes us, actually, the best climbers of any mammal. We can also climb higher, and over sheer ice for long distances.
If you watch a gymnast or a figure skater or a ballet dancer you get a good idea of how agile we really are. Not only are we very agile, but we also have incredible endurance. A fit human can easily outrun a horse. (Not in speed, but in distance.) The same is true for our ability to outrun deer, antelope, and nearly any other kind of animal except for the canines, which are truly fantastic runners. But even that may be changing. In the news we have a marathon runner who is going to run 26 miles a day for 50 days in a row, and after that he plans to run 100 miles nonstop. Zulu warriors used to run 60 miles (barefoot) and then plunge into a battle without resting. We can do this because we have very efficient biological methods of excreting waste, using fat, and controlling our internal temperature.
We have no wings, so we manufactured them. We are the first animals to find a way to move freely in an environment that is not natural to us. The speed with which we learned first to fly in the atmosphere and then to propel ourselves into space is breathtaking. Barring a global catastrophe, we should have colonists on Mars within 50 years. I'm not saying this is desirable, or should be done, but the fact that we may very well pull it off is simply outstanding.
As for language, it is true that many animals communicate with each other. Even if they can't make any noise, like most fish, they can still communicate with bodily signals and by releasing chemical compounds that say “I'm here and ready to mate!” And, it is true that the language of whales and dolphins may do many things of which we are as of yet unaware. Just recently it has been reported that dolphins have names for each other, and humans and dolphins can communicate fairly well. Dogs also have a vocabulary of some 50 different types of growls, barks, whines, yips, howls and so on. More remarkably, dogs can understand some human speech. It was reported last year that dogs can attain the vocabulary of a three year old child! And Koko the gorilla learned American Sign Language. She makes up short sentences even, and has been know to lie.
All this is wonderful, but compare it to the human achievement. I'm willing to bet that whales and dolphins have a universal language that is understood by them all over the world. Humans have over 4,000 languages, some of them extremely unlike the others. Not only that, but humans discovered writing, so that the poetry of a Sumerian poet from 4,000 years ago is accessible to us, once it was learned how to translate it. Writing encouraged the human ability to tell stories, some of them (the epics), long and complex. I can write an email to a friend in China and send it over the Internet. She'll get it almost instantly. I'd like to see any other animal be able to communicate across the world like that! Our languages can also be sung: we compose entire operas and musicals, many of them very entertaining. Do that, Mr. Chimpanzee! Not only this, but we also discovered the language of mathematics. It's true that some animals can count – we think of a cat counting her kittens – but being able to count is nothing like the ability to use math to weigh a distant planet. Or, for that matter, to even know what a planet is.
Cynics and twisted theologians like Calvin will insist that humans are wicked, stupid or useless. This is terribly uncharitable. It is true that we belong to the aggressive side of the simians, and that thanks to our ability to make tools we are adept at killing each other. On the other hand, we have also become highly skilled at caring for people who are ill. We do this even for people we don't know – some people devote their entire adult lives to caring for others. Elephants, which are intelligent and which have a high degree of empathy for each other, can't do this. Thanks to veterinary science we also do the same for injured or sick animals.
Michaelangelo, stupid? Clara Barton and Florence Nightingale, wicked? Mozart, useless? I think the assessment of the cynics and misanthropes is way off base.
It is true that we are facing a global crisis of environmental degradation, largely brought on by human activity. But I know that we have the ability to repair much of the damage. It is our duty to do this, and I believe we will do it, if we stop wasting time and resources fighting each other. If we learn to love human beings as much as we say we love God, we may very well pull it off. January 19 SecessionThis morning NPR featured a story about the state of Tennessee. The
state has created an Internet posting site for people convicted for
possessing or dealing meth. Now there is no doubt in any sane person's
mind that speed is a terrible drug, pretty much as bad as crack
cocaine. Furthermore, meth addicts require longer treatment than other
types of addicts (this according to NBC's broadcast last night). But
instead of offering them the helping hand of Christian forgiveness and
love, which is what Christians are supposed to do in a very Christian
state, the state shows its true colors by stigmatizing them instead.
Don't forget that this is the state that gave birth to the KKK. This is
the state that tried and convicted Clarence Darrow for teaching
evolution to high school students. This state is still trying to ban
the teaching of evolution in high school. The creationists dismiss it
as a mere theory. Well don't that beat all. They like the theory of
relativity a whole lot, because that gave the USA nuclear weapons, and
nuclear weapons don't contradict the stinking Bible. But the theory of
evolution does, so they can't stand it. This state is run by authoritarians. This parenting style, the authoritarian, is loved by conservatives and hated by psychologists. This style can be summed up by saying, "Do as I tell you to do or else!" Psychology does not have a problem with parents setting limits to behavior. Children need limits and look for them. However, psychologists have found out that children respond more to what parents do than to what they say. Gee, do ya think the authoritarian boot lickers of the South could admit this? It seems that this entire part of the country is run by mendacious, officious, self-righteous bible thumping purblind (this means that they are deliberately ignorant) JACKASSES. It was a horrible mistake to force the South back into union with the rest of the country; they used the venom of their racism to poison the entire continent. Do you think they have any shame over this? Hardly. They resort to their old trick of blaming the lower classes, blaming the nigras, blaming wicked sinners, but NOT themselves. Texas, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas have no business being in the same country as Massachussetts. We should either kick their asses out, or secede ourselves. January 13 International LawYesterday I received a forwarded joke that I would like to share and then comment on.
Two Muslim women are discussing their children, Fatimah and Amina. Fatimah pulls out a photo. "This is my son Abdullah," she says with pride.
"My, isn't he handsome," Amina replies. "He was," Fatimah answers, "he's a martyr now." She pulls out a photo of another son. "This is Habib." "What curly hair he has!" Amina remarks. "Had," Fatimah sighs. "He's a martyr too." She then pulls out another photo. "This is Khaldun," she says, wiping a tear from her eye. "Another martyr?" Amina inquires. Fatimah nods. Amina sympathizes, "My, but they do blow up fast, don't they?"
This is a brutal joke. It plays upon the stereotype of the fanatic Muslim, a stereotype that we Americans have a hard time shaking. It cannot be denied that not all Muslims are fanatics, but neither can it be denied that the Abrahamic tradition has bred its share of them. I call the evangelicals and fundamentalists of this country fanatics as well.
The problem is that this label, fanatic, is a pejorative term, and that the fanatics can't see themselves as such. Instead they see themselves as patriots, freedom fighters, crusaders, zealots and heroes, but never as fanatics. We have to abandon the idea that blood shed in a holy cause or for a sacred principle is holy blood. This is an archaic remnant of primitive religion, which saw blood as a magical substance ideal for sacrifice to appease the gods. There has to be a better way.
There is, and that way is international law. Nearly everyone can agree that the safety and security of persons is a matter of international law. When people are tossing bombs or missiles at each other, it's impossible to have a meaningful dialogue. We have to understand that the other side has grievances, real or imagined. If they are imagined, airing them in court, such as the World Court, exposes their foolishness. If they are not, the World Court is an ideal place to hear these grievances.
In the case of Israel, there are some 13 million Jews in the world, and some 800 million Muslims. Perpetual war with the Muslim world is unthinkable. If the USA stopped supporting Israel, the Palestinians and their militant supporters might be willing to believe that we were indeed neutral, neutral enough to want to pursue a peaceful settlement at least.
Both Jews and Palestinians have a claim to the so-called Holy Land. I say so-called because how is it possible that a land fought over so savagely for so long could still be holy? Bloodshed pollutes holy places - any fool knows that.
The high road for the US is to resort to international arbitration. The low and stupid road is to resort to force. This road requires enormous expenditures on defense and surveillance purposes for an indefinite (read endless) period of time. The high road is the superior way. It makes us look like the civilized party, and fosters actual cessation of hostilities. As that flaming radical President Eisenhower said in a famous speech, every dollar spent on defense is a dollar that could be spent on schools or hospitals. I say abandon military solutions, and seek lawful ones instead. December 12 The Anarchist's CryThe laws of God, the laws of man,
He may keep that will and can;
Not I: let God and man decree
Laws for themselves and not for me;
And if my ways are not as theirs
Let them mind their own affairs.
Their deeds I judge and much condemn,
Yet when did I make laws for them?
Please yourselves, say I and they
Need only look the other way.
But no, they will not; they must still
Wrest their neighbors to their will,
And make me dance as they desire
Wit jail and gallows and hell-fire.
And how ame I to face the odds
Of man's bedevilment and God's?
I, a stranger and afraid
In a world I never made.
They will be master, right or wrong;
Though both are foolish, both are strong.
And since, my soul, we cannot fly
To Saturn nor to Mercury,
Keep we must, if keep we can,
These foreign laws of God and man.
These lines were written by the great English poet A. E. Housman about 1900. They raise an interesting and much debated question: does law have any legitimacy at all? Let's sweep away the laws based on the "divine commandments" that seek to overly regulate our personal behavior on the basis that they don't exist because that God doesn't exist, or because that God is not of my faith. That still leaves us with the question, does society have the right to govern people by law? Let's leave aside regulations, such as plumbing regulations, that may have been pushed through by special interests who have either bribed or pressured legislators into making laws for the broader issue of public safety.
This embraces both civil and criminal law. If a company sells me a product that doesn't exist, what am I to do if there is no law? I could inform others, and institute a boycott, but what if the given company is very powerful and has goons who threaten me? Isn't it better for all concerned if I have a court where I can bring suit to get redress? Similarly, if I or someone I love is terribly battered by a local gang, what recourse do I have if there is no law? The answer to that is more violence. If there is a rule of law, however, I can take the perps to court, and try to get justice there. Surely this is better than mob violence on a mass scale.
Anarchists argue that, ultimately, enforcement of the law resides in force, or the threat of force. This is true, and is a problem of human nature. One psychopath set loose onto 100,000 pacifists can cause a lot of trouble. I see no way out of this conundrum, until we can breed psychopaths out of existence. In the meantime, we are stuck with imperfect responses to bad problems. I say law is better than the alternative. November 28 Christmas brouhahaYou can hear a lot of people complain this time of year that Christmas has turned into a merchant's carnival. This is true, but if you don't want to buy presents for people, you don't have to; hand made gifts are supposedly just as good. I say supposedly because my family, for one, bless their working class souls, is obtuse when it comes to art. I painted a jungle scene for them once to put in their children's room, and the painting wound up collecting dust behind the radiator. So it is with other hand made gifts I make for them. Oh Well, as one of my friends used to say. They still welcome me to share Christmas dinner with them, and that's good enough for me.
I like the idea of sharing presents with people on a given holiday. Birthdays are nice too, but not as universal. At Christmas I get to hear from people I haven't heard from in a while, and think about all the fun children will have with the educational books and toys I give them. I get together with my friends and we sing twisted versions of Christmas carols and sea faring songs, and play musical instruments and have a hell of a good time. The good cheer fortifies me for the dark times ahead. Now if we were to honor the holiday properly, of course, we'd celebrate for the full 12 days, not just one. Imagine slipping that past your employer! "I'm not coming in for the next 12 days on account of Christmas and I want to get paid for all these days too." I can hear them howling now. You'd think that seeing as how the American worker defeated Communism that our employers would show a little gratitude. You'd think.
But I'll dream on of my utopian socialist paradise where Republicans are a historical curiosity and people will wonder at what we ever saw in George Bush. November 09 Sex and religionIn my essay "The Sexual Roots of Religion", I explored the historical roots of the religious impulse, tracing the desire for mystical union and ecstasy to the same impulse generated by lust. This link is hardly new. I urge the reader to check out "Patterns in Comparative Religion" by Mircea Eliade, and book 1 of "The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology". There are many others, but these are great introductions.
As it turns out, primitive religion used orgiastic frenzy, alone and in groups, to achieve a state of balance and harmony with the environment. By imitating the marriage of the Sky Father and the Earth Mother, the primordial union was restored, and all would be well again until the next new year rolls around. This was, naturally, accompanied with much frenzied drumming and the libation of intoxicating substances. It was your regular Dionysian revel, a revel we have just about forgotten existed, let alone how to do it. I say it's time to return to the good old religion, the religion of lingam and yoni worship. I'll worship yours if you worship mine. October 28 The Worst DoctrineIn my opinion, historically speaking, the most pernicious doctrine ever conceived was that of Original Sin. In its most extreme form, it holds that people are fundamentally flawed and wicked, so flawed, in fact, that nothing they can do makes them worth more than shit. That is, human nature is evil, and can only be redeemed, or saved, by the grace of Jesus. It was on account of our wicked ways that he had to be sacrificed. There! Don't you feel guilty now for being born? No? Then meditate deeply upon his suffering. Go watch Mel Gibson's wildly inaccurate movie about his crucifixion, and weep with grief that such a good man (which he was) had to be sacrificed on your account. That's right, even if you were born in New Guinea and haven't even heard of the Bible, much less Jesus, then it's still your fault, and unless you hurry up and convert, you will certainly go to hell, where you will be tortured for eternity. Some people still believe that even unbaptized infants who die in an untimely fahion go straight to hell.
At the time that this doctrine was developed, the ancient Greeks believed that we were half demonic and half angelic. Surely this is more charitable. Human history is a sad tale, but in spite of all the cruelty, people still found the inspiration to create incredible works of art, stirring works of poetry, institutions designed to help the ill (hospitals), and developed one invention after another to relieve human and animal suffering.
I know many atheists who are much finer human beings than almost all of the Christians I know, and if you insist that they are nevertheless wicked, I will spit in your eye.
This doctrine compels its believers to see everyone who isn't one of the chosen, or a family member or friend, as an enemy - or, at best, as a worthless person. What a terribly cynical view of humanity! This doctrine is precisely why the conservatives distrust people so much and are so off the wall about controlling people's behavior, especially their sexuality. (It has long been believed that sex is the root of original sin.)
This gives them the desire to punish everybody in sight, and thanks to their wealth, they are more or less able to punish people at will. Sometimes I think the entire conservative agenda consists of the desire to punish people. They would say it's all about personal responsibilty, and it is true that if you aren't responsible, you're not really an adult. Notwithstanding, they have a very peculiar notion of personal responsibility. It does include personal hygiene, but doesn't include raping the environment, or poisoning ground water, or any form of corporate responsibility for the welfare of the people who work for them at all. For a long time, horses were more valuable than slaves, and were treated better. Too many capitalists want the worker to be a disposable cog in the machine. German workers obtained good benefits under the Bismarck government, and still have far better benefits than American workers do. The same is true of workers in Japan, France, Britain, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. American capitalism is particularly hard headed and selfish. I see this as a direct result of the Calvinist obsession with sin and the worthlessness of people. I say abandon this doctrine entirely. If this means that we don't need to be saved, great! I don't believe in salvation, I believe in evolution. October 27 Massachusetts liberal?This state has an undeservedly liberal reputation. True, we're more tolerant of gays and lesbians than most people in the country are, and that is important, but to me that is bottom line. That's just being decent to your neighbors. We are considerably less tolerant of Haitians and homeless people. If you've never been homeless, I suggest you try it for a month. You will then know what it is like to be a leper. As a leper, you have very little freedom, because you have extremely low status. You are not at freedom to loiter in a public park, because cities are ashamed of their homeless, and seek ways to drive them out. This is a remnant of the poor laws enacted by Elizabeth I of England, who was very hostile to the poor.
If liberality is defined as an absence of regulation, then Massachusetts misses that goal by a long shot. It is evident in a whole host of ways that most residents here are either blind to or unwilling to admit. This is, after all, mostly a Catholic state, one that only quite recently allowed liquor stores to remain open on Sundays. Sundays! Most peope should be in church in the morning, and then visiting their relatives afterwards, in case you didn't know. We have one of the strictest limits in the country for blood alcohol levels in defining DUI; it is so strict that one woman recently was arrested for having had 1, count 'em, 1 drink. You cannot own a BB gun in this state. You can own a real gun, but not a BB gun. Outside of this state, most people find this almost impossible to believe. Gambling is similarly very restricted (no horse racing allowed), again for moral reasons. Don't let the cops catch you playing poker for money with friends! And letting a stripper touch a client - ach du lieber, that is a big crime. It is legal to own porn in this state, though it is illegal to make it here, even if it is amateur porn in which no one gets paid. You can be arrested for having so much as a fragment of a stem of a marijuana plant in your car. You need a certificate or a license to do almost anything in this state (whatever it is, the state wants a cut). There is a statute of limitations on major crimes like rape and felonious assault, but not on speeding (or, for Heaven's sake, parking) tickets. Recently I had a 10 year old speeding ticket from Maine revoke my driver's license here. I had to pay the old ticket, a fine for being late, a fee to process the out of state fine, and then a new fee to reinstate my license. Some years ago I went to visit a friend in prison. They would not let me in because I was wearing blue jeans. You cannot conceal anything in jeans that cannot just as easily be concealed in any other kind of pants, but it simply isn't kosher to visit a prison in MA. wearing jeans. Assholes!
Forget about wearing a sword in public (what was it the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution guarantees?). Apparently, the right to bear arms extends only to guns, which are far more lethal than swords. Oh, and in case you want to hunt with a pistol in this state, you can't. You can't even own a crossbow, much less hunt with one. What is wrong with these people? I'll tell you: they're freaking control freaks disguised as Democrats.
The social climate is hardly any better. Try wearing a halter top to work. Don't you dare expose any midriff! If it's not against the dress code, the public will bitterly complain. I know this from the personal experience of friends. What do you think this is, Florida? Once I was so pissed off about this stuff that I went to a supermarket at midnight wearing just my American Flag underwear.
Again, you can forget about skinny dipping. And you can't expose your breasts on a public beach, even though the Supreme Court of the USA specifically ruled that breasts are not obscene. The locals can't stand it - imagine how harmful it is to the minds of the young to see bare breasts! Aiiieee! Only very recently have we begun to tolerate the sight of women nursing in public.
F*ck 'em all, is what I say.
October 25 The Meaning of LifeDouglas Adams, the author of the hilarious novel The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, says the meaning of life is 42. This is not as absurd an answer as it sounds; I think he is referring to the idea that everything can be looked at mathematically. However, math is descriptive and speculative; it can't answer the why questions we have, only the how questions.
When most people ask "What is the meaning of life?", what they mean is, "What is the meaning of my life?" The short answer to this is that there is no meaning unless you give it meaning. I'll return to this shortly.
For most scientists, life is meaningless, in the sense that it has no entelechy, or overriding purpose (other than to make more life). The reason for this is because as a question this is a phiosophical question rather than a scientific one. Scientists cannot even tell us what life is. Science can describe life with the cell theory, but viruses for one don't fit into the cell theory. A new theory needs to come along, but there isn't one on the horizon. Ultimately, the question boils down to definitions, and science cannot provide definitions - that is the business of philosophy. Specifically, it is the business of ontology, the study of being.
This verb, to be, is highly important in English. If a thing be, it is, and it exists. Every thing (and concepts, like nothingness, are also things) exists, although obviously not all on the same plane. Some things are still only potential, while others are purely fictional, and will always be fictional. But it all exists in human conciousness, and as quantam mechanics tells us, we cannot observe an elctron without affecting it. Now this business of consciousness is a complete puzzle to scientists: they know that it is centered in the mind and its organ the brain, but what exactly it is they can't say, as once again this gets back to definitions, and science doesn't give definitions.
Could it be that the purpose of life is to develop higher forms of consciousness? Certain mystical doctrines (such as Yoga) have believed this for a very long time, and now some environmental scientists are beginning to believe this as well. If so, then what is the purpose of consciousness? Firstly, it serves the organism in which it resides. Secondly, it connects the organism to its environment and to others like itself. Thirdly, it serves the interests of Life in choosing mates, and fourthly, it serves to connect data and to construct a useful view of the world. It conditions us with its reflexes so that we learn to avoid pain and seek pleasure. It lifts us out of the mud at the bottom of the river of life and enables us to walk on the land, gazing at the wonder of the skies. It creates art, and music, and techiques to make life easier and more comfortable. It observes illness and learns to treat it, again serving life.
But, as poets, we have to admit that even a very learned life without love feels empty and worthless. To my mind, love is the highest form of consciousness - it is that which we call spiritual consciousness - and that is the purpose of conciousness: to develop stronger and stronger love for others and the planet.
This in itself makes us happy; for whoever is in love is deleriously happy, at least for a while. I know several parents who are in love with their children, and whose children feel the same way about their parents; these are truly happy people. Surely, being in love with Life itself is the best source of happiness of all, as Life can be another word for God. The Ever Living is, in fact, a title of God.
To get back to the personal question, What is the meaning of my life?
Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living." This implies a constant process of self-evaluation and observation - therapy, as we moderns would say. The existentialist philosopher Soren Kirkegaard argued that a life of lies is a false life and that a false life is not worth living. In order to live a real life, that is, we have to stop lying, to ourselves first and then to others, regardless of the cost. That this is a monumental challenge goes without saying. It is a very difficult spiritual discipline. Many people find that accomplishing this task requires a period of complete silence, sometimes lasting for years. However, the alternative, a life of lies, is worse.
This problem is a complex one. We have social fictions to deal with situations that most people find unpleasant to talk about. This is particularly true in the work environment, where if you let your coworker know what you really think of her, all hell could break loose. In the interests of peace, we are taught to suppress our feelings, and this is equivalent to learning how to lie. Now peace in itself is a good thing, but so is honesty (we are told). We need to learn how to be honest without being offensive, and this is more than just a problem of how to develop tact, because tact is useless when you are dealing with someone who is in denial about being an alcoholic. In a case like this, group action is often necessary.
Life ain't easy - that's one of the truest things you can say about it. But it's worth it, and that's the main point.
October 20 Oral SexIn the news is the "startling" discovery that many teens are engaging in oral sex instead of intercourse. This should be celebrated, not lamented. Not only does it prevent pregnancy, it is far safer medically, as other recent research has shown that the risk of contracting AIDS from oral sex is virtually nil. If one uses a condom (which, admittedly, have a poor taste), then the risk of catching an STD is further reduced. Hand stimulation (the old fashioned hand job) is the safest of all. I recommend hand washing afterwards, for the simple reason that you should wash your hands after wiping someone's nose, let alone their genitals. But with that simple precaution, handjobs are satisfying and safe, about as safe as sex can get.
What disturbs many people is that teens are redifining sex so that oral sex is excluded from the definition. This is wishful thinking on the part of teens, but the phenomenon is real. The question is, is this disturbing? The fear is that teens will not be able to embrace real intimacy if they indulge in oral sex before entering a committed relationship. My answer to this is that a committment is no guarantee of intimacy. My parents were barely on speaking terms, and yet they never actually divorced. I knew many families that had a similarly bleak emotional life. Promises to love one another forever are a little overly optimistic; what if your partner turns out to be a pedophile or a member of the KKK? In all the marriage vows I have ever heard, I've never heard the most important one, "I'll never lie to you." Without this promise, the rest is of questionable value.
Promiscuity does not cause an inability to form relationships; it is the inability to form relationships that causes promiscuity (or its opposite, complete celibacy and solitariness). People who are searching for intimacy through promiscuity are generally very unhappy people who often add drug abuse to the mix to try to ameliorate their misery; these are confused people who could use some help, but they have to want it. In other circumstances some people are promiscuous because they have extremely high status and are wanted by a great many people (such as John Lennon); these alpha males are doing what their genes are telling them to do. In no case do I believe that promiscuity is either sinful or a social wrong. It is a personal wrong in a relationship pledged to monogamous fidelity, but if no such pledge has been made, there may be nothing morally wrong about it at all. Empty, perhaps - but that is another matter.
Some people have a very high demand for stimulation, and find routines about anything to be less than optimal. In other words, some people just aren't suited for marriage. For them, a life of promiscuity may be the best they can manage. In any case the role of choice is limited; these are very personal matters strongly influenced by all sorts of irrational reflexes and conditions.
I don't see promiscuity as a social problem at all. Violence is a problem, sex is not. Or, rather, sex is problematic, but not a problem in itself, like violence is. I would much rather see a peaceful world with everybody humping like rabbits than a violent world with no sex. October 18 The Big LieOne of the worst lies confronting us today is that this is a Christian country.
This lie is particularly dangerous, because the more extreme partisans of this lie want to establish a Christian theocracy. If you want to see what theocracies are like, visit Saudi Arabia and Iran. If you think fanatical Christians are more enlightened, think again and look at the history of the Catholic Church: it pursued religious warfare for hundreds of years, suppressed free thinking wherever it felt threatened, burnt people at the stake, freely used torture to force confessions, hampered the advance of medical knowledge by its ban on the dissection of corpses, banned public bathing (which virtually ended bathing on the part of the poorer classes), and is guilty of almost every crime imagninable. The Protestant efforts in Geneva and Britain were hardly any more humane, just weaker. I for one do not trust fundies and evangelicals to respect human rights.
The lie is untrue first in a factual sense: there are in this country millions of Jews, agnostics, atheists, and "spiritual" people who do not associate with any religion. It is also untrue in its intended historical sense, that this was founded as a Christian country. Native Americans would dispute this, but since when have Christians listened to them? True enough, religious refugees from Britain established a colony in Massachussetts, which rapidly attracted many people who weren't religious. Most of the other colonies were founded for economic reasons (to establish plantations). As for the Revolution, the leaders of our Revolution were hardly religious men. Thomas Paine, author of the revolutionarly pamphlet Common Sense, hated the Bible. Ben Franklin was no church goer, and in addition to being a good scientist and diplomat was a great skirt chaser. Thomas Jefferson wanted no part of churches. George Washington was a Freemason, meaning that he accepted a belief in a Supreme Being, but not to the point of going to church over it. Samuel Adams was more concerned with brewing beer and running guns.
And this is reflected in the Constitution itself, which institutionalizes the separation of church and state. "Congress shall make no law regarding religion." This means that Christianity cannot be established by law as the official religion of the country. Any attempt to do so must be resisted by any means necessary.
T October 17 The Issue of EqualityThat might=right is a statement few of us would agree with, as this is a barbarous concept that permits the strong to rule the weak, no matter how awful the behavior of the strong. It is the simplest formula for tyranny, and there has to be a better way for civilized people to behave.
There is, and that is to recognize that everyone has the same rights before the law. This ideal was recognized long before it was put into practice, and in France it took a terribly bloody revolution to establish it as a principle. The French Revolution failed to establish the principle of equality because it was derailed by a ruthless and brilliant dictator (Napoleon), but the idea lived on and had a tremendous influence upon subsequent European history, and is now a world issue. The right to vote was at first restricted to people of property, under the delusion that only people of property had enough substance to not be unduly influenced by overly zealous partisans. But gradually the franchise was extended to more and more men, and finally even to women (in Switzerland this did not happen until 1979).
But equality before the law is not the same thing as equality in the courts. In court, your credibility matters very much, and credibility to the jury and the judge is influenced by superficial things like the clothing you are wearing. Given the same charge of manslaughter, a man dressed in an expensive and well tailored suit is more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt than a homeless person dressed in a parka in July. This is a direct reflection of the issue of status, which underpins all discussions of equality.
Status is a major stumbling block in the problem of implementing an egalitarian society. To begin with, status is a social phenomenon that all mammals and even birds recognize: he who is known to me, or kin, is safe (relatively speaking), whereas the stranger is not. The latter can be attacked with impunity; the former needs to be recognized by the various signals of body language each species has worked out. Parenting is at the root of this, as infants look to their parents as role models, that is, as beings of superior status. In human societies, your place in society is your status, and that varies from one setting to another (you may be a neglected third daughter at home, but a star volleyball player at school).
Status is very complex. Partly it is a reflection of how useful a person is to a given society: medical doctors are very useful, so they have relatively high status. It is well known that the training is arduous, the hours are long, and that they save many lives. The status of sports stars is more peculiar, as they really serve only the function of entertainment. Firefighters are far more useful people, and do much more dangerous things, yet they make a fraction of what sports stars make: a weird statement of priorities in this culture. Conversely, homeless people are of little use to those who regard them through an economic lens, as they produce little and require many services. I am not saying that homeless people are useless; I'm saying that that is how they are perceived.
Now the issue of status plays directly upon the bugbear of hierarchical structures. Egalitarians, especially feminists, want to banish hierarchical power structures, because they see these as being unfairly dominated by men, and it "just isn't the way women operate". Unfortunately, legislation will not be able to accomplish this goal.
Let us take two real life scenarios in which experienced personnel have to call the shots: a storm at sea, and a medical emergency (an automobile accident). On board a ship at sea, there is little room for error. The welfare of everyone aboard depends upon correct decisions being made, and often these decisions must be made in a hurry. I am a landlubber. When I'm aboard a boat, and the captain says, "Grab that rope and hold that spar," I don't say, "I don't feel like it". I say, "Yes," and leap to action.
With a storm approaching, there is no time to debate these things. The time for debate is afterwards, and hopefully the hierarchical structure in question is accountable to the people.
For our other example, let us suppose that several healers from different traditions arrive at the accident at the same time: four paramedics, a chiropractor, an osteopath, a shaman, and an Ayurvedic doctor. Who gets to call the shots with people bleeding on the ground? Whatever your answer, it's a reflection of status. To my mind, anyone with any sense would choose the paramedics.
In short, status is inherent in human societies, and cannot be done away with. We can strive for a more egalitarian society, but a perfectly egalitarian society is probably impossible. October 16 Love is a many splendored thingThis quote from a popular song by Frank Sinatra actually holds quite a bit of truth. Cynics dismiss love as overrated and as a source of pain, but these are people of limited vision.
What they are criticizing are the limitations of personal love; impersonal love is beyond their comprehension. Personal love is what I feel for my family, friends, spouse (if I had one), pets, and neighbors. As such, it is limited by the faults of my psychology: my bipolar disorder produces a lot of free floating rage, which spills over into my personal relationships. This is true of all of us, as all of us have psychological flaws. We also have cultural limitations that make it difficult for us to comprehend and love people from a truly foreign environment. In addition, anxiety directly interferes with our ability to give freely in love, and it is no easy matter to dismiss anxiety. In short, personal love, beautiful as it is, is limited.
And it is beautiful. Who has not felt that he has entered heaven when he has fallen in love with someone who has also fallen in love with him? It is true that this exaltation is temporary, but how magnificent it is while it lasts. It is but a taste of what the state of permanent love offers.
Impersonal love, the kind of loving kindness we exhibit towards stranded animals, people in danger, and people in need. It is the love of the nurse, the doctor, the therapist, and the social worker. The fact that these people get paid for what they do does not negate the value of what they do; after all, there are far less demanding jobs than nursing. It is a calling, and you have to be willing to suffer for it (long hours, high levels of stress, outright abuse, exposure to dangerous diseases, and all the rest of it).
When we express impersonal love, we are being humane, which is of the essence of being human. But we are not alone in our ability to love: dogs clearly love people, as do housecats and other animals that can bond socially. The inability to bond with others, exhibited by the psychopath, is truly inhuman.
Love is always alive. It is always new, comforting, exciting, nuturing, growing, creative, deep, and mysterious. It is earthy (sensual), watery (fluid and smooth), fiery (exciting and lusty and inspiring) and airy (thoughtful and responsible). It is the ultimate good and the highest value, and as the moral philosopher George Moore revealed, it is the basis of morality. If you love people, you will strive to do what is right. If you do not love people, you can still do good things, but they will be for the wrong reasons.
Loving and being loved is sufficient justification for our existence. Nothing else really matters. "Love is all you need" - John Lennon. October 14 Corporate Toads and PinheadsWherever I work, I am surrounded by corporate toads and pinheads. Pinheads bother me the most, but the toads are more dangerous.
Pinheads are impossibly narrow minded people - so narrow minded that their minds can fit on the head of a pin, hence the name. They cannot tolerate the slightest variation in accepted routine, even if such variation is perfectly harmless. I exclude from this category people with obvious brain problems, such as people with Autism, who are notoriously narrow-minded and inflexible. This criticism is directed at people who could do better if they were only willing. And, sad to say, many of them are "professionals". The world of nursing is an exceptionally critical one. I have, at various times in my life, due to poor management skills, had to borrow small sums of money from co-workers. I always repaid these sums, usually with the next paycheck. In my last nursing job, my supervisor found out that I had borrowed money from a fellow worker, and she thought it was most unprofessional, and wrote me up for it. In her narrow view of the world, nurses are professionals who don't borrow money from people. She was a pinhead.
Another fellow nurse on the same floor observed me doing my own laundry in the washing machine and dryer the ward used for the patient's laundry. I used my own detergent, and did this at a time when the said machines were not in use by anyone else. She thought this a terrible breach of boundaries, and told me not to do it anymore. Fine, I stopped. I would not have called her a toad on that account, but she went on to inform my supervisor, and that was unnecessary. She was trying to get ahead by making a fellow worker look bad, and that is exactly what toads do.
The scary thing is, these people are all over the place. Work is a minefield where loyalty to friends counts for almost nothing, and where every 'friendship' is suspect. It's gotten to the point where I find it difficult to work with people at all, yet I crave company and love to joke around with people. It seems that worker's solidarity is a pipe dream, or that it doesn't extend to the "professional" world.
I have other complaints about this. I recently flunked out of a radiology technology program, due to the fact that I have poor spatial intelligence. I was told I wasn't professional material. One of the things that bothered me about the field of radiography is the code of ethics: it states that no one convicted of a crime can serve as a rad tech. Okay, they're trying to weed out rapists and drug addicts. But I break the law frequently in small ways, such as walking on an interstate highway, which is a misdemeanor. If convicted of this I wouldn't be good enough to take people's x-rays? I think this an excessively harsh standard. It is, in fact, a snobby one. I think many people break the law in minor ways, sometimes inadvertently such as by going through a stop sign accidentally, sometimes deliberately, when the regulation in question is a local one or trivial, such as violating zoning ordinances. Does this mean that we are all criminals unfit for "professional" lives? If so, I want no part of a professional career. October 13 Break the Power of the ChurchesIn this country we have never had the kind of anti-clerical movements that were so important in the development of Latin America (particularly Mexico) and modern Europe. The corrupt and brutal power of the Catholic Church was broken in half by the Reformation, a break that caused over a hundred years of war (France alone had 8 civil wars in one century). In England, Henry the VIII seized the property of all the churches and brought the church under state control, thus founding the Anglican church. In France during the French Revolution all church property was seized, and every priest had to swear obedience to the State in order to get his stipend.
European history had a very long conflict between the assertion of Papal power (the drive to make Europe a theocracy) and royal power. In a contest between Pope and King, I'll pick the side of the King every time. This is because in the West, the Church invented the totalitarian state. Over the past 200 years, the Catholic Church has made increasingly outrageous claims of total Papal control and infallibility. You should read the book The Bad Popes by E.R. Chamberlin. It's quite an eye opener. Pope Pius XII, Holy Father during WWII, never even bothered to excommunicate Hitler, who was a Catholic. The Vatican excommunicates liberal theologians like Teilhard de Chardin, but not Nazis. And the Vatcian wants to make a saint out of this toad Pius XII!
In this country we have a long tradition of subservience to charismatic religious leaders. What we need in this country is a good anti-clerical movement. We should have a constitutional amendment banning any religious official from holding public office. Keep priests, deacons, monks, nuns, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, popes, rabbis, mullahs, imams and ayatollahs out of our government forever! Can you imagine the horror of having an Ayatollah become the governor of some state? F*ck this shit!
Tax Church property or seize it all and give it to the poor. Destroy the power of the churches! Christianity deserves to die! October 10 What is Obscenity?Adults can no longer watch R rated movies on cable TV with the original language. That's right, all the 'dirty' words have been edited out. I have no special love for vulgar words that refer to sexual acts, but they are part of adult speech (all over the world), and they have their place.
But the Christian zealots don't want their children to learn these words. They should (A) Move to a country that doesn't use swear words (B) find out what their kids are watching on TV, or (C) take the TV out of the house. Option (D), censoring everything in sight, is not acceptable! These people have NO F*CKING RIGHT to interfere with what non-Christian adults want to read, listen to, watch, talk about, or masturbate to. They get far more upset about Janet Jackson's boob episode than they do about being lied to repeatedly by a government controlled by Texas cretins. These people have their heads up their asses, all of them! I say we should parade down every Main St. in the USA with a huge balloon phallus and whack Fundies with it in their stinking churches.
October 06 Keep Fanatics Out of our GovernmentWe have now been presented with one of the worst possible choices we could ever have for a Supreme Court Justice. Not only has she never even been a judge, which is a far different thing than being a lawyer, not only is Bush guilty of cronyism in this case: the worst of it is that she is a fundamentalist Christian.
She is, by definition, a fanatic, who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible. Anyone who wants to dispute this belief has an entire library of Biblical criticism at his disposal. The Bible is a text woven of myths (Noah's Ark, Joshua stopping the Sun in the sky), mangled history ( Sodom and Gomorrah probably never existed), spurious prophecies (Daniel was written 300 years after the events it describes), lies (women are by their sinful nature subject to men), fictions (there is only one God {other gods are mentioned all throughout the Old Testament}), and horrible moral exemplars (Moses ordered all the worshippers of the Golden Calf to be slaughtered), and serious contradictions by the score. Fundamentalism is hostile to science because it contradicts the Bible, and we can't have that going on. It pretends it isn't (boy do they love nuclear weapons), but look at how desperately they fight the teaching of evolution in public schools.
This woman will put a preacher in every bedroom and a nun in every classroom. Keep her out of our government!!!!
FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE ACCURSED! |
|
|
