I suck For Not Posting More, But These Make Up For It

Yeah Yonder Mountain String Band!







Yeah original Jimmy Cliff!

New post concerning current readings, thoughts, and events AND one dose of the Koran every day

So I haven't blogged for about a month now. I wanted to write regularly here, but then school arrive and I didn't have the time. Even while I am in school I still liked to read a lot on my own. So between school reading, extra-curricular reading, and then “real” life I just couldn’t find the time. I am now done with school, for the immediate foreseeable future, so I will have much more time and this is what brings me back here.

I basically just want to blog my opinions, mainly focused on what I am reading and current events. I also want a place where I can link videos and websites and find other like blogs, with similar interest. I just want to regularly journal, and this is a good way to get it out.

Now that I am out of school, I am focused on three projects I would like to complete. One is inspired by a reference by Russell of “The Atheist Experience”, who mentioned on the show following a different blog, named Kifar or something, where the person was positing their daily reading response to the Qur'an. I thought this sounded like fun, and a good idea. I too have just started reading the Qur'an, and I think I would like to do a similar thing. This is the first time I'm reading the Koran as a whole. I have read detached portions, relevant to different classes on Islam that I have taken. From these classes I have a very basic understanding of Islam.

I respect Islam and the Qur'an, so I don’t seek to emphasize any particular agenda based reading. In other words, I don’t feel the need to emphasize what doesn’t make sense, or more generally I don’t feel the need to emphasize what I find different about the text. There is a sort of Islam phobia which exists in my society, which I would like to see done away with. I say this in response, sort of, to the recent “Draw Muhammad Day”, which was some sort of cultural statement. I would argue though that the majority of Americans heard nothing about the day and wouldn’t have wasted their time doing something so mean and pointless. Sure, you have the freedom to draw whatever you want, but this is different than the “Draw Muhammad Day”, that is just a day for bullying.


It is like sure, you can draw whatever you want, but drawing a picture of your grandma who has a giant goiter on her throat and then waving it in front of her face to upset her is being a bully, not an example of artistic expression. People that support that day are doing it to deliberately upset a group of people. All of this is a long way of saying I just want to read the Koran, out of a genuine interest and hope to learn something more about life, people, and the power of narrative.

So this was project one, which I will actually be starting at the bottom of this blog. So briefly, project two is going to be a serious of expeditions to the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Masonic Library. I want to report back what I find interesting here on this blog. I am doing preliminary research currently and beginning sometime next week, hopefully, I will make my first trip.


The third thing I want to start doing is attending more religious services in my local community. I hold more of an agnostic belief system, with a deep belief in spirituality, and I just want to witness and explore modern religious rituals. And obviously one way to do this would be to attend more religious services.

I am beginning with mainly Christian denominations, at first. This is not done out of any preference, but rather a choice from proximity. I live in so called Christian nation, and so that is what is around me. Much like my reading of the Qur'an, I am not initiating any of these projects out of some ulterior motive, but more because I just want to do some real research get more involved in actual experiences as opposed to getting my information largely through other people, in things like documentaries, books, etc. So that is what I hope to use this blog for…



To more relevant and specific comments, I just finished Nietzsche’s “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”. I have taken a couple classes which touched on this philosopher, and I found his philosophy ringing true. I found his style funny, sharp, and ultimately damning to the issues he addressed. I believe in the classes we covered “The Genealogy of Moral”, “Ecce Homo”, and “Beyond Good and Evil”, all of which I enjoyed. When I say thoroughly enjoy I don’t mean to say his writing has brought me a lot of pleasure. He certainly doesn’t engender much hope or peace. I actually find reading him discomforting, but it is the discomfort of growth or exercise, which is ultimately enjoyable.

“Thus Spoke Zarathustra” is an all together different kind of piece. I am a well-trained and energetic reader and plowing through this text was at times a challenge. There is a dream-like narrative told, which can create great moments but also sometimes it wandered to the point of incomprehensibility. And I like incomprehensibility, but still even in my most well intentioned heart, I was plagued with a growing apathy towards the text. All this said, it is a wholly relevant text for our current time and all should take up the challenge.

The book seems the fictional embodiment of the philosophers’ ideas, much like Voltaire’s “Candide” or Plato’s “Euthyphro”. This is actually a reoccurring technique in the history of philosophical texts, which produces an interesting circularity, with the philosophical ideas in which the philosophy is taken, deduced from the experience, but then through the narrative the philosopher attempts to reintegrate the philosophy in a new world. One question I had from “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”, was Zarathustra himself, supposed to be the ideal representation of a philosopher? Or the supposed ideal of a life itself? Nietzsche himself is aware of the tension between critiquing the operating systems of value and attempting to assert your own theory of evaluation, so it makes me wonder.


Beyond these more meta-textual considerations, the book does provide a good source for critiques of the operating values systems. In other words, the social critique, or anyone else with right motivations, will find a solid source of motivation in this text. Nietzsche is at his most poetical and metaphorical. In other works Nietzsche employed the tool of aphorisms, but there is a poetic quality, unique to this text as well. As described, this is the narrative, figurative, metaphorical, poetical quality.


I watched a really interesting BBC documentary entitled “All Too Human”,




, and in it researchers discuss how by the end of his life Nietzsche was a sickly, mad man. I say this with all due respect, but from studying his work it does seem to imbue the reader with a similar dread. I think this dread is worthwhile to explore and become comfortable with. It is interesting that this life, which can to seem to have so much value and worth and one moment, can quickly become perverted and deconstructed to an unrecognizable and incompatible degree the next.


I think there is a challenge in Nietzsche, akin to the modern day troll of the internet, where Nietzsche as a  challenger stands as prophet of doom and deconstruction. This negative force of deconstruction is paradoxically a force of positive change. It seems, perhaps to intellectual discourses’ detriment, that people are only motivated by things which they can hate and attack. Benign things in discourse become ineffectual. In this sense then Nietzsche is appropriating the necessary tools for the job.

The job of course is multi-facetted. I hesitate to layout an ideology and call it Nietzsche’s, or even to label and describe the philosophy of the text itself. The truth is to be discovered in the journey itself. I will say, with some confidence, that the most basic point is that our current moral systems represent agendas, not truths. This is easy to recognize on an individual level. It is easy to see that what I find good is connected to what I desire and that what is bad is connected to what I don’t desire. Therefore morality is matter of desire, but Nietzsche is not offering some hedonistic ethic. Our desires are not obviously connected to pleasure and pain. Some find pain desirable, others find pleasurable things undesirable.

Nietzsche demonstrates how this moral understanding functions on a macro, societal level as well. This means that group desires function to create societal normative standards, meaning there will most likely be a battle of normative standards, based on the variety of perspective, from the variety of groups you find.

Nietzsche sees a larger historical story here. Now we have to ask a question is there over-simplification at a point in Nietzsche’s story, maybe not even over-simplification, but a specificity which can appear harsh or even racist. Readers of Nietzsche will understand my tip-toeing.

Plainly speaking, Nietzsche can come across as anti-Semitic and anti-Christian. Nietzsche can be read as an aristocratic, elitist, who is hateful towards the vulgar masses. Nietzsche undoubtedly does believe a vulgar morality has emerged victor in this battle for the moral value system, manifested in a Judaic, Christian ethic.

I can hear the crickets chirping, as my Nietzsche rants continues, so I will end it. Final words, read “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”, you will probably be pissed and have a lot to think about.


Last thing Reading Response to Qur’an Section 17


       I am starting at section 17 because that was the section I was at when I decided to blog my reading. This was an interesting section, it discussed the Islamic tradition decision to face towards the East. For reference I am reading “The Qur’an: Text, Translation and Commentary” by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. I am not sure about the history of translation when it comes to the Koran, so hopefully this is an appropriate translation.

So the issue in section 17 is the Qiblah, which is the direction Muslims faced in prayer. I also read in this section in footnote 140, that Nas is a word that means people, I thought of this in light of rap artist Nas and the connection between the meaning of the word and his own ideals.

What is interesting in this section, is how this turning of orientation from west to east, is a significant religious declaration. It was a visual and actual symbol for Islam’s new orientation. Section 143 of the Qur’an states:

…We appointed the the Qiblah

to which thou was used,

only to test those who followed

the Apostle from those

who would turn on their heels

(from the Faith).

Not only does the Qiblah operate as a symbol of the unity of the Muslim brotherhood but it is also a test of sorts of the Apostle, presumably to see if he will "get it" or not. On the first point, it is obvious to see the power and effect of a people assuming the same modes of behavior in  prayers and rituals. This mass acceptance of the ritual surely validates, and emboldens an individual’s beliefs.

The second point is a little harder to understand. The idea that this decision of orientation reflects an ability of the individual to decipher the truth seems like a tough standard. One could argue the original Judaic orientation towards the West, is the default position, and so one would ask by what standard do we make the determination to orient ourselves in a different manner.

One answer provided by chapter 144 is that one reason is to face the Sacred Mosque, which is where the Ka’ba and the sacred city of Mecca or located. I am very interested in the Ka’ba and will have to learn more about it. I understand that the Ka’ba was said have been visited by Adam, and that is how it becomes thee important sight.
    
The final chapters of this section make a strong statement about “The People of the Book”. The gist of it is that these people remain willfully ignorant of the true signs of Islam. Chapter 145 states:

Even if thou wert to bring

To the People of the Book

All the Signs (together)

They woud not follow

Thy Qiblah; nor art thou

Going to follow their Qiblah;

Nor indeed will they follow

Each other’s Qiblah.

This is a hard declaration of separatism. The message is that there is a sort of predestined discrepancy of opinion. What is scary is how true the passage rings in this sense, when we check the claim against the real world. It is impossible to imagine the victory of any one of the monotheistic traditions over the other. This would be an obvious problem for most of these different groups.

The religious ideas are not just religious but also cultural. It is our cultural identities which we would not be able to abandon. One has to wonder, the value of a spiritual text which supports such an ultimate separation. As an outsider looking in it seems to suggest an inability to cross the cultural abyss.

I read about this idea of spiritual orientation in another book recently written by Patrick Dunn titled “Postmodern Magic”. In Appendix A of the book, he explains the proper way to create a magical circle. In doing that he addresses which direction the mage should face, he writes:


Stand facing east. You may prefer to stand behind an altar or some other specific place of working. Create an aesthetically pleasing environment.

Important note: You may, for a multitude of reasons, prefer a different direction for your starting point. This is fine. Remember, my example makes most sense to me, but your practice may be entirely different to resonate with your own personal intuition and experiences. Being in tune with your personal connections is most important: it is only you, the mage, who must be aesthetically empowered in a way that will be conducive to altering your reality and achieving your magical goals.

Although I use the system of directional correspondences I learned first, the one used by the Golden Dawn and other ceremonial magic groups founded on the same principles, I have met people who use other systems that work just as well for them. The important thing is to have a reason behind your direction correspondences. The Golden Dawn faces east because it is the direction the sun’s rising, therefore symbolizing light. Others face north because of its magnetic associations. I know several people who, when working indoors, just name the nearest wall with a window “east” and treat it as such! (218-219)


Now of course, this interpretation of the process is not in agreement, necessarily with the Qur’an’s explanation of the decision. I do find Dunn’s explanation and beliefs interesting. In one way it is just restating the first two idea of this discussion. That was that the way a group faces, strengthens the groups beliefs and that appropriate orientations strengthens belief more generally.

But, Dunn stand’s in opposition to the Qur’an’s other belief that our orientation is a test, which establishes if we hold the proper beliefs. Here the issue seems to be the power of the individual versus the power of the group. Dunn seems to think our magical power comes from us internally, while monotheists see a prescribed power which must be discovered and then obeyed.

There is plenty more to say, but I am sure many will not get this far. If you did, thanks for reading and I would love to hear any responses or ideas. Check back for Section 18 of the Qur’an tomorrow.

Arguing about words with Atheists!

Video where Dillahunty Advocates "Linguistic Absolutism"

This is my letter to Matt Dillahunty of "The Atheist Experience". Above is a link to the video, where I believe Matt makes the argument of "Linguistic Absolutism" (somewhere around 14:00 in) which I disagree with. Let me know your ideas.



To Matt Dillahunty

A Critique of “Linguistic Absolutism”

What I wanted to write you about is something I have heard you say repeatedly on the show. You often argue that people need to stay within fixed boundaries linguistically. You find something particularly offensive when people begin to say “God is X, Y, Z, etc”. I am going to label this position an ideology of “Linguistic Absolutism”. I emphasize ideology, because the claim that one ought not use, in your understanding “wishy-washy words”, is a by-product of your ideological alignment towards “Scientific Rationalism”.

To me, this perspective is just inherently false. There is a long academic tradition of Linguistic history which argues the contrary. Language is not a static thing, but a transforming dialectical thing. To borrow concepts from Ferdinand Saussure, you are making the mistake of perceiving a concrete relationship between the “signifier” and the “signified”. There is not and cannot be an absolutist relationship between these things. What you push is a linguistic unitary imperative, which ignores the intrinsic centrifugal forces within language too. This idea of the “centripetal vs. the centrifugal” forces, present throughout the evolution of language, is elaborated by thinker Mikhail M. Bakhtin in his essay “Discourse in the Novel”.

To use Kantian terms, we say “words” do not represent things in themselves. Your “unitary imperative” necessarily implies this is false. Bakhtin explains the issue nicely:

A common unitary language is a system of linguistic norms. But these norms do not constitute an abstract imperative: they are rather the generative forces of linguistic life, forces that struggled to overcome the heteroglossia of language, forces that unite and centralize verbal-ideological thought... (emphasis added)

What I am observing is you are offering your own ideological thrust to the process of developing “linguistic norms”. The mistake I feel your making is imagining and proposing that there is indeed, an “abstract imperative” towards this unified language, which there is not. The unification is just the opposite coin of the chaos behind language. We can understand this on a simple grammatical level. Any given word is a construction of syllables. These syllables are distinct parts which are unified into a whole. So language at its most fundamental level is a “pure” act of interpretation.

It seems to me you either want to destroy poetic and metaphoric sense all together, or denigrate it to the position of something like an “imaginative result”, basically something akin to mental illness. I think this ignores the powerful poetic content of language and its force in our lives. This leads you to believe things are just stories, which ignores the word’s own power in shaping ideological thought.

The practical implication of all this is that even if you could somehow flip a switch right now and make everyone an atheist, using a very rigid and agreed upon scientific dialect. Still, it would remain near impossible to remove the spiritual, theistic, and religious foundations of language, which exist at the unconscious level. This is probably obvious to you in your life in innumerable ways. Literally it seems that we are unable to think outside the words of religion. It seems you want to fight this be appealing to a “Linguistic Absolutism”, but even if we could construct there is some imperative to adopt this strategy, it would never work because the two forces in language (centripetal vs. centrifugal) would always be present, evading meaning and interpretation. This ultimately leads to metaphoric, figurative language, being employed when defining religious and transcendental experiences.

To end by restating this all simply one more time, if someone says “I see god in everything” this statement should not be rejected on the ground that it conflates, and distorts, the words presented. As it merely is an attempt by the person to define their own concepts and language.

Work Referenced:

1.The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism”, pg 1198

God I Hate "The Atheist Experience"!

The people I am discussing come a close second on the scale of horrible, to the current manifestation of Fundamental Christianity in the United States. My battle has been with one streaming atheist show called, "The Atheist Experience" and its pack of rabid hosts. The only thing worse then trying to engage these guys in philosophical conversation, might be actually having to hang out with them (I wouldn't wish it on an enemy).

I am so frustrated with these Atheists because they exhibit some of the same disgusting behavior, like censoring dissent, name-calling, quote mining, scape-goating, group think, as the parent organizations that spawned these devils. I truthfully hate modern organized religion so much more, for creating the market for this type of organization.

Atheists are in fact devils, and I mean in the true sense of the word "deceiver". They like to employ reason and empiricism when it suits their case, and then revert to other thought patterns when it doesn't. They offer an empty present and when you try to tell them there's nothing in the box; they react like children.

I have been trying to engage some of these atheists as of late and its been muddled at best. They seem unable to accept any form of criticism, even when I acknowledge their strong foundation. I have never disagreed with a person who says "I have seen no good reason to believe in god and so I don't". My disagreement arises in the enactment of these beliefs, what shape they take in reality. The shape is of a hammer, where any spiritual or super-natural belief is blasted as ignorant and non-scientific.

I want to lead a campaign against these villains! If any like-minded readers encounter this blog, I say let's unite against "The Atheist Experience". Let us become A-Atheists! Our army is non discriminatory, our goal is simple, our resolve is concrete!

ugh, I just wanted to get a post up in the moment...I still plan in the next post to talk more about my research (a paper connecting esoteric spiritual ideas with the infamous rapper Tupac Shakur), and I am going to present some of my conversations with my enemy...and life reflections...and reflections about a book I am writing called "The Boy and the Witch"....until then go to the atheistexperience.blogspot.com and get em!