"Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, but at least its an ethos." - The Big Lebowsky (regarding nihilism)
"What? There's no silicon heaven? Well, then where do all the calculators go??" - Red Dwarf
No, this is not a call for crusade or jihad, but I've just been noticing that quite a few published works have been put out recently in the cause of atheism: here's the review for one and for another. This comes in addition to a recent article by a noted psychologists (psychologists, neurologists and evolutionary bioligists seem to be especially strident atheists) regarding religion as a cognitive by-product.
This prompted me to do a little research on theism, atheism, agnoticism, ignoticism, ad nauseam. About.com has a slightly over-exhaustive defence of atheism, although one wishes that they'd find a more photogenic spokesman.
Thoughts about the existence/non-existence of god, an afterlife, and the supernatural in general are definitely heavy thoughts of mine, when I can tolerate the burden. And while I feel that atheism does have its uses, and probably should not be weighed with the burden of proof against them, it is just interesting to me that these days they focus so heavily on the evils of monotheism. Monotheism has historically caused quite a large amount of problems for humanity in general, from self-mutilation to forced belief in the earth as the center of the universe, to the belief in the sin of eating food. Still, one feels that these atheists argue as they do because they have some particular axes to grind. I have yet to see how these atheists would treat atheistic religions, such as Zen or Daoism: Are these Western authors anti-theist, or anti-religion? They seem to blur their argument. Also, I must admit that although I've read their arguments on evolutionary psychology, practical necessity, etc., I'm still not sure how the metaphysics of ethics is addressed; I mean, if love, truth, good and evil are mere relative human constructs, whats to stop them from being altered? If I could develop an evil Land of Mordor with slaves and whatnot, and it was able to maintain itself and compete favorably against other societies, who could then complain? What if the Nazis won? Can one stop short of nihilism in this line of reasoning? I realize the metaphysics of morals isn't exactly the same thing as the non/existence of god, but if atheism is blurring the line by attacking both theism and religion, then it the subjectivity or universality of ethics is also a concern that should be addressed, rather than just glibly explained away by evolution or "practicality".
The general theist/atheist debate also seems to avoid other pathways, such as the viability of pantheism or pandeism. Perhaps atheists would sniff that such beliefs are worthless semantic fudges, but then again if such beliefs relabel the world around us in a way that make people happy, why not? If atheists are supposed to address things from a scientific perspective, then they shouldn't then turn around and argue which is a "better" way to view the reality of which we are a part, as long as it accords science its due. Maybe it makes some people feel better to think that the universe operates under cold, scientific laws and randomness, but if others choose to see us as all part of a divine whole, I'm not sure what is so wrong with that. As for what monotheists think on these issues, I think we'll just skip over that.
I like a point raised by "ignosticism": as with many other philosophical debates, ultimately nobody really knows what the hell they're talking about, because they haven't really provided any strict definitions and are more or less attacking extremes and cariactures (this can be turned against atheists: despite their best efforts to pretend otherwise, atrocities have been committed by convinced atheists as much as by convinced theists).
Anyways, as for myself, I used to think I was a "free thinker" until I realized that it's an actual group. I think that Hindu concepts on the Brahman are probably a good step in my own direction, but ultimately I agree with Herman Hesse's Siddartha, who tells the Buddha that he absolutely agrees with him, and therefore cannot follow him out of fear that he'd be doing it for the wrong reasons and not reaching his own conclusions for himself. We each need to follow our own path, and can learn from others, but shouldn't listen to them too much.
As an extra, here's an interesting scholarly article on the development of a belief in the afterlife in the Bible. Those ancient Hebrews were harsh, damn!
30 Sept 2006
29 Sept 2006
Fusion Steps Forward? Mesopotamia Steps Back?
I saw this news story today about Chinese scientists conducting successful tests on a fusion reactor. Now, of course no one says what these tests actually were, or whether the reactor reached breakeven, but still, this is even the first time I've heard that the Chinese were developing a fusion reactor. So much for that decades-slow progress on the international reactors.
I know China is a developing country, and that even many of its accomplishments are perhaps overrated, but at the same time it seems to me that it is acting as a catalyst here: perhaps other countries will be spurred into researching fusion more thoroughly (admittedly it has been an ongoing project for 30 years without much payoff).
Also, through my internet trollings, I found some of the latest on Iraq. The fact that this war is hardly even reported in the news any more shows just what a disaster it has been: even worse, it appears that since the Coalition military limits its actual presence in Iraq (to avoid casualties?) , it has a minimal impact on the slow-motion trainwreck that is unfolding. Apparently the world doesn't care as long as its only Iraqis that are doing the fighting and dying.
I sometimes wonder just why this conflict got started. Weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism obviously have been discredited: I honestly never believed those claims, but more on that later. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was honestly a plus, but since then his shambolic trial seems to have done little to bring a verdict and justice on this dictator. There is the "cause celebre" of terrorism issue, the whole issue with European powers (whether one cares for them or not), and the fact that it seems precious few in either the US or UK administrations can admit that something has gone wrong.
Why do I mention this? It is because, as I said, the Iraq project has failed, more than because it is unpopular: most of the people initially opposing the Iraq war oppose any American-led war (anyone remember the anti-war bunch before the 2001 Afghanistan invasion? And they were often the same people distributing flyers and emails about the plight of Afghani women and how something needed to be done ... so much for consistency). This certainly isn't a war for oil: that's another popular slogan that has no basis in reality.
The sad fact is that this war was a war to "prove" certain pet theories that members of the administration had, namely (among others) the democratic peace theory (that as soon as Iraq had elections it wouldn't threaten its neighbors), and that the Rumsfeld doctrine of light, supermodern warfare was feasible. The American people, in their post-9/11 shock, were easily duped into thinking that Iraq and 9/11 were connected, and the rest is history. It's interesting how even this month, five years on, 9/11 can be so easily invoked in the public forum to further parochial political agendas.
I know China is a developing country, and that even many of its accomplishments are perhaps overrated, but at the same time it seems to me that it is acting as a catalyst here: perhaps other countries will be spurred into researching fusion more thoroughly (admittedly it has been an ongoing project for 30 years without much payoff).
Also, through my internet trollings, I found some of the latest on Iraq. The fact that this war is hardly even reported in the news any more shows just what a disaster it has been: even worse, it appears that since the Coalition military limits its actual presence in Iraq (to avoid casualties?) , it has a minimal impact on the slow-motion trainwreck that is unfolding. Apparently the world doesn't care as long as its only Iraqis that are doing the fighting and dying.
I sometimes wonder just why this conflict got started. Weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism obviously have been discredited: I honestly never believed those claims, but more on that later. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was honestly a plus, but since then his shambolic trial seems to have done little to bring a verdict and justice on this dictator. There is the "cause celebre" of terrorism issue, the whole issue with European powers (whether one cares for them or not), and the fact that it seems precious few in either the US or UK administrations can admit that something has gone wrong.
Why do I mention this? It is because, as I said, the Iraq project has failed, more than because it is unpopular: most of the people initially opposing the Iraq war oppose any American-led war (anyone remember the anti-war bunch before the 2001 Afghanistan invasion? And they were often the same people distributing flyers and emails about the plight of Afghani women and how something needed to be done ... so much for consistency). This certainly isn't a war for oil: that's another popular slogan that has no basis in reality.
The sad fact is that this war was a war to "prove" certain pet theories that members of the administration had, namely (among others) the democratic peace theory (that as soon as Iraq had elections it wouldn't threaten its neighbors), and that the Rumsfeld doctrine of light, supermodern warfare was feasible. The American people, in their post-9/11 shock, were easily duped into thinking that Iraq and 9/11 were connected, and the rest is history. It's interesting how even this month, five years on, 9/11 can be so easily invoked in the public forum to further parochial political agendas.
28 Sept 2006
J. Lo, Melungeons and the Future of America
The other night I was watching a feature film starring Ms. Jennifer Lopez. Now, I won't get into any description of the film, other than to say that Jane Fonda is in it (so please keep it away from any Vietnam Era veterans) and it's so bad I felt like I'd been repeatedly hit in the head. However, some interesting sociological observations came to me as I attempted to dull the pain of watching this contemporary romantic comedy.
For starters, how easily Ms. Lopez' character was portrayed interacting with other characters from different ethnic groups and backgrounds. So what? You may ask. Well, such portrayals in American media are rare: usually films and television shows opt for standard cliches of one type or another, like same-race couples, "token" ethnic characters, etc. And this is not a left-leaning screed: when was the last time you've seen an interracial couple in a movie that was explicitly not about race relations? Yet an actress such as Ms. Lopez is not as easily cliched: she can fit into different settings without controversy.
The reason came to me when my wife (a newcomer to American society) looked confused, turned to me and asked: "Is Jennifer Lopez black?" Of course, the answer is: she's Puerto Rican, and Puerto Ricans are a little of everything (and have an especially strong yet overlooked matrilineal connexion to Tainos). Since such people have such a cosmopolitan background, they seem to be able to act as "interfaces" in American society. What other public figure could have Sean "Puffy" Combs as boyfriend, a Cuban [first] husband, and ueber white-boy Ben Affleck as a fiance?
I only mention this because when you look at US culture, racial categorizing from the 19th century has not died, if anything, with modern identity politics it has become more entrenched. The "one-drop" rule makes someone either white or black and the "pure blood quanta" rule makes someone an American Indian: this was true 100 years ago, and shockingly it's still true today. The idea of people being a racial mix where all parts are weighed equally by society has been historically disparaged in much of the US as being a "melungeon" (known in anthropological parlance as a "triracial isolate"). As stated in a certain history book, that touches on the subject, Lies My Teacher Told Me, this is sad because it represents a complete potential historical path of development in America that was shut out in favor of the disasterous policies that still divide Americans from one another. Perhaps greater acceptance of mixing would have made American society more like a Latin American one such as in Puerto Rico (although such societies do still suffer effects of racism, and a centrist review of said book shows that the author is perhaps selling his political agenda a little too strongly). It seems only now do we have such figures as Jennifer Lopez or Tiger Woods who defy the traditional classification and offer hope for a mixed, common "American" identity.
The former Soviet Union certainly does not have an American-style obsession with race or ethnicity: while there is much ethnic pride, and nationalism, and sadly in Russia even increasing racism, it still does not seem to be as much a day-to-day level of thinking as it is in America. This is especially true in Kazakhstan. A mixed Kazakh-Russian is not considered either "white" or"not white" and wouldn't be criticized as "acting white" for speaking Russian and living or working in Moscow. Conversely a Russian with Kazakh or Tatar roots wouldn't be seen by Kazakhs as being a "poseur" or "stealing our culture" for speaking Kazakh or practicing Islam (although such people are admittedly a rarity). If anything, countries attempting to introduce American-style identity politics threaten to tear apart whatever social cohesion that they have.
But then maybe I just seem to be reading too much into a J Lo movie. I blame the stresses of my job search.
For starters, how easily Ms. Lopez' character was portrayed interacting with other characters from different ethnic groups and backgrounds. So what? You may ask. Well, such portrayals in American media are rare: usually films and television shows opt for standard cliches of one type or another, like same-race couples, "token" ethnic characters, etc. And this is not a left-leaning screed: when was the last time you've seen an interracial couple in a movie that was explicitly not about race relations? Yet an actress such as Ms. Lopez is not as easily cliched: she can fit into different settings without controversy.
The reason came to me when my wife (a newcomer to American society) looked confused, turned to me and asked: "Is Jennifer Lopez black?" Of course, the answer is: she's Puerto Rican, and Puerto Ricans are a little of everything (and have an especially strong yet overlooked matrilineal connexion to Tainos). Since such people have such a cosmopolitan background, they seem to be able to act as "interfaces" in American society. What other public figure could have Sean "Puffy" Combs as boyfriend, a Cuban [first] husband, and ueber white-boy Ben Affleck as a fiance?
I only mention this because when you look at US culture, racial categorizing from the 19th century has not died, if anything, with modern identity politics it has become more entrenched. The "one-drop" rule makes someone either white or black and the "pure blood quanta" rule makes someone an American Indian: this was true 100 years ago, and shockingly it's still true today. The idea of people being a racial mix where all parts are weighed equally by society has been historically disparaged in much of the US as being a "melungeon" (known in anthropological parlance as a "triracial isolate"). As stated in a certain history book, that touches on the subject, Lies My Teacher Told Me, this is sad because it represents a complete potential historical path of development in America that was shut out in favor of the disasterous policies that still divide Americans from one another. Perhaps greater acceptance of mixing would have made American society more like a Latin American one such as in Puerto Rico (although such societies do still suffer effects of racism, and a centrist review of said book shows that the author is perhaps selling his political agenda a little too strongly). It seems only now do we have such figures as Jennifer Lopez or Tiger Woods who defy the traditional classification and offer hope for a mixed, common "American" identity.
The former Soviet Union certainly does not have an American-style obsession with race or ethnicity: while there is much ethnic pride, and nationalism, and sadly in Russia even increasing racism, it still does not seem to be as much a day-to-day level of thinking as it is in America. This is especially true in Kazakhstan. A mixed Kazakh-Russian is not considered either "white" or"not white" and wouldn't be criticized as "acting white" for speaking Russian and living or working in Moscow. Conversely a Russian with Kazakh or Tatar roots wouldn't be seen by Kazakhs as being a "poseur" or "stealing our culture" for speaking Kazakh or practicing Islam (although such people are admittedly a rarity). If anything, countries attempting to introduce American-style identity politics threaten to tear apart whatever social cohesion that they have.
But then maybe I just seem to be reading too much into a J Lo movie. I blame the stresses of my job search.
27 Sept 2006
Self-Advertisement
I've been playing around recently with Wikipedia, and made a small contribution to that source of collective knowledge. As you have all obviously noticed, there is a dearth of information on Kazakhstan, so I decided to add some info on my "home town". It's tough to find reliable, free, unclassified information on Kazakhstan in general, let alone Aktobe, so I gave it my best. I also added some information on a few Kazakh historical figures, namely the confusingly named Abul-Khayr Khan, Abulkhair Khan and Ablai Khan. Kazakhs can keep them all straight, but something needs to be done to spread a little more knowledge of history on the step. No one even ever notices Central Asian history post-Chingis Khan ... but the Moghuls came from somewhere.
Setting Up
Well, I now have my laptop and wireless access, so I thought I would bow to the peer pressure and create a blog. We'll see how this one turns out. Just what the subject material will be is anyone's guess, but I'll definitely try to give some observations on life, people, society and issues of import as I see them from Boston. Perhaps it will be something of an "outsider's" perspective, given my time away from the States. Who knows?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
