it is, quite constantly, a battle within mind to root out those beliefs and aspects of nature and reality which are entirely self-generated or, i should also say, reactive to cultural exposure. when applied to the category of 'God' i come across a catch 22 that is inevitable and inevitably unavoidable. what i think of God is just that, what i think. even were i to word the sentence as 'God is ___,' i run into the problem of promoting and advertising what is, ultimately, a subjective position on the subject.
yet before i question whether or not we can ever know something about God, even if it is our knowledge of our inability to know, i must first ask whether or not it is important to know. under the weight of eternity and in the shadow of forever that question may seem silly, and to some, quite offensive, but i ask it all the same. and let me explain why..
whether you regard the bible as a true historical account of everything that has happened within it's time-span, or as allegory there is a truth buried within the first pages that i think is all too illuminating. in the 'beginning,' there in the 'garden' where God created the 'first man' and the 'first woman' they lived in harmony with God. a perfect community, however inevitably doomed it may have been. despite the account of the 'days' of creation, these first few chapters of 'God's Word' do not tell us just how long 'adam' & 'eve' lived in perfect community with their creator. however, it does state the action that led to their banishment. eating, whatever fruit you imagine, of the tree of knowledge of good & evil.
was it evil to obtain knowledge of good as well as evil? ironically, when God commanded that they not eat of that tree, i do not believe that they regarded it as a moral command but they, in no uncertain terms, trusted Him. if they had no knowledge of good & evil then they could hardly judge that learning such virtue & vice would be particularly 'evil.' (what does this mean in terms of the supposed 'innate' or 'intrinsic' moral law, which is preached to be something already inside of us when we're born?)
but what really strikes me here is that 'knowledge of' comes before the words 'good' and 'evil.' it is not that there were two trees named 'good' and the other 'evil' that the first humans were allowed to choose which they would eat from, instead it is a tree that contains the knowledge of what is good and what is evil. however negative it usually sounds, trust in ignorance to the subject of morality seems to have been held more important than the knowledge of morality itself. how can this be?
there are usually a great many angles from which to approach each and every individual story. let's take this tale of a garden and it's ideological trees out of its setting at the beginning of the world and place it at the beginning of each individual human life. born into the perfection of ignorance, all of your needs provided by those looking out for you, trusting in the woman who bore you and the father who provides for you. after a time you begin to make sense of the world around you. you form conceptions from all that you perceive and even begin learning the language, whether that is intrinsic or externally taught to you. eventually you reach a point where your mother is cooking at the stove and you see the orange glow of pure heat, you extend a hand towards it but your hand is grabbed ever so delicately by the soft caring hands of your mother. "don't touch that, it's hot." this command comes to you not as a moral rebuke, though it does try to appeal to whatever sense of reason you may have established up to this point. the command also provides a measure of comfort to the mother who states it, she believes that she will be obeyed, though she really knows better deep down inside. she looks away for a moment to tend to something else, the orange glow pulses again to your eyes and with curiousity and anticipation you extend your arm again and grab the stove with your hand. a split-second later, the pain reaching your tiny nervous system, the synapses being interpreted, you are made aware. in that instant it is not the morality of pain/pleasure you learn but the hard truth that for all of your actions there will be consequences and reactions whether you want them or not.
there is always a down-side to knowing. but human pride extends so far as to believe itself capable of comprehending anything, even the deepest truths of the universe, down to the tiniest sub-atomic particle suspended in space-time and held together somehow explained by quantum physics. "we'll never know till we try." that terrible mantra of human experience: 'experience as much as you can because you only live once!'
the knowledge is what separates us from God. because He is turned into a category, a topic, a spiritual entity summed up in and defined by our human words. we know God, we love to say. He has made Himself known, we shout. when in all reality, the ignorance we were born into was closer to perfection that all of our empirical knowledge and rationality. we have established systems of how to live as God demands, but it remains our system. manmade, created in the imageo vir.
so what are those beliefs that i have built up myself and based upon my own subjective presuppositions? all of them. even the belief that my beliefs are the results of subjective interpretation. we live in the age of information when knowledge is available everywhere, but is knowledge really what will save us? may it never be! one of the subjective presuppositions of mine is that in the ignorance of trust is where i want to be. dependent and utterly reliant upon the being that i call 'God.' man seeks the tree for himself and misses the entire garden as result, which is the result of ignorance?
we shall continue to learn, we shall always interpret reality & our experiences, but lean not on your own understanding*
(*this is a paradox, because it demands that one lean on the understanding that he should not lean on his own understanding, yet a paradox, however appearing to be self-defeating it may seem, is not necessarily false, in an objective sense)
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Monday, March 17, 2008
the decline of civilisation.
more often than not, words like 'technology' and 'progress' tend to convince us that we are headed in the right direction, striving toward the goal with blazing speed, on our way, guided by providence and ultimately that things are getting better each day. this type of thinking, when glanced at under the microscope of historical reflection is rendered illusory and false. of course, we already want to believe that this time in history is better than that time which came before, that things are improving and we are contributing to the eventual success of mankind in creating his own heaven here upon the earth. it would be a great despair were one to realise that human civilisation, on the whole, is, at lightning speed, spiraling downward in degeneration, so we turn our eyes away to look only at the small helping of good that is being done. on one hand, this is noble, to focus on the good and general hope of mankind for positive change, however, like all things, when the balance is tipped and the individual turns a blind eye to the suffering and evil which rules this planet, they become stagnant and instead of contributing towards a greater good, halt the process altogether.
yet, i can hear them already, shouting words like 'freedom' and 'democracy' as the cries of proof which make evident the improvements to society. using the american first amendment of free speech as the illustration to justify the progress of mankind as one of positive and not decline. despite the beautiful intoxication we have with such ideals, a healthy dose of pragmatism is always the much-needed shot in the arm. a word like 'technology' needs a definition before it can be more closely examined within the context of our subject, the decline of civilisation.
here are two definitions of the word 'technology'
the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.
the sum of the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization.
it is my argument that technology, though often hailed as the great achievements of mankind in allowing him to perform more tasks with greater ease and comfort, is actually his greatest established self-restriction. the history of technology includes devices from the first arrowheads and the wheel to the automobile and computer. with each new day new 'technologies' are being created and implemented in society with the purpose of providing mankind the material objects he longs after. ironically, man is clever enough to create these technologies with their benefits in mind, yet he rarely perceives their potential for harm until it is too late. starting with the earliest weapons, manufactured with the intent to kill those beasts which provided the much-needed meat for his diet, man had also created a way in which to kill his fellow man, and also be killed by other men, with greater ease and lesser effort. the invention of the arrowhead gave him the ability to keep greater distance between his target, never risking himself to attack, that is, until other men used arrows against him. following the path of weaponry, we find that it does not improve in that man learns how to protect himself, instead he creates the gun, the cannon, the atomic bomb, each new 'technological' device affords him the ability to exponentially increase the potential for destruction while at the same time he is made more and more vulnerable to attack from the very same weapons. in this aspect, i do believe it is our early ancestors who we should be jealous of, who gathered food and were sustained from the natural growth of the planet. the 'technology' of fast-food illustrates this point all too easily.and what of non-violent 'technologies' such as the automobile or the computer? we can travel greater distances with greater speed. we can perform a multiplicity of tasks within seconds, we are digitally 'connected' with the better part of the entire world. and what of the negative side-effects these 'technologies' produce which contribute to our decline? one might make the argument that we should take the good with the bad, that the negative effects are worth the positive attributes these technologies afford us. and yet, i disagree. when one sits down at an empty desk, with only a computer, a keyboard and a mouse, one is dependent upon that 'technology' to achieve any kind of productivity. the user himself is now, no longer doing anything, but taking up the meaningless task of 'supervisor' to the computer as it hurries itself to perform the desired functions. the man himself may manipulate the 'technology' to the extent that it appears to be 'bent to his will,' but in all honesty the man is in more need of the computer, than the computer in need of the man. with such 'technology' the inevitable by-product is the intellectual decline in man, given that he no longer needs to know actual mathematics, the computer will produce the solution for him. he no longer needs to visit his neighbour, the internet will give him the experience of connection. however anthropomorphic the 'technology' is made to appear the truth remains that it is actually producing less humane 'users.' even this blog entry is dependent upon not only this computer, keyboard and mouse with which it is being created, but also the computer system of the 'user' who is reading it right now. the computer had to be created, with it's great amount of tiny singular parts created by men utilising 'technologies' to produce them, the keyboard had to have been manufactured, likewise with the mouse. but it does not stop there, for we both require electrical power in order to sustain these machines. we require miles and miles of cable in order to 'connect' us to one another and to the greater collective. but it does not stop there either, men must supervise the 'technologies' employed to produce that power, or as i should say to manipulate the products of the 'technologies' which truly produce. men must establish and maintain the 'connecting' cables and systems and networks, so on and so forth. in order for me to 'communicate' even a single idea we are now at a point in human history where it demands and depends upon the numerous 'technologies' involved. and what of the word without this 'technology?' well we should be forced to have conversation in person, that is face to face, or as what is known in this digital world as the world 'in real life.'
that the automobile replaces the exercise of walking once demanded of men is but one of this 'technologies' detriments. one may also consider the impact upon the planet itself when millions and millions of these vehicles burning oil and gasoline are in use everyday. however, it is in this part of my argument where the decline is illustrated as moving with such great pace that it is now demanding harsh and abrasive action to be stemmed, even in the least. that is the practice of combining 'technologies' to produce 'new technologies.' given the concept of natural selection, one might call this the 'technological regression' in that it is not the most beneficial devices which are produced but the most harmful. an automobile which utilises weaponry in order to maximise the efficiency of it's potential for destruction. an airplane with the capability of dropping such an explosive device as to incinerate 70,000 humans within minutes and eventually cause harmful enough effects so as to kill over 100,000 living, breathing people.
sometimes the devastation is not so physically apparent. in some cases the internet as a distribution device for pornography which contaminates the soul and plagues the mind causes damage to millions. that children utilising the 'technologies' of television and video gaming systems prefer to spend hours inside air-conditioned houses instead of running around outside under the sun breathing unadulterated oxygen is a harm that is not truly considered until one views a generation of americans viewed as 'obese,' most of which from no medical illness. that entire economies' are built upon the foundation of immaterial 'goods' produced by 'technologies' is a sign that we are horribly out of 'sync' with the world around us, and each other.
civilisation being the community of interconnected human members cannot be said to be flourishing in such an age of disconnected technological addicts. the basic problems of humanity have yet to be solved because we have busied ourselves in the hurry to attain each new device of self-enslavement. debt, loans, credit cards. civilisation has deteriorated to such a point that it does not even recognise it's own inhumanity anymore, save for those acts of such dramatic shock which litter the evening news. when children are kept inside an academic system which fails it's goal of educating them, the only effects produced are new addicts to the 'kingdom of this world' and its 'technological' vices.
how truly great the despair is that we cannot imagine a world without technology.
yet, even greater the despair when we realise that we are trapped within the matrix of our own creation.
will there ever emerge a community of true connection, beyond the digital age of technology?
will we ever truly progress in producing positive changes to society?
i hope so.
yet, i can hear them already, shouting words like 'freedom' and 'democracy' as the cries of proof which make evident the improvements to society. using the american first amendment of free speech as the illustration to justify the progress of mankind as one of positive and not decline. despite the beautiful intoxication we have with such ideals, a healthy dose of pragmatism is always the much-needed shot in the arm. a word like 'technology' needs a definition before it can be more closely examined within the context of our subject, the decline of civilisation.
here are two definitions of the word 'technology'
the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.
the sum of the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization.
it is my argument that technology, though often hailed as the great achievements of mankind in allowing him to perform more tasks with greater ease and comfort, is actually his greatest established self-restriction. the history of technology includes devices from the first arrowheads and the wheel to the automobile and computer. with each new day new 'technologies' are being created and implemented in society with the purpose of providing mankind the material objects he longs after. ironically, man is clever enough to create these technologies with their benefits in mind, yet he rarely perceives their potential for harm until it is too late. starting with the earliest weapons, manufactured with the intent to kill those beasts which provided the much-needed meat for his diet, man had also created a way in which to kill his fellow man, and also be killed by other men, with greater ease and lesser effort. the invention of the arrowhead gave him the ability to keep greater distance between his target, never risking himself to attack, that is, until other men used arrows against him. following the path of weaponry, we find that it does not improve in that man learns how to protect himself, instead he creates the gun, the cannon, the atomic bomb, each new 'technological' device affords him the ability to exponentially increase the potential for destruction while at the same time he is made more and more vulnerable to attack from the very same weapons. in this aspect, i do believe it is our early ancestors who we should be jealous of, who gathered food and were sustained from the natural growth of the planet. the 'technology' of fast-food illustrates this point all too easily.and what of non-violent 'technologies' such as the automobile or the computer? we can travel greater distances with greater speed. we can perform a multiplicity of tasks within seconds, we are digitally 'connected' with the better part of the entire world. and what of the negative side-effects these 'technologies' produce which contribute to our decline? one might make the argument that we should take the good with the bad, that the negative effects are worth the positive attributes these technologies afford us. and yet, i disagree. when one sits down at an empty desk, with only a computer, a keyboard and a mouse, one is dependent upon that 'technology' to achieve any kind of productivity. the user himself is now, no longer doing anything, but taking up the meaningless task of 'supervisor' to the computer as it hurries itself to perform the desired functions. the man himself may manipulate the 'technology' to the extent that it appears to be 'bent to his will,' but in all honesty the man is in more need of the computer, than the computer in need of the man. with such 'technology' the inevitable by-product is the intellectual decline in man, given that he no longer needs to know actual mathematics, the computer will produce the solution for him. he no longer needs to visit his neighbour, the internet will give him the experience of connection. however anthropomorphic the 'technology' is made to appear the truth remains that it is actually producing less humane 'users.' even this blog entry is dependent upon not only this computer, keyboard and mouse with which it is being created, but also the computer system of the 'user' who is reading it right now. the computer had to be created, with it's great amount of tiny singular parts created by men utilising 'technologies' to produce them, the keyboard had to have been manufactured, likewise with the mouse. but it does not stop there, for we both require electrical power in order to sustain these machines. we require miles and miles of cable in order to 'connect' us to one another and to the greater collective. but it does not stop there either, men must supervise the 'technologies' employed to produce that power, or as i should say to manipulate the products of the 'technologies' which truly produce. men must establish and maintain the 'connecting' cables and systems and networks, so on and so forth. in order for me to 'communicate' even a single idea we are now at a point in human history where it demands and depends upon the numerous 'technologies' involved. and what of the word without this 'technology?' well we should be forced to have conversation in person, that is face to face, or as what is known in this digital world as the world 'in real life.'
that the automobile replaces the exercise of walking once demanded of men is but one of this 'technologies' detriments. one may also consider the impact upon the planet itself when millions and millions of these vehicles burning oil and gasoline are in use everyday. however, it is in this part of my argument where the decline is illustrated as moving with such great pace that it is now demanding harsh and abrasive action to be stemmed, even in the least. that is the practice of combining 'technologies' to produce 'new technologies.' given the concept of natural selection, one might call this the 'technological regression' in that it is not the most beneficial devices which are produced but the most harmful. an automobile which utilises weaponry in order to maximise the efficiency of it's potential for destruction. an airplane with the capability of dropping such an explosive device as to incinerate 70,000 humans within minutes and eventually cause harmful enough effects so as to kill over 100,000 living, breathing people.
sometimes the devastation is not so physically apparent. in some cases the internet as a distribution device for pornography which contaminates the soul and plagues the mind causes damage to millions. that children utilising the 'technologies' of television and video gaming systems prefer to spend hours inside air-conditioned houses instead of running around outside under the sun breathing unadulterated oxygen is a harm that is not truly considered until one views a generation of americans viewed as 'obese,' most of which from no medical illness. that entire economies' are built upon the foundation of immaterial 'goods' produced by 'technologies' is a sign that we are horribly out of 'sync' with the world around us, and each other.
civilisation being the community of interconnected human members cannot be said to be flourishing in such an age of disconnected technological addicts. the basic problems of humanity have yet to be solved because we have busied ourselves in the hurry to attain each new device of self-enslavement. debt, loans, credit cards. civilisation has deteriorated to such a point that it does not even recognise it's own inhumanity anymore, save for those acts of such dramatic shock which litter the evening news. when children are kept inside an academic system which fails it's goal of educating them, the only effects produced are new addicts to the 'kingdom of this world' and its 'technological' vices.
how truly great the despair is that we cannot imagine a world without technology.
yet, even greater the despair when we realise that we are trapped within the matrix of our own creation.
will there ever emerge a community of true connection, beyond the digital age of technology?
will we ever truly progress in producing positive changes to society?
i hope so.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
motivation over methodology.
it is becoming more and more clear to me with each new day that the perspectives of man are hopelessly and inevitably skewed. it seems that we fundamentally view all things the wrong way and constantly require correction and redirection. perhaps this is illustrated most profoundly in the arena of religion, personal beliefs and God. each religion contains a set of values and beliefs that they maintain to be fundamental. these foundational doctrines override all other life in that they are paramount for divine acceptance, eternal salvation, etc. etc. in the system of christianity, this is illustrated best by the stories of two men, a businessman and a thief. the businessman holds no religious beliefs, does not attend any form of weekly service, but supports his family and gives to those in need when he can. the thief is a devout believer and holds the attendance of weekly services above all else, even is career as one who steals from others. after a lifetime of giving and good deeds, the businessman dies and is sent to hell. after a lifetime of thievery and crime, the thief walks proudly into heaven where he is rewarded for a life of faith. now, what strikes you about this story? is it the seemingly 'unfair' punishment the businessman receives or is it the reward given to the criminal? i dare say this story illustrates man's perspective on the matter, but what of God's?
the first book of samuel in the jewish tanakh contains this perspective..
"the LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
(i samuel 16:7b)
in it's context, this verse is actually written as a quote from God to the prophet samuel as he is viewing the sons of jesse in hopes of finding one to select as future king of israel. samuel, for all of his righteousness as a prophet, still gets it wrong when he surveys the tall and strong and handsome older sons of jesse. God, however, has the youngest, slim and scrawny son, david, in mind. indeed it is later said of david that he was 'a man after God's own heart.' and yet in his history as king, david is also guilty of committing a list of 'sins' that is quite intense.
"Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
how does this alter the interpretation of the businessman and the criminal? well, in looking at the criminal, nothing changes really. though he is guilty of a life of sins, much like david and, i daresay, all of us, he is rewarded. and yet, for the businessman, everything changes because he is to be rewarded as well for, although he did not adhere to what Man judges, his loving support of his family and his giving to those in need illustrates his heart, and that is what God judges.
given that no two hearts are exactly the same, one must make the conclusion that as God judges the heart of a person, He shall judge them individually and subjectively within the context of their own motivations. though it may fly in the face of established religious belief, it seems to me that God cares very little for the methodology of a person. perhaps the questions of which 'way' is wrong and which 'way' is right should be replaced with the questions of which 'why' is right and which 'why' is wrong. instead of applying a global solution to how life should be lived, each one should search out his own heart and find what it is that motivates them. even though the appearance might shock Man, it is ultimately a judgment God, and God alone, is able to make.
the first book of samuel in the jewish tanakh contains this perspective..
"the LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
(i samuel 16:7b)
in it's context, this verse is actually written as a quote from God to the prophet samuel as he is viewing the sons of jesse in hopes of finding one to select as future king of israel. samuel, for all of his righteousness as a prophet, still gets it wrong when he surveys the tall and strong and handsome older sons of jesse. God, however, has the youngest, slim and scrawny son, david, in mind. indeed it is later said of david that he was 'a man after God's own heart.' and yet in his history as king, david is also guilty of committing a list of 'sins' that is quite intense.
"Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."
how does this alter the interpretation of the businessman and the criminal? well, in looking at the criminal, nothing changes really. though he is guilty of a life of sins, much like david and, i daresay, all of us, he is rewarded. and yet, for the businessman, everything changes because he is to be rewarded as well for, although he did not adhere to what Man judges, his loving support of his family and his giving to those in need illustrates his heart, and that is what God judges.
given that no two hearts are exactly the same, one must make the conclusion that as God judges the heart of a person, He shall judge them individually and subjectively within the context of their own motivations. though it may fly in the face of established religious belief, it seems to me that God cares very little for the methodology of a person. perhaps the questions of which 'way' is wrong and which 'way' is right should be replaced with the questions of which 'why' is right and which 'why' is wrong. instead of applying a global solution to how life should be lived, each one should search out his own heart and find what it is that motivates them. even though the appearance might shock Man, it is ultimately a judgment God, and God alone, is able to make.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
