Response to Alavi Karim re: Metropolis

I agree with your statements/analyses about metropolis. Reaching out to the wealthy also seems to fit into the grand scheme of the movie, in order to fortell the future class relations. It was a very humanitarianistic movie. Fritz Lang must truly have been worried about the state of socioeconomic relations between wealthy and poor in Germany.
It seems that media is the way religions can be spread between people. The bible and the torah were books, and films can start the start of belief in the state. This is propaganda in both regards.

Corruption of Power in Religion

In Almeida's assessment of the Ethiopian christians/jews, he describes the kings as wishy-washy despots. They controlled the divisioning of land and collected taxes off of those lands. Often they would move people around to different lands multiple times in one season (pg 72). In judgements they could rule unfavorably to one side, without rebellion. People were taught to obey the code of Judaism that required them to obey their kings. With this power, the king could do whatever he wanted, and often did. Therefore people when they wanted to complain their mistreatment to the next king, the previous king would issue a proclamation saying that no suing would occur as a result of the retiring king (pg 73). The underlings had to obey because the torah or the kebra negast taught total obedience to kings since they were divinely empowered. Whenever such power is given into only one person, that power will corrupt absolutely.
In the lecture given tonight by Erik Wielenberg about God and morality, he made one major point: if it's possible for a being to mold morality then he/she could mold that reality to justify his evil ways. Then everyone would be taught to think that living as a slave and working for the powerful being was a good task and that his immoral actions were right. They would never know the difference. Therefore the actions of an all powerful being like God generally are not reliable because they could be immoral. However, that does not mean that there are no morals. We can still make our own morals by relying on each other to form them. In this context, following a king because the Bible or the Torah said so is not good enough reason because the morality of God is uncertain. This means that the major religions of monotheism may not be truthful. This could mean a shift to wholly unholy morality codes. This means that no higher being commanded them. We may not have religious wars any more, but more land control wars. Hopefully everything could settle down then and finally cause peace.

Response to Alavi Karim re: Metropolis

I found your comment about the idea of balance interesting. My main point of view for Metropolis was an analogy to popular religion. A savior comes and saves the workers from oppression, while the ruler learns from his mistakes. In the time that this movie was made, the western economy was in high gear. However there were still problems with the way big business treated its employees. As a result, unions began to form. Metropolis seems to encourage a unity between all classes in order to get people to understand one another. Religion also serves as a social equalizer usually, where all are subject to the same morals, and death is the ultimate equalizer. People of all classes have to deal with the same questions about the bigger picture in life. Religion helps people to understand the bigger picture.

Metropolis

Metropolis represented the battle between good and evil. The main character(s) were Freder, Maria, and the robot. Freder represents a Jesus figure, Maria is much like Mary Magdalen, and the robot represents a demon. The inventor could be the devil, while Mr. Fredersen is God. However the analogies are not perfect. Even though Freder is the son of Mr. Fredersen, he never dies at the end and goes through a religious journey in order to be like a savior. He does save the children and the poor from annhilation. Maria or Mary Magdalen seemed like she was from the rich world, but had repented for being profligate and now reached out to help the poor. She seems like a saint in the film, preaching peace to the working class, and looking out for their children. She falls in love with Freder the Jesus figure, much like what is supposed to have happened between Mary Magdalen and Jesus. However, Maria did not have a questionable reputation, even though the robot made it appear to be so. The robot was a demon unleashed upon the city in order to cause chaos, destruction, and rampant vice by the inventor. Supposedly the inventor had lost his wife through an action of Mr. Fredersen's and he wanted him to pay. The inventor could be likened to the devil since the God figure Fredersen trusted him as his right hand man or clutch advisor when no advisor could solve his problems. However, the inventor falls from his status because of his envy for Fredersen near the end when he falls off the roof of the church. Mr. Fredersen represents God in Metropolis. Joh rules the city in the top of the tower of Babel with absolute power. He has a very ethical mindset, but somehow manages to forget the class imbalances (the less than perfect part). His son eventually causes him to realize these imbalances, and allows poor people to rise to the rich level, or heaven. Freder/Jesus becomes the mediator between God and the working class, living in toil and rising like the ascension for the poor.
Why would Fritz Lang create such a movie? If we look at the time period, anti-trust suits were being brought about to break up the monopolies started in the industrial era of history. Unions were beginning to be formed, in order to improve the working class's situation. Communism and socialistic movements were somewhat popular back in that time period. Germany was going through a hard period in history, as a result of the armistice and tariffs/penalties that western Europe imposed on them. Perhaps Lang was making more of a propagandizing movie. The analogies for Christian religion were not perfect, suggesting a different motive. However, religion and socialism don't usually mix in the real world. Maybe Lang wanted to appeal more to the religious crowd of that time period, since most people were christian in Europe and America.
Lang seems to both promote and play down religion. He recognized the powerful force that Christianity had in that time period, by using religious allegory. Why else would he create a film of such enormous proportions and budget? I feel that he had funding from the communist league or the church. Also, I think he was warning big business about the power of people who are oppressed too much, and the limits of religion to preclude violence. What does this mean for the phenomenon of religion? Consider Harris’ example of the Koran. In a different light, religion in the 1920's experienced a decrease in following due to the aftermath of WWI and the liberal times. Many people were disillusioned by the ability of religion to solve their problems, as well as the increase in science to explain the world (Scopes monkey trial). Perhaps Lang was offering a solution: cooperation and brotherhood mediated by religion-based values.

Solomon and Sheba

When reading the Kebra Negast, I found the part on Solomon's adultery with the Queen of Sheba interesting. Solomon was supposedly a very wise man because of his understanding given through God. However, when he tricked the queen into sleeping with him, his wisdom left. Note the dream that he had (pg 35-6) where the sun was analogous to his son, which left and came back. The sun also represents wisdom, which left and supposedly will come back with the son.
At the same time, Solomon had many other "wives," but only to spread wisdom through his children (ch 4, pg 30). 400 wives and 600 concubines is a lot of wives to be spreading wisdom to in the manner that Solomon did with the Queen of Shiba. The question is whether Solomon tricked the Queen for his own pleasure or through the will of another power. God may be behind this, since all the wisdom that Solomon knew came from the thoughts of God, which meant that God could have compelled Solomon to act adulterously. Or, this may have been the devil. It is tough to say, since the writer does not give any details into that subject. However, if Solomon was so wise, then why didn't he restrain himself or at least not trick the queen the adulterous manner that he did? The idea that the lack of God leaves man immoral and unwise is unacceptable to me, since man should not need God to know the consequences of his actions.

Response to Oliver's commentary

I appreciate you explaining the different aspects of Christianity. It is clear that you have studied the bible in depth. I'm sorry if my remarks about Christianity offend you. Whenever I read passages in the bible and commentaries about those passages, I get frustrated with understanding the texts because it seems many of the commentators expect the reader to be somewhat well versed in Christianity.

Also, I admit that many of the beliefs in Christianity run counter to what I have been raised with and take for granted. Science and well backed arguments have formed the basis of my philosophy on religion. If you read my latest blog trying to define religion, you will probably get a sense of my point of view. Again, I don't mean to offend.

Defining Religion

Recently the issue of what constitutes religion and how to follow that religion has been troubling me. According to Dictionary.com, religion is defined as the following:

1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: [i.e.] the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: [i.e.] a world council of religions.
(...)
6. Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: [i.e.] to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

There seems to be several ways of defining religion. It could be a code of conduct written by people for society to live by. It could also be a set of doctrines that one person uses as a guideline to living his/her life. It seems then that a code of ethics set by a branch of science for scientists could also be a religion. The scientific method is a sort of ten commandments.
The question that I pose by the above interpretations is this: can a person live an entirely non-religious life? That would mean not having guidelines of any kind to living. What would result is a hedonistic lifestyle, or perhaps a sort of paleolithic or neanderthal survival instinct culture. (This largely depends on the resources available. However, hedonism could be considered another sort of religion.) Does that mean life without religion would mean a reversion to a lifestyle resembling prehistoric man? According to Mithen, the cognitive fluidity required for religion is nonexistent in Neanderthals (pg 233). Perhaps because all humans possess the required neurological characteristics for superstition and the ability for cognitive mapping between the perceived and abstract (Fauconnier), living non-religiously is entirely impossible (assuming no brain damage or cognitive disability exists).
Opposite of non-religion is following a set of codes too closely, which could result in misinterpretation and/or prejudice. Consider the prejudice inherent in the Koran against the infidel, and how literal interpretation has led to martyrdom as a subculture in the Islamic faith (Harris). Islam dictates every aspect of Muslim culture, which is acceptable according to the first definition of religion above. However the problem with such religions develops when doctrines sanction violence as a way of promoting that religion. This is what makes me question following a religion so closely, and whether a non-religious lifestyle is possible.
Where is the middle road? Does religion dictate humanity or does humanity dictate religion? I believe both occur, and that the degree of religion dictating a person’s behavior should be left to the individual to decide. Therefore my decision is never to follow a religion like Islam, but to keep the moral codes I have learned in Unitarian Universalism and the scientific method in the background.

Containment Blend

I would like to discuss the idea that Fauconnier asserts about containment blends. Containment blends consist of the five coorespondences of cross-space mapping:

- a container blocks visibility of any object it holds
- "a contained object occupies part of the same portion of space as its container;" it moves with the container when the container is moved
- a container is bigger than the object it contains
- a container has an inside
- containers have boundaries (274).

The main point that bothers me is that a contained object occupies part of the same portion of space as its container. This is not true. It is physically impossible in three dimensions for two objects to occupy the same space at the same time. This is the opposite of one object being in two places at once. The balance is that each object can only occupy one space at a specific time. The problem comes with particle theory and heisenberg's uncertainty principle at the atomic level. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that an electron has a probability of being in a certain spot in the electron cloud at one particular time, and that electrons can be at two places at once. If this is true, then two objects may be able to share the same space at once since electrons in their atomic structures can be at multiple places at the same time. What I am not certain of is whether different electrons can occupy the same space at the same time. I would argue no, since electrons are supposed to not be attracted to each other. However, electrons do collide, and may occupy the same space during a collision. The idea that two visible objects can occupy the same space at the same time still seems impossible to me, since the natural world does not seem to work that way.
Fauconnier even recognizes the fact that containers have boundaries. In the real world, objects do not cross the boundary without becoming something else, while in the computer world an object can cross the boundary of a container without changing its characteristics. Some objects on the computer do not occupy the same space as another object when they are placed together, since one object can still be moved without moving the second object. An example is two different windows with different programs running. One may place one window on top of another, but still access the window below without accessing both windows. If you move a window covering another window, only the top window moves. Therefore windows stack in layers, not occupying the same space. In this way, two-dimensional objects may actually occupy a three dimensional space. However, when one icon is placed over another, that icon is entered into the program files of the stationary icon. When the stationary icon is moved, it moves all of its components including the added icon with it. In that sense two objects may occupy the same space. However, the stationary icon may be just a container, which would mean that anything within that container cannot occupy the same space in the real world, but can for the computer world. In conclusion, Fauconnier's example of containers and contained objects cannot be linked between the real world and the computer world, because the computer world performs what is impossible in the real world.

How to Look at Torah

Huh? This text is hard to follow. It jumps from one point to the next without a narrative or point by point paragraph structure. What is the point of having so many stories or babbling nonsense without a point? "Adam's Sin" is a prime example of babbling nonsense. Et means you in latin. What is YHVH? My best guess is God, but then again it could be another hormone. "The Creation of Elohim" is another example of incomprehensible text, where the reader has the vague impression that Elohim is being created. Only the first and last sections make any sort of sense. The garment of the torah and the meaning behind the garment is analogous to Augustine's scriptural explanations on metaphor, whether figurative or literal. Lastly, the hypocracy of God is pointed out in "After the Flood". Noah is commanded to build an arc by God, and does so. Then Noah sees the destruction of man and questions God. God becomes angry at Noah for questioning what was inevitable since God supposedly told Noah what was about to happen. Then the writer reminds us that other biblical heroes like Moses and Abraham saved his people from God's wrath by confronting God. This raises the question of what to follow: God's will or protection of humanity? Noah is chastized at the end of the text for not protecting humanity. This does not set a good precedent for converting people. Sorry about the shotgun approach, but this text allows little room for anything else.

Augustine on Allegory

Augustine's assertion that "men of old" (66) had several wives solely for continuance of their race is impractical. Thinking in a purely biological sense, Augustine's reasoning that these men "looked only to the procreation of children in the sexual act" (61) in ancient times would be reasonable if they had no sex drive. This would mean castration or removal of the pituitary gland, both impractical in old times. (I'm guessing that old times refers to the middle ages). Secondly, the infant mortality rate was much higher and life expectancy much lower than today or even in Augustine's time. Therefore the value placed on a person's life was very low, allowing for less inhibition. But the idea that men of old would "immediately have castrated themselves for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (62) in present times is absurd. This is purely wishful thinking on Augustine's part. A sort of selfish gene keeps people from doing this to their bodies. In the perfect world, everyone would be moral and just according to the golden rule. But this world is far from perfect, and the idea that everyone is chaste who follows scriptures in the right way according to love in Augustine's rationale does not happen in practice.

Response to Cate Frazier's Lamentations

I thought there were only two narrators: one who describes the suffering that people living in Jerusalem experienced, and another complaining to God about that suffering. The first one speaks more in the third person, while the latter speaker uses first person to talk directly to God. The real question I feel is why there would be different narrators. I think that the writer intended that a "face of god", like what Origen described (pg 83-85), spoke in the third person, while the city of Jerusalem represents the first person. This face of God may be angels, spirits, prophets, or God himself. It is never quite clear. These two narrators seem to speak in a call and response, but they are not actually talking to each other. Maybe the narrator wrote this way to represent both sides of the story.

Charism

In reading the commentary on Lamentations by Origen, the last page sparked the most questions. (Frankly the rest of the reading was pretty boring, since I did not understand a lot of the citations). The idea of a charism, or face of God was the center of the conclusion. The charism is supposedly "the outcome of all prophecy, is Christ," (Origen, 85). Apostles also try to imitate Christ. My question is how God fits into this- does he speak through the Christ, or is he the spirit of the Christ incarnate?
Secondly, what about the "spirit of the face" (Origen, 85)? This may also be God, since he is "the spirit of our face, Christ the Lord," (Origen, 84). The spirit of the face is also the spirit of the prophets. According to Origen, the spirit of the face cast the Jews out of the kingdom of God (Mt. 21:43). Was this whole Lamentation about the Jews being subjected to enemies by God because of their lawlessness in Jerusalem, specifically the crucifixion of Christ? (I feel that I need a time frame for the invasion and Christ's death.) However, the Jews would be accepted back into the kingdom of God "if they were to return to the Lord", (Origen, 84). The vagueness of this statement suggests that Jews should become Christians, or remove some sort of veil that clouds their judgment. No wonder anti-semitism was rampant in the middle ages in Europe, since the main book that people read or listened to was the Bible. How were Jews supposed to redeem themselves when that would have meant giving up their culture? In addition, they would have to see the spirit of the face without the veil mentioned above, which is even more ambiguous.
In conclusion, I know little more about Christianity, and still am confounded by its stories since they do not explain themselves very well. I also see Christianity as being an intolerant religion, since a belief in Jesus as the Christ is required of anyone who may have agnostic feelings or monotheist beliefs without Christ. The Jews have been an oppressed people for centuries because of the Bible and Christianity/the clergy's tenets. I wonder how Christianity was able to gain so much power over people.

Logos- in Origen article of Wikipedia

What is the character Logos that is mentioned in Wikipedia? According to the article, Logos is the spirit of God or something that helped create the universe. (Wikipedia, Christology) It is the soul of people and animals, and the soul of christ. So is this the holy spirit? Are God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit all the same thing? Than does Christianity revolve around just God? This seems to place too much power and faith into one entity. Therefore people blaim God for bad things happening, or supposed miracles that took place.
There are so many unexplained aspects about Christianity, something Origen probably was teaching to people in the third century AD. I've never heard of Origen before, though, so it seems to me that he may not be that important in Christianity. Overall I thought this article was kind of dull, accept the part on Logos.

Wikipedia Origen History

The man Origen from Alexandria Egypt would have interesting to meet. He was obviously very thoughtful and had especially deductive reasoning. However the need to live ascetically eludes me when the idea of a heaven isn't absolute and there may not be another chance to possess materials. I know this sounds materialistic, but think also about how our ancestors were naturally selected to be more materialistic. We need to use reason nowadays to avoid resource depletion.

Lamentations

What an odd reading. Figuring out what the reading was about was not easy, since there appeared to be no reason for the destruction of Zion. Supposedly there were priests who killed "the righteous" in front of God (4.13). However we never really know what the exact crime is since there seems to be something else behind the scene. I asked a friend of mine who had had bible teachings explain to me that Lamentations are basically about people asking why certain events had to happen, and blame God. Obviously there was a battle between Zion and the Babylonians where the Babylonians breached the wall and conquered the city. This was probably due to greater supplies, numbers, and technology. Therefore it is a sort of social Darwinism that took place.
Unfortunately those claiming to be religious today in the government are sending out the army to a war that began in deceit. Therefore many of those in power don't follow their religion well if they encourage war and lie to America. If people cannot learn to live in peace they will never be a true follower of their religion. It has happened repetidly in history, where people twist the ideas of their religion to serve their own purposes.

Burial Mounds

I found the reading on Late Woodland effigy mounds fascinating. I have heard of these mounds, but have never encountered one in the shape of an animal. I hope to someday see one of these giant humans or thunderbirds.It is interesting how natives 1000 years ago believed in realms like Budhists contemporary to them. The different realms/worlds also parallel Christian beliefs in a heaven and hell, along with a life on earth. Every aspect of the mounds created was symbolic of the shape of the mound.
The consistency of three is interesting in the Chapter 5 reading. There are three elements for life corresponding to three realms. Upperworld animal mounds were built on higher elevations, just as underworld animal mounds were built near springs. The thunderbird, a powerful symbol in Woodland culture, was always associated with the upperworld, and the element air. The underworld was represented by sea creatures and beasts, like a sort of hell. Their element was water. Those animals could be appeased by offerings, unlike Christian demons. The middle world was represented by the element earth, and was the place where humans and most animals lived. However, animals associated with the realms corresponded to kinship groups unlike Christians. It was never quite clear whether natives could switch between realms or if they joined their clan spirit after death.
Obviously Woodland tribes had a strong connection to nature. Perhaps seeing a hawk flying while a thunderstorm began created the ellusion of a thunderbird. The fright of seeing a bear would enhance a sort of superstition toward that animal, believing that it had the power to give and take life. This is where the white bear in Menomonee mythology may have come from (pg 118, paragraph 2). The white bear may also be a holdover from Neolithic times. Polar bears were probably encountered by the Nadene tribes that migrated to Canada and the North Central US from Russia. The most puzzling connection to nature was the underworld. I understand that sea organisms live below land elevation, but large animals? The panther is probably a symbol from Uto-Aztecan religions, which probably migrated up through the south from Mexico and the Natchez. This is further backed up by the migration of corn from this area in 900 AD, mentioned several times in the text (pg 102, 3rd paragraph). Lizards and snakes are also southern organisms, not a common feature to the Southern Wisconsin landscape. However, they are seen as being part of the underworld. Perhaps because these organisms were more common elsewhere, especially in other religions, they were considered part of the underworld because of their nonexistence in Wisconsin.

Response to Balance and Burial Mounds http://rollins23.blogspot.com/

Wow what a great posting- I agree with your statements. We could learn a lot from Native cultures that settlers were quick to attempt to eradicate. Today I feel disconnected from nature having to live in a city where the automobile is king. However, I do own a car, with which I am glad to use to get out of the city. Most people probably don't realize the imbalance with nature of their daily activities. The idea of conservation is counter to the dominant religion here, Christianity. In Genesis 1.26-30 the text says that God created all of the animals and plants for man's use. Moderation is only just beginning to be considered, in comparison to the indiscretion that characterized settlers and industrialists in the first two centuries of this nation's existence. Those settlers were predominantly conservative Christians. The culture of exploitation was quite opposite to that of the natives. The Ojibwa believe that resources should be conserved so that the same resources people use today will be available seven generations from the present. Our current national energy policy does not seem to have this goal, although we have come a long way from total clearcutting and strip mining.

Paleolithic Art Part II

Gothrey made several connections between humans of today and those of the past. His reasoning behind such comparisons was that patterns seen today in man often are similar to patterns of the past. Although such a comparison is questionable due to climate change affecting culture and the expanse of time that separates historic from prehistoric, human psychology probably doesn't change much. Gothrey mentioned how we share many characteristics of behavior with apes of today. A comparison to the past with the present is the only way we can make inferences about Paleolithic human culture.
I find Gothrey's connection between Polynesian changing lifestyles and that of Paleolithic Man. When the Polynesians migrated from island to island until reaching New Zealand, they were primarily a mixed economy of horticulture, small game, and fishing. However, when subjected to the colder climate of New Zealand, normal crops would't grow, and fishing resources weren't the same in the cool waters surrounding the islands. With the added fact that the ecosystem had not had a top predator for millions of years, animals were vulnerable and the invading settlers quickly became hunters of large game. What is fascinating is that they returned to making paintings of their game just like the Paleolithic cro-magnon did. This makes me wonder if there is some innate hunter in each of us through behavioral genetics when we revert to ancient practices of survival.
In addition, Gothrey said that Pleistocene Cro Magnon were larger than their Holocene progeny. This was due to higher fertility and offspring production, placing more pressure on resources. Food was not as nutritious or sufficient for producing larger humans. Interestingly, humans now are much larger than their ancestors (Pleistocene or Holocene), and they generally have better nutrition than those ancestors.
A passing remark was made by Gothrey about the state of overuse of resources and the ecological imprint we are making now. Cro magnon supposedly could not create as large of an impact because of their small numbers and obligatory nomadism because of their hunter-gatherer lifestyle. Sanitation was not very good either; when the switch was made from nomadic to village life, disease spread more easily. I wonder how the rate of disease in nomads of today compares to more sedentary peoples.

Paleolithic Religion

When I read about the Paleolithic religion in a book by Dale Gothery about Paleolithic art, it seemed that Gothery was a fence sitter. He refused to fully accept the idea that the art was indicative of animatism or another religion. The paleolithic people may have just been over occuping themselves in hunting, since most of the art was of large mammals from the Late Pleistocene era. They may also have created art in other forms that we would not have physical evidence of today, like in wood. They may also still have had mystical beliefs in animals.
But for the most part, Gothrey kept on leading up to religion for a long time, describing every detail and embellishing every point. However, he seemed to reject a sort of religion for the most part. The background was interesting, explaining the psychology behind the way the art was made. He also told about timing of appearances of man in Europe, relations to Neanderthals, what animals they encountered. Very interesting, but little religion explained. The Cro Magnon, who created these cave pictures (art), were in touch with nature obviously. In fact, bears often lived in the same caves as humans but at different times. It would be easy to feel religious in a cave and on a windswept steppe. I wonder what exactly they warshipped, if not the animals. Most peoples in prechristian eras warshipped animals. However Gothrey would remind us that we cannot assume our observations of primitive peoples would be synonomous to the cro magnon.