Religious Wrap Up

Regardless of what subject a class is in, I feel that any type of 17 week affair deserves some sort of retrospective look back. 

I began this class understanding that America had a unique relationship with religion. I knew what most people who went through high school here knew about the colonization of America by religious groups seeking religious freedom. I knew that from this sprouted the colonies and then the United States, and then I knew that due to the 1st amendment and because of Thomas Jefferson's writings, the definition of the where each of the spheres of religion, politics and personal life intersected became a uniquely American struggle. 

However, I discovered much of what I believed to be a gross simplification. Religion is a tangled mess in the present day, but that's always been the case. Comparatively speaking, we are living in a time of relatively unified ideas, especially when you think about the early 1800s. We live in a society that thinks, on some degree at least, that religions are usually private affairs, but that idea has only recently began to be mainstream. 

I found the personally challenging traditions of Mormonism and Spiritualism particularly interesting to study, and in the readings, discussions, and videos, I found that these philosophies are distinctly American ideas that only could have taken root and flourished in places like the United States; each of these traditions, in their own ways, represent the American experience. Religions that are much maligned, like Scientology, are truly American enterprises, and whether an American will admit it or not, Mormons, Scientologists, Spiritualists, New-Agers and Neo-Pagans all have a special place in this country's philosophical debate. 

Also, I learned how important the influence of vastly different religions have been in the culture of other faiths. It seems as if a common story in the American religious landscape is that one tradition travels to America and soon after, questions of legitimacy, schisms, and disputes eventually arise. Take Hinduism and Buddhism, for example, two traditions that in America have been lumped into identities that they did not have in their home countries. However, because of this new identity, are those who say they are Hindu or Buddhist in America not entitled to the same traditions as those back in the native countries? 

The fact that religions are not monolithic entities, while it shouldn't be surprising, was an interesting rediscovery for me this semester. Hinduism, especially, has such a particular meaning that I hesitate to use the word to describe the tradition. There are as many versions of a religion as there are people who practice it, and time after time I've found myself realizing that while there are some main tenets one can believe in within a faith, the actual application of that working definition is constantly challenged. 

Overall, the class this semester was intellectually provoking in its refusal to be so easily defined and put aside. Our class discussions were wonderful viewpoints into what our amazingly intelligent classmates were thinking, and for the first time I found myself excited to hear what people had to say about a subject (That totally sounds like I'm a jerk now that I re-read it, but hey, it's the truth!). 

Overall, I would say this class was rewarding, challenging, and interesting in the fullest meaning of those words.

10/10 would take again. 

Jerusalem Syndrome and Joseph Smith

After our class discussions and my recent SSRP, it should come as no surprise that my feelings toward Joseph Smith are not exactly the most scholastically friendly. However, after thinking about the particulars of his early life, I wonder if perhaps there might be something explainable about his visions. Let me just be clear: I do not think Joseph Smith was a charlatan or a knowing manipulator, but I do think there is some semblance of Joseph Smith knowing that he may have been embellishing or purposefully rewriting histories or sections in order to fit better into a "divine" narrative. Like John Milton writing Paradise Lost as a fan fiction of great Greek epic poetry that strives to hit every single cliche in order to be desperately counted among them, much of the story of Joseph Smith, from an outsider's perspective, reads like a laundry list of revelatory requirements in order to "legitimize" a prophet and, therefore, his related religious interpretations.

But there is something called Jerusalem Syndrome, and I wonder if perhaps a similar effect happened to a young Joseph Smith.

Jerusalem Syndrome, besides being an awesome name for a heavy metal album, is a hotly contested experience that is labeled psychotic episode. From wikipedia, it pretty much states that a person, who had no prior major religious adherence, during a visit to Jerusalem, is struck with a sudden religious zealotry, even going so far as to believe himself or herself to be Jesus or some other major prophet. It is similar to the Stendhal Syndrome for Florence, Italy, which is a series of dizzy, rapturous thoughts after viewing major works of art.

Having never been to Jerusalem but having been to Florence a few times, I can understand what these syndromes might be like. I remember going to Dante's house in Florence and feeling a strange feeling of awe as I walked up the stairways Dante did. Having read the Divine Comedy, and appreciating the history of the work, there is a weird sense knowing that another human was able to accomplish such a great feat and still had to do human things like go to the bathroom and walk up stairs. Perhaps it's just the fact that something you've built up your whole life into something huge is finally in front of you and is tangible that causes this feeling... But I think, since Joseph Smith lived in "The Burned Over District" and in a time that our documentary in class stated "Many people were prophets telling their truths about God," is it such a surprise that a young teenager from a sensitive family would have such a strong vision in the woods?

The main difference between Joseph Smith's experience and Jerusalem Syndrome, if such a thing exists, is that the latter subsides after a few weeks. The former lasted for the rest of his life. But could such a strong vision and feeling persist even after those euphoric or psychotic episodes leave? Is "psychotic" even a good term for it? That term implies that something isn't real, but could those visions truly be real? Are those places holy because they are divine, or are those places holy because we've just said divine things happened there over the course of our histories?

Anyway, one thing I do know is that "Upstate New York Syndrome" doesn't sound nearly as cool as Jerusalem Syndrome.

Tomb Raider and Japanese Religion

Our discussion about how civil religion operates in Japan, or even if it does in the first place, reminded me of the new Tomb Raider game... Well, to be honest, the last new Tomb Raider game, not the newest new one called Rise of the Tomb Raider. 

This one!.... From Wikipedia

Anyway:

In the game, Lara Croft is a young PhD student on a research trip to the Japanese island chain around the Dragon's Triangle. She is looking for the lost civilization of Yamatai and its ruler, Himiko, and being the ignoramus I am, I totally thought that both of those things were completely made up purely for the video game.

Hahahahahaha. Nope.

But like, in my defense, the game IS the second link on a google search for Himiko....

I find it interesting that Japan so often either creates or ignores large sections of their own history. Understandably, such a thing is common in many, if not every, country, but our discussion of the emergence of Shinto as a long-standing tradition of Japan is eerily similar to the fact that almost none of the ancient Japanese histories mention Himiko at all. On the other hand, three ancient Chinese manuscripts do mention her and her kingdom. Finally, to further add to the mystery, one Japanese source does mention her as the Queen of Wa, so what's the deal?

Also, in some of those sources mentioned above, Himiko is said to be a magician and a practicer of sorcery. Tomb Raider really runs with this idea, and they straight out say that Himiko is alive, is the Sun Goddess, and she has survived all of these years by transferring her body into a new host whenever she grows old. There is also some sort of cargo cult that might be related to the cult of Himiko on the island, and then there are some Russian mercenaries of the island, because of course there are... At least I think so... It's been a couple of years. But, the game is beautiful and the attention to detail it puts into the islands' histories are commendable, especially with Lara's discoveries of items from ancient Japan, World War II and the present day and how they all relate to this enigmatic person of Himiko.

I find it interesting that Himiko and Yamatai, some person and a place that I totally thought was made up, has this interesting historical controversy around them, and that in the modern day, although it's a little sensationalized, she still is known for her "magical" reputation.

Syrian Refugees

Seriously, what the Hell?

Honestly, what is the American House of Representatives doing with this whole "We're blocking people coming from Syria" thing?

Here's the article I read: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-congress-refugees-20151119-story.html

I'm sorry, but I thought this was America? I know that this isn't exactly related to our topic of the week in class, but seriously, I'm mad about this. And, like I said before, this is AMERICA: I can write about whatever I want. Plus, it's also kind of about religion.

from weheartit.com

In fact, it's the treatment of Islam that is the boiling point for me in this whole debacle. Check out this quote from PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE Ted Cruz.

"Cruz had suggested permitting only Christian refugees from Syria into the country, but such a condition is not part of the House bill."

What the fuck? How is being Muslim a crime? Why am I in a country that allows people who "represent" me to so openly and so publicly show their biases on their sleeve? Regardless of whether or not it's in the bill, this anti-Muslim sentiment is palpable in the air in many places throughout the world right now. But, Ted Cruz... I mean, to paraphrase the comedian Doug Stanhope about religion, the Catholic Church has a much longer and storied history of abuse, mistreatment and violence than any other institution in the world: I'd be much more terrified to hear that that NAZI used to be a Pope than the other way around. I mean, "just" Christians, Ted Cruz? Really? What the fuck? 

I understand this is a ramble-y and borderline incoherent post, but I thought the best thing I could do was honestly and accurately free-write my thoughts about this matter. 

But, back to the bill. Let's be honest and let's call this Syrian Refugee Bill what it really is: It's the "I'm a-scared that someone is going to come and do something bad" bill. We already have security checks. The article states that those checks can sometimes take months. Regardless, people come to America every single day and nothing bad has happened. 

But what about all of the Terrorists doing Terrorism and Terrorists and Terror? Bro, listen to yourself. Do you know, since 9/11,  how many foreign terrorist attacks there have been on American soil? 

Zero. 

At least zero that I'm aware of, and I'd like to think that I'd hear about something like that.

Do you know how many domestic acts of terror (school shootings) we've had by good Christian (sometimes) American boys? 

Estimates range from 45 (MSNBC) to 52 (RT News) in 2015 alone. ALONE. And the sad part? That number is probably outdated now. Let's be real, school shootings are terrorist activities, and they are done almost weekly on American soil. Where are our security checks there? Where are the biometrics, restrictions and information for that group of people? Why is it okay for American boys and girls to commit terrorism in America but as soon as someone starts speaking a foreign language and practicing a different religion it becomes unthinkable and frightening? Where is the logic there?

Why do Syrian refugees, who have gone through hell, who have taken great risk to leave their country, their homes, their families, their traditions and their hopes in order to have a chance of survival in the world, have to be forced to jump through bureaucratic hoops, navigate arbitrary guidelines and have a finger shoved up in their private places in order to learn that they're not "a security risk"? 

Listen, I get it that you think you're scared right now. I lived through 9/11. I remember what it was like. But dude, bad guys are part of the problem and they can be anywhere at anytime, and if they wanted to do something do you really think that something as small as a TSA or a border/Ellis-island-style check is going to stop them? Things will happen. Things have happened. And we've survived. Scapegoating, racism and a bias against a peaceful religion are nothing more than fear-mongering, and we're in 2015. That shit needs to stop. 

What's a cult?

What's a cult?

This is a question I've asked before - numerous times in this blog, most likely - but it's a question I find very interesting.

Cult is a weird word because people attach so much to it. We use "cult" like a swear word typically, and things like Waco and movies like Red State do a good job keeping the media focused on the "dangerous" and "subversive" elements of a cult... But what truly is a cult? Many religions can be called cults in their early forms, so is it just numbers and historical distance that separate "cults" from "full" religions? I don't think so. But let's explore.

A cult, according to a Google search of "What is a cult", has four definitions:
1) A system of religions veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object.
2) A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
3) A misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
4) A person or thing that is that is popular or fashionable, especially among a particular section of society.

Working backwards, 4 seems to be too narrow in its definition; 3 seems to be on the right track, but the inclusion of the word "misplaced" creates a rather negative connotation; 2 seems to be a bit more inclusive with its definition, but it still has a bit of negativity about it in regards to other people; 1 seems to be a good definition, but perhaps it is too broad? If cults are truly what is listed in this first definition, is there any separation between "religion" and "cult"?

Personally, it seems as if a more workable and specific definition of a cult could be a mixture between 2 & 3: A relatively small group of people with an excessive admiration for a particular person or thing that borders on the religious or mystical. 

With this definition in mind, there is a difference between "full" religions and things which may be considered "cults." It's more of a neutral definition, and it addresses something I think is necessary for a "cult" to have: A relatively small number of people, and an object of devotion. If a cult grows in numbers, then perhaps we have a religion, but I think a cult is a more localized phenomenon that centers on a specific person, place or thing as opposed to a religion that is a little bit more diffused and "universal."

From this definition, I think a more complex thing could then be created upon it: Rituals, moves to other countries, restrictive practices, etc... But I think it's necessary to define a cult differently than a religion. I don't know why. Maybe there's some weird thing in me that forces me to define them separately.

But, I bring it up because I've mentioned that I believe Acting Schools in America are cults, or at least exhibit some cult-like behavior, but I don't think that cults are necessarily a bad thing. Yes, Jonestown was bad. Heaven's Gate was a tragedy, but to think for a moment outside the norm: Could their death have actually been what those people truly wanted? Brainwashing is always a thing to consider, yes, but at what point and at what level do personal leaders affect their "congregation"?

I would argue, quite a lot, actually. Personal leaders are taste-makers, trend-setters, and they often have isolated a member so much that their fellow cult members are their only form of support and family. I sincerely doubt most people in Jonestown, based on the evidence, wanted to kill themselves, but I'm sure that many of them were afraid that if they didn't, they would have no family, no support, no help and nowhere else to go. To use a cliche, their eggs were all in one basket, and while the leader of a cult may have just placed the basket on the ground and supplied the eggs, they almost force the hand of the member to do such a thing. One can always say "no," but it would depend on the level of involvement one has within a cult. I have seen people be violently abused and verbally wasted in a "cult-like" atmosphere, only to have them turn to me afterwards and say while bawling their eyes out, "I deserved it."

People do things in groups that they would never do by themselves, and new philosophies often find their most ardent believers in times of trouble. A cult can be good, yes, and so can a religion, but it is important to see how both of those things can be twisted and manipulated. A strong and workable definition of a cult is a good first step for understanding how and when these manipulations take place, and how once can guard against it.

Eventually, I'll probably let you know what happened in my experience.... It was pretty wild, yo.

Pretty wild.

The Screwtape Blogs

Over the weekend, out of a diabolical curiosity, I read C.S. Lewis's book, The Screwtape Letters. I loved it. In fact, I bought it on Halloween (Yeah... that wasn't intentional, by the way), and I devoured it over the course of a few hours. However, the most interesting part about the book wasn't really what C.S. Lewis wrote about, but it was in the dedication that was written on the inside cover.

I get most of my books from used bookstores, and typically I get them from Green Apple Books in San Francisco, mainly because I live pretty close to it. When you buy used books, some old stuff is left inside it, and this particular copy of The Screwtape Letters had a note written by a sister to a brother that went along the lines of:

Dear Brother, (I'm paraphrasing here)

Remember when we went to that conference and you said that the Devil is waging an unseen war on our souls? Well, this book talks about that. It's not too long and it's an easy read, and there's not TOO many big words, even for you! 

- Jennie

Finally, there were some Chinese or Japanese-looking characters above the name Jennie.

I have no way of knowing how old this inscription is, or if this conference was in San Francisco or even if these people were Asian-American. But I have a lot of questions. What type of "conference" is this that she mentions? Who is Jennie? I know that often, Asian-Americans convert to an evangelical type of Christianity, and being in San Francisco, was this the case with the sister and brother? And finally, how the Hell (pun completely intended) did this book end up in the used religion section of Green Apple Books?

I bring this up because I think it addresses two common points in modern religion in America:

1) The allure of fundamentalism, and
2) The role of religion in a person's life now.

I think both questions are tied together. What is the role of religion in a person's life now? In an age that seems to be fairly set on the voluntary practice of religion, does the role of religion change from being actual life rules to merely a set of philosophical rules? If so, what is it that seems to draw people to religion, especially fundamentalist/evangelical religion? What is the appeal of being "born again" within a religion? Perhaps it is the idea of starting over, of starting with a clean slate, and the fervor or "newness" of a religion pumps people up and makes them go to conferences where they talk about the invisible war with the Devil. Eventually, this fire fades and then what? What role does religion play then?

Interestingly, Lewis talks about this loss of fervor in The Screwtape Letters pretty extensively. His observation is that often a conversion is a very public and very superficial thing, but when it gets down to the nitty-gritty, religion (and all things for that matter) scare people away. With that being said, is the allure of fundamentalism that it offers a simple, passionate and (to some) meaningful way to fulfill a role that religion so easily fills?

But if so, why did this dude donate this book?

Maybe he was just trolling his sister.

I could see that; sisters can be annoying.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Religion?

Our discussion in class about the differences between "natural," "organic," "wilderness", and the struggle in finding a definition to something so widely used but little understood reminded me of a similar conversation I had earlier in the week about humanity, religion and video games.

Phillip K. Dick wrote his book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? around the question of what makes a human a human? He explores this idea in a variety of ways, but one side story to the main plot is a focus on a religion called "Mercerism," which is a virtual religion people "tune into" with a visor and gloves to participate in the story of Mercer. The story, as I remember it, goes along the lines of Mercer forever walking up a hill being tortured by other humans and the terrain, which the people tuning in can physically feel. People want to feel this pain, and in a sense, are connected and experience communion with one another through this virtual reality and shared strife.

With the other person, I brought up the idea that perhaps religion today could be explored through video games in this way, and then the talk turned to artificial intelligence. The other person was staunch in the fact that a man-made object could never be a human, and I, remembering one of the main takeaways of the plot of Androids being that we, as humans, imbue the meaning of "life" onto things, thought the other. I asked him, in a much less polished fashion of course, this question:

Imagine someone has been with you your entire life. He is your closest friend, and you have seen him laugh, cry, think logically and illogically, love, have beliefs, doubt, struggle, and display every other manner of human emotion. When you become an adult, you are told by your family that this person is an android, a robot who has been programmed to do the things he has done and to look as human as possible. At what point does this friend cease to be human?

His response was that a robot/android could never chemically reproduce the brain operations of life, and can only do a series of if/then statements that would never be subtle enough to replicate human thought. It was an interesting conversation, but I thought that some other questions had to be answered first, namely:

1) What defines a human, and what defines an android? 

2) Is it the new awareness of the friend the actual point where the switch from human to android takes place? 

3) Can computer programming have the same effect on both the thing performing it and to an observer watching this programming taking place as the human brain does for both? 

4) Is the difference between a human and an android actually meaningful? 

5) If the difference is meaningful, then is the assumption of humanity enough to make something human? 

6) Is a human’s relationship to something artificial significant enough to transform it into something human? (Good old Phillip K. Dick here)

7) Can a human cease to be human in the first place?

8) For the android and the human, is there any “ceasing” of humanity that can even be done?

I don't know the answers, and I expect that if they were fully explored, it would take pages and pages to do so fully. I just thought it was interesting that our discussion about definitions, humanity, naturalness and the like fit so perfectly into a question that I find fascinating and interesting. 

I have weird conversations, looking back on it....

Black Jesus and Adult Swim

I love the show Black Jesus.

It's on Adult Swim, and it's on its second season. Not to sound too hipster, but I've been watching this show since it first aired. I'm OG.

Praise it.

On Adult Swim

The premise of the show is that Jesus has come back. He's black, and he lives in Compton with a group of his followers who rent an apartment from Eddie Murphy's brother. They get into crazy adventures, but everything works out in the end because, hey, he's Jesus.

It's a great show. 

It's funny, yes, but there's also an element of our class in the show. In fact, I'd say that our entire class's theme could be represented by this show. 

This is a show that uses the traditional image of Jesus, specifically the Protestant representation of him, but thrusts him into a completely modern society. He lives in modern day Compton in L.A., and the struggles he has with his apostles are real issues: They face racism, poverty, drugs (Jesus loves weed), gangs and (of course) religiously philosophical issues, but everything is wrapped up, quite literally, in "What Would Jesus Do?" 

Here's an example:

There's an episode wherein Jesus gets a vision from "Pops" (God) that he has to wash the feet of the homeless. He tackles the local homeless man, washes his feet, and the homeless man (Lloyd) loves it so much he's willing to pay for it to have it again. Jesus and his followers need money, so the rich woman in town tricks him into running a portable foot-massage business from a food truck called, "Hands of God" to service the girls from her yoga class. 

Another show is about setting up a Mission Impossible style heist of a church, where a corrupt preacher is literally taking the money out of his parishioners' pockets. Jesus and his crew conspire to get the ill-gotten goods away from the man who is taking this money "In Jesus's name." Jesus puts down his plan, and when one of his followers points out that it's wrong to rob a church and "What about all that Christian stuff?" Jesus promptly replies with "Man, fuck that." 

These stories are brilliant in their translations to modern society. Jesus flipped the tables of the money lenders in the church... Why WOULDN'T he want to steal the money from a corrupt preacher? Jesus washes the feet of the less fortunate, why wouldn't his modern crew try to make a business out of that, especially with the whole "natural health/guru" craze in society? 

Yes, it's funny to think about Jesus in this strange setting and to hear him bust out joints and cuss, but the show is a wonderful and unique exploration in HOW religion is used today, and particularly how it relates to a minority culture in the modern age. It's surprisingly Christian and respectful of the religion in its message, and I think that's a tough and admirable stance to take on a nationally televised channel with a reputation for iconoclastic TV. 

All in all, I'm stoked for more Black Jesus. 

Praise it. 

Such is life in Russia...

During our discussion in class about how covertly some of our culture in America "puts down" Soviet/Russian society, I was reminded about a particular type of Creepypasta story called "Russian Spoofs," or, as I've sometimes seen, "Such is life in Russia."

Creepypastas are short stories that are designed to unnerve or shock the reader, and they are the modern day equivalent of campfire stories that are told on the internet. In many ways, they are a reflection of current societal fears and worries that manifest themselves on message boards or Reddit forums, and while some of them are fairly cringe-worthy, a few of them succeed in delivering a little shock. These "Russian Spoofs" take this shock factor and, using stereotypes and language, transmit those shocks into jokes that reinforce the preconceived notions of what our idea of Russia must be to those in America.

My point is that this "covert" attitude in American culture that was supposed to have ended during the Cold War is still alive today. Here are some examples of the spoofs, and if one is familiar with the original stories being spoofed some of them are quite funny, but all of them contribute to the American attitude that we discussed, one that is full of religious influences, capitalism and "democracy" over all.

Here is one that uses the "Bloody Mary" folk legend:

Legend is being going like this.

You are entering bathroom and standing in front of mirror. Turning candles off and, while being in front of mirror, spinning rapidly, you chanting "Leon Trotsky" "Leon Trotsky" "Leon Trotsky" "Leon Trotsky", several times, while catching glimpses of self on mirror. It is said that eventually you be seeing image of Leon Trotsky on mirror.

Upon exiting bathroom you are being arrested by KGB for believing in existence of Leon Trotsky, whom party has proven never existed.

Here is another one that references the story of a grave digger who hears a bell, goes to investigate, and finds out that the person who is ringing the bell has been dead for months after the tombstone's death date. This is its spoof:

In Russia, coffin has pipe for air, and bell with string. If man is true Soviet, he does not die. When buried, yells for undertaker and rings bell. Bell rings. Is no wind.

Undertaker asks - "Are you lady Gorbochev?"

Voice says "Da!"

"Born winter of 1927?"

"Da!"

"Gravestone says 'Died 20 February, 1957"

"Niet, am still living!"

"Am sorry, but is August. In June, ground will thaw. You must wait for June."

And woman is true Soviet, waits for June.

There are many many more, but the theme that comes from all of them is this idea that Russian/Soviet culture is radically different than American culture; in them, individuality is suppressed, censorship is par for the course, technology is woefully inferior to America's, and the love for the government is unquestionable. Through the use of language and humor, the writers of these stories continue the grand American tradition of subverting and misinterpreting culture, attitudes and ideals, which is a practice that, in regard to Russia, has continued uninterrupted since the beginning of the Cold War.

Anyway, if one is so interested, here is the site where most of these are collected. Read at own risk: 

http://russianpastafortherussians.wikia.com/wiki/Creepypasta/Russia_spoofs

Religion and Identity

While I might be in danger of sounding like a broken record, I wanted to take a little bit more time in understanding what is meant by people when they say they do or don't affiliate/identify with a religion.

Check out this Pew article about the 10 facts about religion:

 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/27/10-facts-about-religion-in-america/

Specifically, take a look at the opening paragraph about how the rates of the "unaffiliated with a religion" have grown from 16% in 2007 to 23% in 2014. 

This is more than 1/5 of those surveyed, and due to its numbers, I think this question is a valid one to ask: If one chooses to not affiliate with a religion, do they still have a religious identity? Broadly speaking, if we define having a "religious identity" as something everyone must have, then yes, their "religious identity" would be that they don't have one. But is that accurate? As I quoted William Lee Miller in my last SSRP, many Americans seem to be "very fervent believers in a very vague religion,"  and even if one doesn't identify with a philosophy, are they still part of a collective "vague" American religion? Are they truly outsiders?

From thepastfoundation.org

Henry David Hwang, in his play Chinglish has one of his characters say that "Love is the American religion," and I think there's something there that can connect to Miller's assertion above. While 23% of those in that Pew poll don't affiliate with a religion, it would be interesting to see if the cultural ideals of America could be translated as a collective and "vague" religion since love, the American Dream, and the Puritan Work Ethic seem to be cultural touchstones that drive almost religious-esque devotional behavior in people. The definition of a religion is slippery and probably impossible to truly define, but one popular idea is that it is a philosophy that has some sort of supernatural-like authority. If the American Dream of working hard to attain wealth, power and social mobility relies on some sort of authority, then yes, it is a religion; if love is something to search for and something we, as Americans, are by right (an authority) are destined to have, then yes, it's a religion under these terms. Under this set of circumstances, "religiously unaffiliated" people might be affiliated with some sort of infusion of the collective American religious ideals that permeate the culture.

On the other hand, is affiliating with nothing in particular completely divorced from its concept? If I have a choice between a burrito and a sandwich, and I choose neither, have I made a choice that truly is not connected to that realm of selection? I would argue that yes, choosing nothing is a valid choice, and those who are religiously unaffiliated are not exclusively non-religious. They just, when choosing between a burrito or a sandwich, didn't choose either; that's not the same as not eating... Perhaps they chose a doughnut instead, or something else that wasn't listed in those choices, or maybe they just weren't hungry and didn't eat anything.

From begum9.com

I have known many people who proudly identify as an atheist or an agnostic. In their stance against religion, they have chosen to identify themselves as something they are not, which is not an uncommon practice, but one that seems to be a special thread running throughout the history of religion and philosophy. 

Finally, to end this strangely circular and rambling post, let's go back to the Big Lebowski. As Walter is shouting to the self-identified Nihilists who want money, the Nihilists are disappointed and complain that they don't get their fair share. Walter than yells to them, "You don't think that's fair? Who's the real Nihilists now?" 

Anyway, some food for thought... or doughnuts... or whatever you choose... or don't choose... whatever you do... or don't... 

Ugh, philosophy. 

Method Acting and the Buddhist Master Tradition

A little personal history before we begin:

I graduated high school in 2008. I didn't really quite know what I wanted to do, but my counsellor at the school told me to "not bother" applying to colleges because I didn't have the math requirement and didn't "seem like I had the aptitude for it (the classes) anyway." Needless to say, being 18 and having no idea what to do was/is an unenviable position, so I went to the JC with no plan and took classes that sounded interesting. I had acted a bit before in my life, and when I was 20 I took an acting class at the JC because, hey, it sounded fun.

I fell in love with acting. I loved it so much that I even decided to leave school (I had to do my math general education courses soon anyway) and move to San Francisco to start an acting career. The school I enrolled in was a two-year studio that trained its students in a style of acting called "The Meisner Technique," and it was a hard-core school: Be prepared, don't come late, know your stuff, verbal and emotional abuse was expected from the teachers daily, and the "most important person in the world is your scene partner"... basically, it was a boot camp for those who wanted to act professionally.

For various reasons, after four years of living that lifestyle, I decided to leave it and return to school. I'm sure that I'll talk more about this studio and the methods, leaders and other semi-cultish stuff that went into it, but right now I want to look at an interesting similarity between modern acting studios and the "legitimacy" of following a traditional Buddhist master's pupils.

Modern acting, as we are familiar with it in the West, was first developed in Russia. Anton Chekov, the playwright, was writing new plays that demanded a completely different style of acting that was not only realistic but emotionally truthful to the moment, and an actor named Stanislavsky rose to the challenge. He developed a completely new and systematic method of training the actor for these types of plays, and he called it The System. People loved this style of acting, and so in the 1930s, his Moscow Theatre Company came to New York City to teach a new crop of young actors this new System at a playhouse called the Group Theater.

Stanislavsky was the Buddha of modern acting. His disciples were those who differed on the exact teachings of The System, and from the Group Theater we get the famous teachers of Lee Strasberg, Stella Adler and Sanford Meisner (almost, and this is no exaggeration, every American actor can trace his or her training to one of these three people).

As stated before, Adler, Strasberg and Meisner had differences on what Stanislavsky meant (and I can truly go on and on about these differences), but what is important is that each had their very specific interpretation, followers, exercises and students.

My teacher was taught by Sanford Meisner himself, and was endorsed by him to teach the method. He would often say that he is "one branch removed from the source," and because of that, he was teaching a "purer" system than others who didn't have this dispensation from the "master." Our exercises were completely different than those who followed in the vein of Stella Adler or Lee Strasberg, and the appropriate apostolic succession seems to lend a credibility to these teachings that, in a field like philosophy and its application, can be difficult to achieve.

No teachings are truly written down for these acting studios. Yes, you can get a book called "The Meisner Technique," but it's not truly what we did in classes. Nothing is really written down because many of the exercises had an air of secrecy around them. We had different groups corresponding to different levels of acting, and we were told to never tell the people below us what our exercises or lessons were. There was a level of spirituality in the studio that seemed to almost wobble into the esoteric, especially when people like me, worked up in a "preparation" to the point of being completely out of my mind and ready to kill, would begin a scene... Being so fully present within a moment locked into another human's struggles is difficult to explain without being too "poetic," but much of what Buddhism discusses about mediation finds interesting parallels in Method Acting (perhaps a future paper topic?)

In comparing this experience to the Buddhist teachings we read earlier, I was surprised by the level of dependence to the purity of the "master's" teachings that are found within the Zen Buddhism and Tibetan Buddhism traditions, mainly because I had lived four years of my life in that style of reverence for someone who, for all intents and purposes, was deified and whom I never would've, nor would ever, have met; his words were sacrosanct, infallible. This handing down of philosophy by people who are "endorsed" is an interesting riddle for me, because how can a teaching or a philosophy truly remain "pure" forever? Lifestyles change, the world changes, people gain knowledge, and so I understand that in order to preserve the tradition only certain gatekeepers are allowed to pass it, but is not Zen Buddhism in America an example of a series of people taking their philosophies and unofficially sharing them? Whenever I teach a friend, a co-worker or even a class "how to act," even though I was never truly crowned a "Meisner Trained Actor," you can bet I'm using Meisner-like techniques. So, whether they like it or not, that philosophy is out of the bag and being consumed and transformed within the society.

Oh, and long story short, I don't really act anymore. Again, I'll probably explain why in future posts. But it's quite the interesting story...

Me, Myself and UFOs

I was surprised by the mention of UFOs in the readings this week, and I was especially surprised by the prevalence of how these things affected the religious landscape of America during the late 1940s and 50s.

Checkmate UFO deniers... From ufoevidence.org

When I was younger, I had a small fascination with UFOs that manifested itself in watching many terrible documentaries and hunting for really spotty/grainy videos at the video rental store (this was before the Internet). Do you remember that "Alien Autopsy" they showed on Fox back in the 90s?

Yeah, I was all over that as a kid.

I even went to Roswell, New Mexico on a trip with my Dad. To the UFO museum, specifically. I even got a blow-up green Alien toy. It was a pretty fun vacation.

Found it. Thanks Amazon!

Okay, maybe a "small" fascination doesn't really accurately cover what I was doing.

Anyway, I never really believed any of it, I was just a nerd who thought this was a fun time and a funny way to spend the night joking around with "documentaries," but now with a little bit more background knowledge on the context of the UFO movement, so much of what I thought was strange as a child makes much more sense.

A lot of the UFO community seems to have an underlying influence of New Age philosophy that tends to blend in well with those who frequent related conventions or message boards. I always thought there was something quasi-religious about the whole thing, even as a kid, what with people talking about how UFOs tend to show up on powerful ley lines, or that they (the aliens) were coming to help the world solve its problems. I also wondered why these books were lodged in the metaphysical section of the bookstore, next to books on crystal healing or Tarot cards. As a kid, not really being familiar with the "New Age" movement, it led me to believe that this knowledge was somehow "hidden" or "forbidden," and that there must be some connection between all of these things. There also seemed to be a correlation between non-traditional lifestyles and a belief in aliens, a type of idea that I now know is heavily inspired by various New Age and Neopaganism philosophies.

Nowhere is this more prevalent now than with the Ancient Aliens Theory. I'm sure you're familiar with the theory: Aliens visited the planet early in mankind's life and helped genetically create modern humans while building various large structures across the Earth. This theory seems to take what was hinted at or semi-talked about in previous UFO movements and expands it into an overtly religious and mythical context. In the past, I would hear things such as "Aliens are here and want to help;" today, the Ancient Alien Theory seems to say "Aliens were here, we worshiped them as gods, and we are created by them." Needless to say, this spoke to the young Eric in me, and I'd be interested to see if there are any anthropological studies or religious studies done about the connection between this particular subject and our current society.

The History Channel constantly plays these shows. From an academic standpoint, it's an infuriating and fascinating choice. What is it about this show and this theory that speaks to people? I know this is not a novel concept: H.P. Lovecraft talks about aliens creating mankind all the time, and that was back in the early 20th century. UFO cults are not new... What is going on today that makes people tune in to the History Channel and watch this show over and over?

I just checked... This has been on for NINE SEASONS. THERE'S BEEN NINE SEASONS WORTH OF MATERIAL FOR THIS... From Whatculture.com

Perhaps it is the growing number of people willing to "try on" different religions and different traditions. As we discussed in class, perhaps the loosening of the societal norms kicked off by feminism movement in the 60s is still being done today with people wanting to find something that personally speaks to them and their desires for religious experiences.

Or maybe people really just like aliens.

Why not? Aliens are cool.

JFK and Religion

Something in the readings this week affected me in a surprising way, and in this particular post, I think I’d like to be a little more personal than I’ve been before. Now, I have always been a fan of John F. Kennedy and the whole Kennedy family… I don’t really feel like I should, to be honest; I was born way after their political influence was at its peak, the family is incredibly wealthy and they can’t possibly relate to me in any significant manner, but I do admire JFK and Bobby Kennedy in a strange almost unexplainable way. 

Like John F. Kennedy, I would identify as a Roman Catholic. Growing up Catholic, there were always pictures on the wall of Pope John Paul II, sometimes (in other families) I’d see a Pope John XXIII picture, and I’d usually see a picture of JFK. As a kid and a young teenager, I would think: He was a Catholic, yeah, that’s cool but whatever. This week, for some reason, the reading of his speech struck me in a new way. For a long time, I never thought being Catholic was such a "heated" topic. I was raised as an Italian Roman Catholic, not because my family was particularly devout, but because my mom and my dad immigrated to America from Italy and being Catholic, for a lot of people, is just… Well, what you do over there. No one truly seemed that “into” it, except for Catholic holidays, but it was a foundation for an identity especially when they moved here. To make things a bit more specific, however, my mom is a Lutheran from Germany, but somehow the Catholicism was more pronounced growing up (although my Italian Grandmother had much to say against my mom, a divorced German Lutheran single mother, marrying her son… But that’s another story). 

Anyway, I never grew up thinking that being Catholic was not an American “thing.” I thought everyone was Catholic, except my Jewish friends - there certainly was a lot of people at the church after all. It wasn’t until later that I realized that Catholicism wasn’t exactly the “majority,” when people began to ask me questions about eating people, drinking wine, rosaries, why I had a St. Christopher’s medallion, and then later on, being the resident Catholic, defending against the child abuse scandal - something that is and forever will be indefensible. 

But, and I don’t mean to speak for every immigrant family or even every American Catholic, belief never really entered into the equation. I (and many others I know here in America) couldn’t care less about Jesus’s divinity or not, the nuances of Pauline epistles or the Book of Acts; being Catholic, to me and everyone I knew, wasn’t about that. Being Catholic was about connecting with a culture, with a family and a land that was thousands of miles away, separated by mountains, seas and oceans. Trying to “find your way” in America is difficult, and for the majority of Italians, Catholicism is such a central part of its culture that it became a way to feel connected to our home. It wasn’t what we believed as it was more of what we identified as that was the important aspect of the religion. We had pictures of the Pope because we are Catholic, and that’s what Catholics do because they've always done that and (probably) always will, and we were comfortable with the fact that our relatives back home were doing the same things. It became a touchstone, an important one especially when different languages within the generations are involved. 

It seems difficult to explain this to anyone who has grown up in a religious lifestyle that demands total belief with “all of your heart, all of your body and all of your soul,” but the priests, for us, never really seemed to care what we did, as long as we went to church or professed some sort of Catholic-esque belief in some round-about way. 

I understand that I completely got off the topic of JFK’s speech, but I think this all ties into the idea of what being an immigrant in America is like when viewed through the lens of religion. JFK’s speech resonated with me because it’s above the ideas of particular Catholic belief; it’s just a part of who he is, and it doesn’t affect his job or his performance. He, like so many immigrant families, understands that his religion, while important in helping to define his identity, does not disqualify him from an American life. His argument for the public's understanding of religious differences is beautifully stated, and one that I wish many people would consider before labelling or perpetuating incorrect beliefs and actions based solely on religious identification. 

Overall, I appreciate JFK a little bit more, even though he was a fatally flawed man. 

Anyway, I apologize for the lack of pictures and video, but here's a picture of a corgi that I wish was on every single bumper sticker.

Pictured above: Cool Corgi

The Dude Abides

While doing our reading for the week about Neopaganism and New Age philosophies, I was struck by how much of it I could relate to. I’m from Northern California, specifically the San Francisco Bay Area, and, just to get some extra street cred, I live a few blocks away from the Haight Ashbury. Growing up in this area, I had no idea how steeped I was in New Age ideas/philosophies and in the “Jesus Freaks” concept. Reading both sections of the texts felt like I was reading a training manual given to every adult and authority figure I’ve ever dealt with in this part of the country. 

Specifically though, I wanted to join together two sections of the reading that seem both complimentary and yet very exclusive to one another: The Buddhist and Eastern religious influence on popular culture, and the Jesus Freaks reinterpretation of the Bible. To put more of an interesting spin on it, I’ll relate a good chunk of it to one of my favorite movies, The Big Lebowski.

From highsnobiety.com

The Big Lebowksi is a hard to movie to analyze, but one of the consistent themes explored throughout the film is the portrayal of “The Dude.” He’s a burn-out, a hippie, a “slacker” if we were to use 90s terminology, but I couldn’t help but compare him to the Jesus Freaks in the Haight Ashbury and other hippie centers throughout America during the counterculture revolution. The Dude lives and dresses simply, has little money and seems to have little interest in sexual encounters (many times throughout the movie he responds to sexual advances with a disinterested observation about his surroundings), and much of his speech is influenced by the world around him. For intents and purposes, it seems as if The Dude is living a fairly ascetic Christian-style life, and especially with the “hip” ways the Jesus Freaks seemed to attract people with, The Dude seems to be their stereotypical "spiritual man in Christ." However, his day to day philosophy seems to be influenced by Buddhism and Taoism, keeping an even demeanor throughout much of the film’s “interesting” exploits. In the movie, the little backstory we get on The Dude is that he was a college revolutionary and helped write and form various radical groups; otherwise, he is a blank slate for the audience to put their perceptions upon.

Compare this with the treatment that Hunter S. Thompson gives himself and his friend in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. In that book, he seems to mourn the passing of this counterculture's momentum, which he describes as a “great wave” that ultimately failed, a momentum that you could pinpoint where it finally had  its "high-water mark, where the wave finally broke and rolled back.” As a quick aside, it’s a wonderfully beautiful book that I believe is overshadowed by people’s focus on its drug use, ignoring the whys of the drug use and what it means to that group of people locked in that mindset. In Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Thompson is in the thick of the dying of the counterculture movement, and he rarely ever explicitly mentions the various religious philosophies of the time, but he does remark often about this “vibration” and “wave” that seems to have infused the culture with some New Age sounding rhetoric.

Misunderstood... from Fanpop.com

Compared with The Big Lebowski, there is quite a time difference with the approach to The Dude’s character and with it, more time to reflect upon which parts of that movement’s influences and effects seemed to have lasted in the modern world. The Dude is a perfect representation of that era’s philosophy, and it is a philosophy that I felt, quite surprisingly, at home with and intrigued me to academically study it further.

Theseus Just Missed the Boat

Over the course of the week, I found myself asking the same question after reading many of our posted articles: At what point does a philosophy change and cease to be the “old” philosophy? Specifically, I brought this up in my readings of “Islam in America” and “Hinduism in North America,” where each of the religions discussed focused on how their traditions have been treated in America. A common thread that seems to occur with religions in the United States is the struggle of multiple sects or divisions within that tradition existing in a country with a strong Americanization force and limited financial or political support for those different groups.

In their so called “native” countries, these religions exhibit a wide-range of beliefs and different interpretations that can be very exclusive. However, in America, some groups have found that they are forced by the culture to be pushed together into a collective “American Islam” or an “American Hinduism” or an “American Buddhism,” sometimes with the unintended connotation from others that these faiths are “wrong” or “inferior” to the ones practiced elsewhere. Influenced by this prejudice, it is easy to see how traditions can be manhandled into a more monolithic bloc; those who practice these traditions in America often say that there is no difference between their forms of worship and their “native” counterparts. Some authors we read, like Sarma, believe that since these new and generally more inclusive, homogenous and unregulated traditions must “go back” to their more original divided and diverse form. 

However, I’d like to take a moment and explore some philosophical issues that arise from Sarma’s, and others’, assertion. 

DISCLAIMER: I am not a philosopher… Yet.  I don’t know everything about philosophical issues or religions. My hope in this blog post is NOT to answer any questions but to think about and explore some aspects of class discussions that interested me, or to question what I agree with in order to more fully understand a concept from both sides. Most of the what I found was found in my textbook: A Historical Introduction to Philosophy by Lillegard and Fieser, if one is so inclined to check them out. 

There is a philosophical paradox called “The Ship of Theseus.” Briefly, this paradox states that a wooden ship, which carried the Greek hero Theseus, was saved and over time its old wood was replaced with new wood. The paradox arises when one states: Is this ship with completely new parts the same ship that Theseus used? 

From science20.com

I would advance the question and ask: If new and different philosophical ideas are added to a tradition and accepted by it, is it still the same tradition? Also, can a religion ever “go back” to what it was before?

To answer this question, Heraclitus stated that while you cannot step into the same waters twice, you could step into the same river. The contents of the river, the water, constantly change, but the water is NOT what “makes up” the river. Our ideas, our perceptions of the river, this “form” of the river as a unit we can use to measure some change against is what truly “makes up” the river. The Mississippi River is the Mississippi River regardless of if the exact same water particles are in it every second of every day. More succinctly, Aristotle states that everything is made up of different causes, and that if something is fulfilling the same roles as the causes of the object (i.e., what the thing is used for/its ultimate purpose) then yes, it is the same thing. So in our Hinduism study and with my very limited knowledge of this particular religion, the different sects of Hinduism and American Hinduism seem to fulfill both of these ideas: They are used for pretty much the same purpose for their practitioners.

However, is the purpose of something its only defining characteristic? Broadly speaking, the “purpose” of many religions seems to be understand the nature of divinity and one’s role within that understanding, but there are many recognizable “differences” between the various religions. Are the different materials of things what makes something different? Are the interactions with those things what makes them different? Is the actual purpose of those individual things what makes it different? Is there even a difference at all? Is our perception of the differences what make something truly “different?” The world is made of atoms of mostly empty space, yet we cannot see that space, nor the jagged edges of when the atoms are at the edges of objects. We are made of the same atoms, the same stuff, as other humans, but our perceptions understand the difference between brown hair, blond hair, male and female. Fundamentally, our cells are the same, but their purposes are different. Our DNA is fundamentally the same, but what it tells the different cells to do, their purposes, are different. 

Contradictory? Probably. I’ve learned that philosophy is mostly just becoming adept at hiding your contradictions. 

On the other hand, our second question still remains: Can a religion or tradition “go back” to an earlier state? There are fundamentalist groups, yes, but do they truly represent a “going back” to an earlier philosophical understanding? Is a young person who grew up with a more “modern” understanding of a tradition able to shed those beliefs and start anew, to start with a blank slate? If you have an understanding of something, can you ignore it?

Going back to the Theseus Paradox, Thomas Hobbes later expanded the question by asking if the material that was used to build the ship was removed and then repurposed to build something else, would it still be recognized as the Ship of Theseus? This question seems to be not just Sarma’s struggle in the article, but many people’s struggle when looking at an “American Tradition.” Is “dismantling” and “rebuilding” pieces of a religious tradition and practicing them in a new country, with or without its original artifacts, a faithful re-creation of that tradition? If I take the Ship of Hinduism and then rebuild it to be the Coffee Table of Hinduism, is it still the same ship?

Like I said before, I didn’t intend to answer questions, but I did want to explore and ask questions about identity and the consequences of philosophical change. 

Anyway, enough philosophy. Here’s a picture of a corgi:

Slurms as a Corgi

Super Mario, Commander Shepard and God.

So, I may have just realized what I want to do with my life. The fact that there is an entire field of academia devoted to the interplay of video games with religious studies and philosophy made me super excited. Like, really really excited... The type of excited that only little kids in class can experience, wriggling in their chair and holding their arm up to answer a question because they've spent so much time studying something and finally can demonstrate that they didn’t waste their time and want something to show for it. 

I knew that my time playing Donkey Kong Country on the Super Nintendo and Sonic on the Sega Genesis was going to pay off.

Pictured: Research. (forbes.com)

Anyway, Jason Anthony’s article in Playing with Religion in Digital Games, focuses on the different historical and religious contexts in which games have interacted with religions throughout the ages. These are interesting, but I really wanted to explore what he calls the “digital corollaries,” and, more specifically, I want to talk about what Anthony terms the “Allomythic” game. Afterwards, I’d like to touch upon the possible future of this type of video games and religion. 

Anthony broadly defines “allomythic” games as “Games that explore nonexistent traditions… Allomythic games postulate new religious landscapes, and go a step further by providing a first-person way to step into those traditions and practice them” (65). Some examples he gives of this type of interaction are the Mass Effect series and The Elder Scrolls series. To me, this type of interaction is fascinating, because it digests and comments upon religion in a unique way due to its involvement of the gamer. Having played both series he mentions, the inclusion of the player into these philosophies early on is an interesting way that many gamers have had a chance to interact with a "religion" and, for lack of a better term, all its associated “baggage,” especially if they don’t officially identify as following a particular faith. This is type of digital game also allows some exploration in how these traditions influence player and non-player actions throughout the game, such as one entire side quest of The Elder Scrolls Series that focuses on supernatural deities inflicting their will on the population.  Also, the amount of creativity and believability of these allomythic games bring up an interesting aspect of the human experience when it comes to stories: These traditions are sometimes just as believable as the “real” thing. Going a step further, I’d say that novels like Game of Thrones and other Sci-Fi books have created religious traditions that people feel invested in, influenced by and understand within their contexts. I’d go a step further and say that fictional TV shows in which people get visceral reactions to play upon the same part of the human experience. Perhaps allomythic games are more than just a video game; they allow us to explore a unique part of humanity and our relation to our creations, be it a religion or even a god.

World of Elder Scrolls and its related game areas. (Reddit.com)

Ultimately, we are allowed, as players in such a game, to follow or at least be aware of a particular philosophy and see it interact with others and perhaps change over the course of a game. Often, these ideas are syncretic with a few “real-world” religions, and an allomythic game can serve as a laboratory to observe how people “play” with these new ideas. In an increasingly connected world, I often wonder if religions will become more open to change and begin a process of morphing into larger and more inclusive faiths. If so, allomythic games may give us an interesting perspective on how such a thing may look, and how people may react to it. 

Also, in my experience, allomythic games seem to take themselves pretty seriously, so it makes for wonderful videos such as this one from Mass Effect: