Mythic Stories

Today in class we talked a lot about Mythic Stories, literature that is used to help us understand the world around us, and how could be one of the better ways of classifying religious texts, since once you get rid of the argument of which one is the absolute truth, it really becomes a debate about which stories have the best role models for living one's life by.

I think this is a good idea, not just because it would make talking about religion a lot saner, but also because it opens up the use of characters and stories from all time periods and mediums, leading (hopefully) to everyone realizing that no matter what the medium a story is told, if it is a good story, then it has the same value as an equally good story told in another medium. This would be a really good turning point for comic books and animation of all types, as they are still sometimes regarded as a less art form simply because they are a newer creation.

So in all, I think accepting that not only everyone has different mythic stories that they use to understand the world around them, or at least figure out rules for living in this world, is a really good idea. Not only would it promote understanding among our species, but also equality in various forms of art.

Rules and meanings

We talked about how if a person is never taught the reasons why a rule is in place, they will eventually get to a point where the person will reject the rules they are given because they have no meaning to base those rules on. It struck me as an interesting comparison to the difference between teaching language to a human, and to a parrot that mimics voices. A human learning a language will understand the meanings and grammar behind the words and phrases it learns, but a parrot just learns basic association, not the actual definitions of things, and thus never really understands what the words mean in the larger scheme of things. This is probably why some pet parrots will end up repeating seemingly nonsensical words over and over: they have no understanding of what the word is, outside of it is something that is said. Thoughts on how else this connects to sets of rules?

"Culture of Theft"

Okay, so in class on Tuesday we talked about how, when placed in a society with no legal framework for redistributing resources to make sure everyone can survive, theft becomes allowable when done to survive, and if the thief does not get caught. We also mentioned how this actually makes for a functional and survivable society, but that we today would consider this sort of behavior not only illegal by our laws, but also wrong, since we punish theft. However, one wonders what would change if we were to adopt such a "culture of theft" in today's world. If it became a matter of just not getting caught when stealing in order to survive, one wonders if there would be fewer people going hungry on the streets. In some ways, having a general rule of "just don't get caught" could be seen as a sort of skill-based social well-fare: if you're smart or talented enough to get it, it's yours, and you just won your survival for another couple of days. Any thoughts on how having this kind of culture in modern day would change things or not change them?

Monotheism

Yeah, this one's a day late. At least it's here.

Anyway, back to referencing Magic the Gathering. We talked in class a fair bit about the pros and cons of a monotheistic culture. The advantage is that it gives everyone a shared purpose and background, as well as giving the society a unifying force that can be used to direct a collective will, effectively making a more focused and driven culture. This is one of the more positive incarnations of White mana from Magic, which focuses on protection and order, and lives for an orderly society where everything is in accordance with the traditions and rules. Of course, you can also get the same problems that monotheism can bring: xenophobia to those who aren't of your god/culture, an easily moblized-to-war society, and a lack of new ideas for fear of upsetting the way things are.

Also, another good thing that monotheism brings to a society, other than unification, is a lower cost of temple-building: since you only have one deity to worship, you don't need the perhaps dozen or so from polytheism, so you can spend less resources on temples, and more on feeding your people.

Confucian Internet

Continuing the conversation from class about trying to make the internet less of a place for insulting others, I really do think that the best way to get to that point is not only to have etiquette taught as a more prominent part of society, but also to change the medium of communication online. I recall someone bringing up the idea of a sarcasm font, but other methods could be added in as well. Emoticons are a good start, but perhaps the idea of using a Skype-like program for communicating on forums could work. Record a video of yourself speaking your response, then post that. Using a video as ones way of speaking on the internet also has the advantage that you actually can see hand gestures and facial expressions, as well as people knowing who you are, without necessarily  knowing everything about you. Using your own face would negate the requirement of giving a name (though you still could), as well as make you more recognizable on and off the web. There can be a thousand John Smiths in the world, but once you can put a face on a particular one, it is more personal.

Also, maybe the first step is to get people to realize that even when you are posting stuff online with a mask of a screen-name or anonymity, it is still a part of who you are, and that fact matters, or at least should. And maybe that is all we would need to do: convince people that the Internet really is personal, and that it should be treated as such.

Just World Theory and Confucius

So one thing that interested me in discussion today was the different ideas of "justice" and how best to deal with crime. In the ideal Confucian society, crime would not be something that needs to be dealt with, as everyone would be living life in a way that creates harmony. Which probably makes the ideal Confucian society the only time when Just World Theory (good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people) is actually true. However, in the non-theoretical world, Just World Theory breaks down quickly: in the words of Gandalf the Grey "Many that live deserve death. Some who die deserve life." (Fellowship of the Ring). Because of this, we have many different ideas about how to take care of the problem crime presents, and as a culture we seem to be, for better or worse (I vote worse) away from a Confucian way of dealing with crime, and towards a system that seems on its way to becoming draconian is some ways. I guess my question would be how would we start changing things in order to bring about a more Confucian system of dealing with crime?

Starting Confucius

One part of the seemingly hierarchical system that Confucius wants to see exist that I find interesting is the many many different possible ways one could address someone they are talking to, depending entirely on the relationship between the two speakers. By creating a system (or perhaps building on top of a system) that has such a heavily structured system of addressing ones fellow members of society, Confucius is also in a very effective way advocating for a system that creates very clear communication between people. By having such an extensive set of rules for communication, it would seem near impossible for one to misunderstand something due to ambiguity. You could almost say that Confucius was trying to make it easier for people to understand one another as a part of his ideal for how people should behave.

Not really sure if I have a question for this one, but it's something I though was interesting.

Messiahs as a Human Universal

So one of the things that intrigued me was the idea that a messiah-like figure is a universal constant in human literature. The idea that we will at some point have this one savior who will appear and show us the way to salvation/victory/a better life shows up in all kinds of stories, especially those that have to do with the ending of the world. Since humans are a social species, this is interesting since due to the shift in focus away from the group as a whole, and to an individual leader-figure. One wonders why a social species would have such a universal agreement that when everything seems to be (literally or figuratively) going to hell, there should be one single figure to guide us forward.

Thoughts on this anyone?

Jesus and Hinduism

Okay, so this one will also go into the Magic colors again, but that will be kept to a minimum.

One of the topics that interested me  was the main difference between the end-game spiritual goals of Jesus and Hinduism. On one hand, we have the desire for improving the world around us by creating something akin to a heaven-on-earth where everyone is an equal part of society, yet still all recognized as individuals (Jesus' ideals). On the other, we have the desire to achieve spiritual enlightenment and become absorbed back into the universe, ceasing to exist as a single being (Hinduism). Where the Magic colors come in is in comparing the two to the combinations known as Naya (Red/Green/White) for Jesus, and Bant (Green/White/Blue) for Hinduism.

The main difference in the two is how the concept of the individual is treated. For Jesus, the individual is important to recognize, as long as such recognition does not supersede the community aspect of the Kingdom of God that Jesus hopes to create. For Hinduism, the eventual goal is to completely remove the individual identity and become one with the whole. For Magic, the similar aspects of the two ideologies is easy: being part of a system that hopes for spiritual growth for all (at least if given enough time), which takes care of the Green/White part of the combinations. Jesus' idea of keeping some importance on the individual, as well as showing compassion and caring for those around you (a central part of the Kingdom of God) clearly adds Red to the mix (Red being the color of emotion and individual ideals). Hinduism on the other hand seeks to distance itself from the ego as much as possible, which is the domain of Blue (the only color to focus on an absence of emotion), as well as the idea of achieving perfection through spiritual enlightenment (Blue is obsessed with being perfect).

So I guess for a question, I'm not sure I have one. Just more insight into my way of processing things I guess.

Colors of systems

Remember those references to Magic the Gathering I threatened to make in that first blog post?
Now I'll actually be using them.

The part that struck me most about the class discussion on Tuesday was the differences between the system our world seems to run on currently, the system the Jesus seems to have wanted people to follow, how people act when disaster strikes, and where the homeless and their life-style fits into all of this.

The system we currently have reflects the style known as Orzhov (White and Black mana together), using a highly structured and hierarchical system that keeps everyone in a near-permanent state of debt, while slowing grinding away at one's morality in return for greater monetary wealth. White is for the structure and order, Black is for the corruption and ever-mounting avarice.

Jesus' proposed ideas of creating a Kingdom of God here and now by actually being decent people when dealing with one another most closely fits another two-color combination sometimes called Selesnya (Green and White mana). This combination focuses the most on creating a society that cares for and works towards the betterment of all those who are a part of this community. This is also the color-combination of those who are involved in disasters, doing whatever they can to help those around them. However, I would also argue that Jesus' ideals also have aspects of Red mana, which emphasizes emotions, including compassion, as well as a sense of at least understanding individuality that would go along with Jesus' ideas of no-one having authority over others.

As you probably noticed, Jesus' ideals and our current way of running things share one color, White mana, but they use it differently. Our current Orzhov-like way of doing things uses White as a foundation and structure that resists changes to it's core way of running things. Jesus' use of White works more along the lines of caring about everyone and creating equality. As I mentioned in that first post, all five colors of Magic can be positive or negative, depending on how they are used.

Finally, those who are blessed, the homeless, also fit another color-combination: Green and Black. This combination shows up a lot in those who are at the bottom rungs of society, with people make use of whatever they can get their hands on in order to survive. They really aren't focused on anything other than themselves (Black) and surviving for another day (Green).

As a final note, yes this really is how my thought-process works most of the time. I figure out what categories and terms fit with whatever is being discussed, and process the information that way. It's not always Magic, but that just happened to work especially well for this topic. Adios.

Life Embellished

So the topic from last class that struck me the most was looking at the Gospels as works of fiction, instead of biographies. The idea of creating recordings of a person's life that is intentionally embellished, as well as known by all the readers (or listeners as it may be) that the story is embellished because stating just the facts of the biography would not be sufficient to convey the necessary level of awe required for such a great figure of history.

What also interested me about this topic was the fact that the idea that the Gospels are a literal truth only came about due to institutionalization of the religion. Only when the religion became large enough to require institutional organization did it become something that allows for fanaticism to take over. One wonders what that says about humankind on the whole.

The Adventure We Have Along the Way.

So the idea of the "Noble Goals" and the eventual realization of what humans really want in life was what really interested me in our last class. Since the idea behind them is that, no matter which of the goals you pursue, eventually you will realize they aren't what you are looking for. Which reminds me of one of my favorite manga: One Piece.

The main character of the series, Monkey D. Luffy, is traveling the world in order to become the "King of Pirates", and find a legendary treasure left behind by the greatest pirate who ever lived, one Gold/ Gol D. Roger (no family relation between the two). Now, granted this is a decent (and challenging) goal that ends up being somewhere between the Noble Goals of Success and Pleasure (part of the reason Luffy is doing this is simply for the sake of having an adventure), however, the one question that has been bugging me about the series is: What happens once Luffy obtains his goal? Knowing his character, he will just keep sailing the seas until the day he dies, but once he finds the One Piece, what else will there be left for him to do?

This kind of problem shows up a lot in stories, but never really gets addressed. After all, the stated goal of many a fictional villain (cliched of otherwise) has been to rule the world, but they never say what they want to do once they have obtained their goal. Granted, they always end up getting defeated in the end, but the question still stands. And I think the the idea of the Noble Goals really does a good job of addressing that problem. Though I would argue that there is one problem with the concept of the Noble Goals, and their idea of what people really want: They don't really mention the idea that maybe achieving the goal, be it Wealth, Fame, Power, Pleasure, Joy, Enlightnement, Reuniting with Brahman, what have you, isn't ever the point. Maybe the point is the seeking, and the life you live while trying to attain your goal.

I'm not saying that the Gita had the wrong idea, I'm just pointing out that there is something they might have left out. Thoughts anyone?

Temprorary Physical Bodies

So one of the things that Hinduism seems to share with more monotheistic religions is the idea that the most important part of our being is not our physical bodies, but our spiritual selves. While this seems an obvious point, there is something odd about how this idea is brought across. With Hinduism, the idea is that the physical body is simply a clothing-like shell for our Self. However, in Christianity, the physical body is more like a one-shot vehicle to transport the soul from the physical world into either Heaven or Hell (or Purgatory, but I'm not sure how that one works). One of the defining points of religion seems to be the idea that our lives here in this world are only of importance because of what this life means for the spiritual side of existence, not the physical side.

What I am curious to know is, what does this say about the world of the here and now?
The betterment of the spiritual self is all well and good, but what do these religions have to say about making the physical world a better place. It just seems that, since it is viewed as something transient, the physical world is devalued by religions. Isn't the physical world we are in worth taking care of as well? That isn't really brought up much in religion. I wonder why that is.

Immortality, Boon or Bane?

As was mentioned in class, while in many religions the end goal of the spiritual journey is something on par with eternal life in some kind of paradise, Hinduism effectively already has eternal life, and wants to be rid of it. What I find interesting about the difference is how it mirrors those who want to attain immortality, and those who already have it, in fiction.

As a general rule, those who once sought immortality (and then obtained it) generally end up thinking that it is really more of a curse than anything else, usually for reasons such as seeing friends age and die, or watching the world around them change while they stay the same. Perhaps it says something about how people always want what they cannot have: Many times those who have an immortal or eternal life would do almost anything to be rid of it, and those who do not have such a life would trade almost anything for one.

So it seems that whether an eternal life is good thing or a bad one depends on your point of view.
Thoughts?

Links for those interested

Sorry about not putting these links in the previous post as I said I would.
For the descriptions of the five colors of Magic: the Gathering, see here:

White: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr57
Blue: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr84
Black: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr109
Red: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr133
Green: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Article.aspx?x=mtgcom/daily/mr43

All links go directly to the Magic the Gathering website "Daily MtG", where you can find just about anything you would want to know for Magic.

As for Tvtropes, the link is: www.tvtropes.org

That's it on links for me, take a look if you are interested.

Adios,
-Kaz

Introductory Post

Hello readers,

For an introduction, there isn't too much to say. I have a tendency to view life and philosophical stand-points through the lens of the Magic the Gathering 5-color scheme. It works pretty well for me at least, those interested can find a very good description of the colors themselves, as well as what happens when they interact in the link at the end of this post. I also tend to compare various world-views to fictional counter-parts. For me, it is about translating what I see into something I understand. Other than MtG, my other main way of analyzing the world is TvTropes.org. It is basically a list of archetypes and writing conventions, but it can be used to look at life quite well (or at least compare things in writing) because of all the common ideas.

So yeah, this blog might get a bit odd as far as the references at times, but I will try to leave most of the unknown jargon out of it.

Adios,
-Kaz