While causality turns into a rather chicken/egg discussion, I suspect that the reality of it is much the same as the reality of that metaphor. While the actual mechanisms that drove the earliest development of language, abstract cognition and rudimentary culture is lost in eons of time, there is a lot that we can surmise. There are even aspects of this question we can probably describe with a great deal of accuracy. Unquestionably, this is an incredibly fascinating discussion.
Over the past few years I have become increasingly interested in the relationship between language and culture. At the same time, I have become interested in the relationship between language and cognition. I have also been very intrigued with the evolution of all three of these, for many years - and as I have been afforded the opportunity to explore the relationships I mentioned, I have become increasingly fascinated by the evolution of all three, in relation to each other.
In a turn that really blasted me into dizzying realms of abstract correlations, I have also become increasingly intrigued by the cultural relativity of psychopathology. I rather latched onto this concept, because for many years - since I was a child really, I have been beset by the idea that mental illness/neurological disorders/cognitive maladaptations are really misnamed. What exactly is it that qualifies the way one person's brain happens to work as mental illness, versus the way another person's brain works as merely being a little "odd?"*
Is it their brain that is screwed up? Or is it their socialization/culturalization - the society in which they live that is so screwed up?
As I have explored the manifestations of atypical neurology in different cultural contexts, I am increasingly convinced that the latter is considerably more of a problem. Assuming it is indeed society that is screwed up, the question becomes; "given the megalithic nature of society, does this distinction even matter?" or "is there really any reasonable solution to be found for this problem?" To the first question, I cannot but respond that yes, this distinction is remarkably important. The answer to the second question though, is much more complicated and largely depends on how one might define "reasonable."
I think that the largest barrier we face is the very nature of science research in our modern culture. In many disciplines we are increasingly running into a situation where the existing paradigm of each discipline to it's own, is becoming less and less feasible. My perception may be biased by the context of my focus, but I suspect that there is no other area where this is becoming more apparent, than in the social sciences. This is largely because the more science oriented practitioners of psychology, sociology and anthropology - even to some degree, philosophy are developing vast areas of overlap. In some cases, it is simply not possible to follow lines of research without input from each.
Yet the culture of science tends to shy from interdisciplinary cooperation, something that causes problems across the board, but which is most insidious in the social sciences. Anthropology, sociology and even psychology are seeing a major battle between those who wish to do hard science and postmodern extremists who believe that hard science is a bourgeois affectation and fallacious because we can never truly "know" anything. At the same time, most of the most practical and important work being done in all three disciplines, requires input from multiple subdisciplines of the others.
As our world continues to shrink, as historical barriers between cultures fade away, we are flying blindly into a world beset by misunderstandings and exploitations that all too often explode into violent conflicts. And the vast majority of these conflagrations can be traced directly to the intersect of language, cognition and culture. Our language, the use, the content - even the very structure of our languages predispose us to various cultural paradigms. Likewise, language predisposes us to various cognitive paradigms. But complicating all of this, our cognitive paradigms predispose us to certain language and cultural paradigms, while our cultural paradigms predispose us to certain cognitive and linguistic paradigms.
There is absolutely no doubt that untangling this web of influence is a herculean and possibly impossible task. While many correlations are blatantly obvious, causations are complicated by the very nature of nature of those correlations. But ultimately the exploration of this conjunction has less to do with untangling the web and everything to do with peripheral benefit. Exploring this intersect would teach us a great deal about who "we" are, who "they" are**, how we can all interact with less friction and who all of us might become.
Over the course of this semester, I have the opportunity to explore some aspects of this confluence. It is my sincere hope that as I work my way through my education, I will be able to functionally explore many more facets of this intersect. This nexus is relevant to my educational, research and career goals. Ultimately this nexus is the forge that shapes all of the pieces of who/what "we" are, and who/what "they" are.
As I produce various projects, I will be posting them here - hopefully in a relatively coherent fashion. This will probably mean shuffling things around, sometimes adjusting previously posted writings and sometimes I will be throwing up short posts like this one, just to get my thoughts together in a relatively coherent fashion.
I should admit now, that I will probably rarely be posting anything that is not related to this relatively broad topic. I will occasionally post personal stuff and will probably throw up stuff that really jumps out at me, but for the most part, I am going to be sticking in this particular direction. While I would really like to post about human sexuality and a host of other topics that interest me, I just don't see myself really having the time and energy. We will just have to see how things go...
*There are actually relatively objective methods for determining this, that was intended as a rhetorical question to make you think...
**I quite purposely left that very vague, because by "we" and "they" I mean several different things. I mean "we" as in individuals, a subcultural collective and a macrocultural collective. I mean "they" as in other individuals, other subcultural collectives and other macrocultural collectives.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Three Hundred, Fifty Miles in a Blizzard
It was all supposed to be so simple. I was going to see the boys Saturday and Sunday, then drive back from TN at 3:00am, so I could make my psych test at 2:00 back here in MI. Then, about 35 miles or so from the Kentucky border, I hit snow. I had been on the road less than an hour and I hit snow...
A lot of snow.
Then I got run off the road by some fucking moron who thought he should be going considerably faster than everyone else. He was trying to change lanes and was fishtailing - unable to complete the lane change and unable to stop. So I swerved and hit the wall of the overpass - not bad, just cosmetic damage to the car, none to me. I was only going 25mph at that point, because I was going over an overpass and was none to keen on changing lanes to pass people.
Being from MI, learning to drive here I have more than a passing familiarity with driving in that shit - that was not a time to be flying down the road.
I got going - asshat didn't hit the guy in front of me, because he saw me wipe and pulled over. Unfortunately, neither of us managed to get fucking moron's plate, because I was a little busy and he was more concerned about making sure I was all right. I got going again and spent the following 11.5 hours driving 350 fucking miles through a fucking blizzard.
Driving through a blizzard mind, in a state that generally doesn't get that many of them. On the one hand, there were people going about 5-10mph - on the other, the truly fucking stupid people who don't seem to understand that four wheels turning can slide just as easily as two wheels turning - and as they have four wheel drive, they think they can whip past everyone at seventy something. They also seem to think it is ok to tailgate us lesser humans who are stuck with half the drive train they have.
Never mind that at least half the vehicles in ditches are four wheel drive.
So I spent about 11.5 hours with my teeth clenched, my asscheeks clenched, trying to be on one of the outside lanes - preferably the left. That way if one of either factions of morons encroached upon my lane to the extent that I could no longer hold it, I would be able to ditch it. Or at least have shoulder to scoot into...Cause nothing says fun like fresh, thick slush...
I would say that I should have just kept the boys another night and headed back this morning, but the weather was supposed to be reasonable and I probably wouldn't be getting back until right about now, as apposed to a few hours ago. At least the last 200 miles was clear sailing, I don't think I could have taken much more of that shit.
A lot of snow.
Then I got run off the road by some fucking moron who thought he should be going considerably faster than everyone else. He was trying to change lanes and was fishtailing - unable to complete the lane change and unable to stop. So I swerved and hit the wall of the overpass - not bad, just cosmetic damage to the car, none to me. I was only going 25mph at that point, because I was going over an overpass and was none to keen on changing lanes to pass people.
Being from MI, learning to drive here I have more than a passing familiarity with driving in that shit - that was not a time to be flying down the road.
I got going - asshat didn't hit the guy in front of me, because he saw me wipe and pulled over. Unfortunately, neither of us managed to get fucking moron's plate, because I was a little busy and he was more concerned about making sure I was all right. I got going again and spent the following 11.5 hours driving 350 fucking miles through a fucking blizzard.
Driving through a blizzard mind, in a state that generally doesn't get that many of them. On the one hand, there were people going about 5-10mph - on the other, the truly fucking stupid people who don't seem to understand that four wheels turning can slide just as easily as two wheels turning - and as they have four wheel drive, they think they can whip past everyone at seventy something. They also seem to think it is ok to tailgate us lesser humans who are stuck with half the drive train they have.
Never mind that at least half the vehicles in ditches are four wheel drive.
So I spent about 11.5 hours with my teeth clenched, my asscheeks clenched, trying to be on one of the outside lanes - preferably the left. That way if one of either factions of morons encroached upon my lane to the extent that I could no longer hold it, I would be able to ditch it. Or at least have shoulder to scoot into...Cause nothing says fun like fresh, thick slush...
I would say that I should have just kept the boys another night and headed back this morning, but the weather was supposed to be reasonable and I probably wouldn't be getting back until right about now, as apposed to a few hours ago. At least the last 200 miles was clear sailing, I don't think I could have taken much more of that shit.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Dialectics, History and Cross Cultural Communications
Posted to my Com class message board. A dialectic perspective of history and it's impact on communications across cultures was the topic and we needed to include an example of something we learned that turned out to be wrong. Here is a concise explanation of the dialectic perspective of communications for context. Thanks to the University of Maryland for what is turning out to be a very handy reference for this class.
It is often important to understand other cultures, from the perspective of their history because it forces us to take a more objective view of their present. An excellent example given in the book is the role that history has played in black/white race relations in the U.S.
It is very easy to forget that our present and the present of others are ultimately the current culmination of what our ancestors passed down from generation to generation. This is both a progression of traditions and heritage, as well as the transmission of changes each generation made in the face of the perceived cultural failings.
Without the considering that this progression happens in every culture, it is all too easy to judge the cultural practices that we find distasteful in others from our own progression. While there is no question that regardless of the cultural context some cultural practices are absolutely repugnant, any attempt to foster change in those cultures must take into account the history that brought about those practices. When one can communicate from the context of this other culture and it's history, it creates a communication paradigm that this other culture will be far more receptive to.
I think a very good example of this, is the history of interactions between native Americans and the European settlers. Many of those of us who were educated in public schools were taught that the Europeans did really horrible things to the natives of this land. But what we were taught actually paints my ancestors in a much better light than they deserve. It is a lot like saying that Nazi Germany mistreated the Jews.
What actually happened was nothing less than a systematic attempt to entirely destroy the cultural heritage of all native Americans. From outright genocide, to removing children from their parents for re-education, often beating children who spoke their native languages or attempted to follow their spiritual heritage. Just 120 years ago, we still thought little of gunning down 200 natives. Just 37 years ago, intolerable conditions on a primarily Lakota reservation, led residents of that reservation to take over and occupy a small town, leading to a major standoff with federal officers.
And just 18 years ago, two native Americans lost their jobs and were denied unemployment benefits for having participated in a religious ceremony involving the ingestion of peyote. While many of us assume that the exploitation of native lands ended a long time ago, even today we refuse to allow the reservations the autonomy they were promised by treaties made and broken over the past two hundred and some odd years. Attempts to assuage our guilt by allowing native Americans to open casinos on their lands is ludicrously inadequate.
I learned the Disney version of the history of interactions between European immigrants and native Americans more than twenty years ago. I have learned the considerably more horrifying truth of it mostly over the past ten years. Yet this understanding is essential to understanding just why many native Americans are extremely angry. For nearly three hundred years they have been subjected to the whims of mostly European settlers and their antecedents. Entire native cultures have been irretrievably destroyed, all others threatened nigh to extinction.
As the conquerors who wrote the history, we learn something less shameful than the reality. Our ancestors (those who have roots extending back) committed horrible atrocities, atrocities that many wanted to forget. What was passed through our generational progression was slowly changed to something far less egregious that it was. Making it easier to ignore much of the suffering this nation was founded upon and to ignore our continued subjugation of native Americans.
Native Americans have a generational progression as well. One that carries the scars of cuts hundreds of years old, given stark clarity by the wounds suffered by each generation since. Without understanding both our own history and the history if native Americans - a history that stretches for thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans, it is very difficult to understand the anger, the sensitivities of natives taking offense to things that most of us would otherwise consider trivial.
It is often important to understand other cultures, from the perspective of their history because it forces us to take a more objective view of their present. An excellent example given in the book is the role that history has played in black/white race relations in the U.S.
It is very easy to forget that our present and the present of others are ultimately the current culmination of what our ancestors passed down from generation to generation. This is both a progression of traditions and heritage, as well as the transmission of changes each generation made in the face of the perceived cultural failings.
Without the considering that this progression happens in every culture, it is all too easy to judge the cultural practices that we find distasteful in others from our own progression. While there is no question that regardless of the cultural context some cultural practices are absolutely repugnant, any attempt to foster change in those cultures must take into account the history that brought about those practices. When one can communicate from the context of this other culture and it's history, it creates a communication paradigm that this other culture will be far more receptive to.
I think a very good example of this, is the history of interactions between native Americans and the European settlers. Many of those of us who were educated in public schools were taught that the Europeans did really horrible things to the natives of this land. But what we were taught actually paints my ancestors in a much better light than they deserve. It is a lot like saying that Nazi Germany mistreated the Jews.
What actually happened was nothing less than a systematic attempt to entirely destroy the cultural heritage of all native Americans. From outright genocide, to removing children from their parents for re-education, often beating children who spoke their native languages or attempted to follow their spiritual heritage. Just 120 years ago, we still thought little of gunning down 200 natives. Just 37 years ago, intolerable conditions on a primarily Lakota reservation, led residents of that reservation to take over and occupy a small town, leading to a major standoff with federal officers.
And just 18 years ago, two native Americans lost their jobs and were denied unemployment benefits for having participated in a religious ceremony involving the ingestion of peyote. While many of us assume that the exploitation of native lands ended a long time ago, even today we refuse to allow the reservations the autonomy they were promised by treaties made and broken over the past two hundred and some odd years. Attempts to assuage our guilt by allowing native Americans to open casinos on their lands is ludicrously inadequate.
I learned the Disney version of the history of interactions between European immigrants and native Americans more than twenty years ago. I have learned the considerably more horrifying truth of it mostly over the past ten years. Yet this understanding is essential to understanding just why many native Americans are extremely angry. For nearly three hundred years they have been subjected to the whims of mostly European settlers and their antecedents. Entire native cultures have been irretrievably destroyed, all others threatened nigh to extinction.
As the conquerors who wrote the history, we learn something less shameful than the reality. Our ancestors (those who have roots extending back) committed horrible atrocities, atrocities that many wanted to forget. What was passed through our generational progression was slowly changed to something far less egregious that it was. Making it easier to ignore much of the suffering this nation was founded upon and to ignore our continued subjugation of native Americans.
Native Americans have a generational progression as well. One that carries the scars of cuts hundreds of years old, given stark clarity by the wounds suffered by each generation since. Without understanding both our own history and the history if native Americans - a history that stretches for thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans, it is very difficult to understand the anger, the sensitivities of natives taking offense to things that most of us would otherwise consider trivial.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The Joys and Pains of Getting a Little Old
So I ended up going to Urgent Care last night, after some pain under my ribs - mostly on the left side began to spread and get a lot worse. I have been feeling sore for a few days, but when I woke up yesterday is was notably worse and got considerably worse through the day. To whit, when I have to breath deeply - or worse, yawn - it is about as painful as most anything I have experienced - though admittedly, not even close to passing a kidney stone.
I knew I didn't have a fractured rib, because I have had those and know what to feel for. I knew it wasn't a heart issue, because I pay pretty decent attention to my heart rate and know what to look for. I was mostly concerned that it might be pneumonia or something related. But while I do seem to have pretty heavy bronchial inflammation and swollen, sensitive glands, the doctor is pretty sure it is not pneumonia - though as he was giving me an antibiotic for the bronchial infection, he prescribed one that would deal with that as well.
The problem, it seems, is something called Costochondritis, possibly Tietze, because there does seem to be some swelling. Basically, there is a major inflammation of the cartilage connecting the ribs to the breastbone. Pretty much harmless, but hurts - a lot. The cause can be nothing, some trauma or simply light exercise. The doctor also mentioned that this is more common with middle age men and older.
The icing on the cake was that while he was poking and prodding and getting me to tighten various muscles - the whole experience was exceedingly painful - he noted that I seem to have the beginning of a possible hernia on my belly. He gave me some ideas about how to deal with it, but was clear that I really, really don't want to have it turn into a full fledged hernia. Indeed he said that while that still would not quite hit the pain level of passing a stone, it would probably come a good bit closer.
I knew I didn't have a fractured rib, because I have had those and know what to feel for. I knew it wasn't a heart issue, because I pay pretty decent attention to my heart rate and know what to look for. I was mostly concerned that it might be pneumonia or something related. But while I do seem to have pretty heavy bronchial inflammation and swollen, sensitive glands, the doctor is pretty sure it is not pneumonia - though as he was giving me an antibiotic for the bronchial infection, he prescribed one that would deal with that as well.
The problem, it seems, is something called Costochondritis, possibly Tietze, because there does seem to be some swelling. Basically, there is a major inflammation of the cartilage connecting the ribs to the breastbone. Pretty much harmless, but hurts - a lot. The cause can be nothing, some trauma or simply light exercise. The doctor also mentioned that this is more common with middle age men and older.
The icing on the cake was that while he was poking and prodding and getting me to tighten various muscles - the whole experience was exceedingly painful - he noted that I seem to have the beginning of a possible hernia on my belly. He gave me some ideas about how to deal with it, but was clear that I really, really don't want to have it turn into a full fledged hernia. Indeed he said that while that still would not quite hit the pain level of passing a stone, it would probably come a good bit closer.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Saturday, January 30, 2010
For The Record, I am Attracted to Adults
Though Australian Senators Barnaby Joyce and Guy Barnett would probably just assume I am a pedophile. Or maybe they would just assume I am "at risk" as it were, for pedophilia. The symptom? I happen to be rather fond of small breasts. But according to Joyce and Barnett, porn that includes small breasted women should be banned, because it encourages pedophilia.
I wish I were joking, but I am not. Along with their campaign against small breasted women, Joyce and Barnett are also going after what they call the "abhorrent" sex act of female ejaculation. Apparently believing this is somehow akin to urination, breaking the rules against depicting urination as a sex act. For the record, female ejaculate is most assuredly *not* urine.
Of course just as important as female ejaculate not being urine, is the fact that it shouldn't fucking matter. I am not personally interested in water sports/golden showers, but there are a lot of people who are. Some of them are really into it. And you know what? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that - nothing whatsoever.
Human sexuality is remarkably diverse - diverse and complicated. One of the ugliest complications is intense pressure towards a social norm. Mind you, this social norm is ever changing. What we are told we should be attracted to/get our kinks from changes pretty much constantly - never mind we are diverse and diversity means we are attracted to/get our kinks from many different things. This pressure to engage in this ever changing social norm creates a great deal of shame for a lot of people who happen to be into something else.
And of course when your fetish happens to be rather more atypical than most, that shame is just that much worse. People who have a bodily waste fetish are pretty much wide open to ridicule and disdain. People who are into latex fare little better. People who are huge into being abused - about the same. People who are into providing the abuse - just vile excuses for human beings. People who are into feet, fur, vegetables or power tools - complete and utter freaks.
Only they are most certainly not. They are no more or less than part of the diverse web of human sexuality. Some engaging in sex acts that are only marginally about what most people think of as sex or sexual fulfillment. Sex is beautiful, diverse, complicated, fascinating and wonderful. That is not to say it doesn't have an ugly side. Nonconsentual sexuality is just plain unacceptable and steps should be taken to ensure that people who would engage in it are comfortable with getting the help they need not to - before they cannot control the drive to act on it. But outside of that, sexual diversity is a beautiful thing.
Certainly not something that we need a government trying to control.
(more or less a HT to Pharyngula's never ending thread - though Juniper pointed me to the article, not the post)
I wish I were joking, but I am not. Along with their campaign against small breasted women, Joyce and Barnett are also going after what they call the "abhorrent" sex act of female ejaculation. Apparently believing this is somehow akin to urination, breaking the rules against depicting urination as a sex act. For the record, female ejaculate is most assuredly *not* urine.
Of course just as important as female ejaculate not being urine, is the fact that it shouldn't fucking matter. I am not personally interested in water sports/golden showers, but there are a lot of people who are. Some of them are really into it. And you know what? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that - nothing whatsoever.
Human sexuality is remarkably diverse - diverse and complicated. One of the ugliest complications is intense pressure towards a social norm. Mind you, this social norm is ever changing. What we are told we should be attracted to/get our kinks from changes pretty much constantly - never mind we are diverse and diversity means we are attracted to/get our kinks from many different things. This pressure to engage in this ever changing social norm creates a great deal of shame for a lot of people who happen to be into something else.
And of course when your fetish happens to be rather more atypical than most, that shame is just that much worse. People who have a bodily waste fetish are pretty much wide open to ridicule and disdain. People who are into latex fare little better. People who are huge into being abused - about the same. People who are into providing the abuse - just vile excuses for human beings. People who are into feet, fur, vegetables or power tools - complete and utter freaks.
Only they are most certainly not. They are no more or less than part of the diverse web of human sexuality. Some engaging in sex acts that are only marginally about what most people think of as sex or sexual fulfillment. Sex is beautiful, diverse, complicated, fascinating and wonderful. That is not to say it doesn't have an ugly side. Nonconsentual sexuality is just plain unacceptable and steps should be taken to ensure that people who would engage in it are comfortable with getting the help they need not to - before they cannot control the drive to act on it. But outside of that, sexual diversity is a beautiful thing.
Certainly not something that we need a government trying to control.
(more or less a HT to Pharyngula's never ending thread - though Juniper pointed me to the article, not the post)
Monday, January 25, 2010
Is it Rude?
Something I haven't really discussed much, is my rather extreme discomfort in crowds of people - at being out in public in general. It is exhausting to me, to have to deal with being surrounded by strangers, yet as a student, I am surrounded by them on a virtually daily basis. And as an avid user of public transportation (when living where decent PT is available), I am often pushed in close with them.
One of the things that I do to help myself feel better, is to listen to music or audiobooks on my mp3 player. There are occasions when I manage to wander down the hall without it, but generally I don't actually get very far before I pull it out and put it on. Listening to something that the people around me are not makes me feel like I am at least experiencing a little bit of privacy. And for the record, no, I cannot manage grocery shopping without it...
What I am wondering, is if you might happen to think this is rude. To what degree you might think it rude. Whether you think the degree of rudeness would outweigh the discomfort of not wearing it (for me, it is roughly the difference that an average dose of valium might make).
To be clear, I am not the least bit discomforted by interpersonal communications. When the number of people I am talking to gets up much more than four or five people, I start getting rather uncomfortable - my preference being for more intimate gatherings. Being in front of a crowd doesn't bother me in the least. I have spoken to crowds of a hundred plus and as front man, I have played for audiences of more than a thousand - didn't break a sweat. And being in class, or moderating support groups is not nearly as uncomfortable as being stuck in a random crowd or group of people...
So what do you think? Is it rude of me to walk around with earbuds in all the time?
One of the things that I do to help myself feel better, is to listen to music or audiobooks on my mp3 player. There are occasions when I manage to wander down the hall without it, but generally I don't actually get very far before I pull it out and put it on. Listening to something that the people around me are not makes me feel like I am at least experiencing a little bit of privacy. And for the record, no, I cannot manage grocery shopping without it...
What I am wondering, is if you might happen to think this is rude. To what degree you might think it rude. Whether you think the degree of rudeness would outweigh the discomfort of not wearing it (for me, it is roughly the difference that an average dose of valium might make).
To be clear, I am not the least bit discomforted by interpersonal communications. When the number of people I am talking to gets up much more than four or five people, I start getting rather uncomfortable - my preference being for more intimate gatherings. Being in front of a crowd doesn't bother me in the least. I have spoken to crowds of a hundred plus and as front man, I have played for audiences of more than a thousand - didn't break a sweat. And being in class, or moderating support groups is not nearly as uncomfortable as being stuck in a random crowd or group of people...
So what do you think? Is it rude of me to walk around with earbuds in all the time?
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Now for the rest of the Culture Questions...
I do want everyone to know that I appreciate all the responses I got to the last set of questions and rest assured, I am going to be using the responses I got - indeed, they are an integral part of this whole project. I would appreciate even those who did not respond to the first questions to respond to these. I will write a blog post about why I asked these and the others, as well as posting the paper that I am going to write, using the responses to these posts as something like the core of the paper.
I would also like to mention again - even if the response you have for any or all the questions has been given, please respond anyways. And again, if you are a professional (i.e. anthropologist, sociologist, psychologist, please refrain from responding in comments. I would be happy to get your response via email, but I would prefer that your response not bias other responses.
First, I am going to define culture for the context of these questions - actually defining culture in a few ways that differ, but are not mutually exclusive. For the sake of simplicity, I am going to write them separately - though they will get melded some in the questions.
Culture = the human capacity to define experience through symbols (language) and communicate experiences using the symbols that define it.
Culture = an experience that is shared by the members of a particular language community, transmitted from one generation to another, through the use of symbols.
Culture = a common interest shared by several humans that includes language specific to that common interest. This common interest may transcend shared language communities, but includes symbols specific to that interest - though the specific symbols used may differ from language group to language group, the meaning of the symbols are consistent.
For the first question, let us assume you are part of a particular culture that transcends shared language communities - please consider this in the context of a culture that applies to you (i.e. SciFi, Comic books, a specific discipline of science, etc.).
Which would it be easier for you to share something interesting you have discovered about your interest;
Someone who is a member of your language community, but not your culture? or Someone who is part of a different language community, but is as strong a part of your culture as you are? Assume for the latter that you have no shared language and that even the symbols specific to your culture might be somewhat different.
Assume that you are trying to engage someone from a different language community than your own and that you do not share common language (aside from a couple of words that you think you might recognize). You have to communicate with this person, but all you have are each other. You are in your home, while this is taking place. How would you go about trying to communicate with this person?
Now you are trying to communicate with someone who is part of your language community. You want to explain a very common, integral aspect of your culture to this person, who is not a part of the culture you are trying to talk about. How would you go about this?
Finally, you are trying to communicate with someone who is part of your language community about a common, integral aspect of your culture, who while not being a part of that culture, does have a different shared culture with you. Would you explain it differently to them, than you did the last person? How?
To provide contextual examples for the last two questions - I am an exceedingly hard-core scifi/fantasy geek (though I have never been to a con). I am currently going through a series of books that I started in the nineties, but gave up on afraid the author was likely to die before he finished them (at that point, nine books in, following the same plot line, same characters). Now it is going to be completed, in spite of the author dying, so I have started over. This series (The Wheel of Time) has a rather peculiar system of magic - not even going to try to explain, suffice to say it is complicated and it is also entirely integral to the books and the cultures described in them.
For the first question, it would be like trying to explain this system of magic to someone who absolutely loathes fictional writing. For the second, it would be like trying to explain this to someone loves particularly well written crime fiction (i.e. Dennis Lehane, Elmore Leonard) like I do, but who has never really gotten into scifi/fantasy.
I would also like to mention again - even if the response you have for any or all the questions has been given, please respond anyways. And again, if you are a professional (i.e. anthropologist, sociologist, psychologist, please refrain from responding in comments. I would be happy to get your response via email, but I would prefer that your response not bias other responses.
First, I am going to define culture for the context of these questions - actually defining culture in a few ways that differ, but are not mutually exclusive. For the sake of simplicity, I am going to write them separately - though they will get melded some in the questions.
Culture = the human capacity to define experience through symbols (language) and communicate experiences using the symbols that define it.
Culture = an experience that is shared by the members of a particular language community, transmitted from one generation to another, through the use of symbols.
Culture = a common interest shared by several humans that includes language specific to that common interest. This common interest may transcend shared language communities, but includes symbols specific to that interest - though the specific symbols used may differ from language group to language group, the meaning of the symbols are consistent.
For the first question, let us assume you are part of a particular culture that transcends shared language communities - please consider this in the context of a culture that applies to you (i.e. SciFi, Comic books, a specific discipline of science, etc.).
Which would it be easier for you to share something interesting you have discovered about your interest;
Someone who is a member of your language community, but not your culture? or Someone who is part of a different language community, but is as strong a part of your culture as you are? Assume for the latter that you have no shared language and that even the symbols specific to your culture might be somewhat different.
Assume that you are trying to engage someone from a different language community than your own and that you do not share common language (aside from a couple of words that you think you might recognize). You have to communicate with this person, but all you have are each other. You are in your home, while this is taking place. How would you go about trying to communicate with this person?
Now you are trying to communicate with someone who is part of your language community. You want to explain a very common, integral aspect of your culture to this person, who is not a part of the culture you are trying to talk about. How would you go about this?
Finally, you are trying to communicate with someone who is part of your language community about a common, integral aspect of your culture, who while not being a part of that culture, does have a different shared culture with you. Would you explain it differently to them, than you did the last person? How?
To provide contextual examples for the last two questions - I am an exceedingly hard-core scifi/fantasy geek (though I have never been to a con). I am currently going through a series of books that I started in the nineties, but gave up on afraid the author was likely to die before he finished them (at that point, nine books in, following the same plot line, same characters). Now it is going to be completed, in spite of the author dying, so I have started over. This series (The Wheel of Time) has a rather peculiar system of magic - not even going to try to explain, suffice to say it is complicated and it is also entirely integral to the books and the cultures described in them.
For the first question, it would be like trying to explain this system of magic to someone who absolutely loathes fictional writing. For the second, it would be like trying to explain this to someone loves particularly well written crime fiction (i.e. Dennis Lehane, Elmore Leonard) like I do, but who has never really gotten into scifi/fantasy.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Burying Childhood Friends
This is something that should only be done at a ripe old age - until then, one should only have to bury friends and loved ones who are much older. Unfortunately, I am about to bury my first childhood friend. I suppose he is technically my second, but I was not around for the funeral of the first and in all honesty, he wasn't really a friend.
In this case, it is especially difficult, because this friend was younger than myself and in a couple of ways I was a mentor to him. I am really not sure how I feel about it, I haven't actually seen him in roughly fifteen years - possibly longer. I cared for him and never stopped caring for him - he was my friend and I am not one for letting lack of contact stop me from caring for old friends. But it has been a very long time and that makes for some dulling. And there are other more personal reasons that are causing confusion.
What I do know, is that I am way to fucking young to be burying childhood friends - especially younger childhood friends...
In this case, it is especially difficult, because this friend was younger than myself and in a couple of ways I was a mentor to him. I am really not sure how I feel about it, I haven't actually seen him in roughly fifteen years - possibly longer. I cared for him and never stopped caring for him - he was my friend and I am not one for letting lack of contact stop me from caring for old friends. But it has been a very long time and that makes for some dulling. And there are other more personal reasons that are causing confusion.
What I do know, is that I am way to fucking young to be burying childhood friends - especially younger childhood friends...
What is this thing we call Culture? *Updated* (Help DuWayne with Schoolwork)
I would just like to note that even if your definition has been mentioned, please respond anyways. I am interested in the numbers of people responding in a particular fashion.
I have way too damned many things to address, so it is fitting that I should add something more to that. This semester I am taking two classes that overtly delve into culture and another that addresses a specific subculture that looks to be intensely interesting.
I am going to provide my own response a little later, but I am rather curious how you might define culture. What do you think of, when someone mentions the word "culture?" How does "culture" differ from "society?" What is/are your culture/s?
Depending on the responses I garner (if I garner any), I will probably have some more questions. Indeed, I actually do have some specific questions to come that I am not asking now simply because I don't want to bias responses to the questions I have already asked.
I am asking these questions because I am hoping to use the responses as part of the foundation for one of my papers this semester. If you could help me out, I would really appreciate it. I would ask that those who have a background in anthropology or sociology refrain from responding in comments - I am not looking for professional definitions. What I am looking for is purely layperson responses. And if you have the urge to encourage others to respond to this post, I would be very appreciative. The more responses I can get, the better.
I have way too damned many things to address, so it is fitting that I should add something more to that. This semester I am taking two classes that overtly delve into culture and another that addresses a specific subculture that looks to be intensely interesting.
I am going to provide my own response a little later, but I am rather curious how you might define culture. What do you think of, when someone mentions the word "culture?" How does "culture" differ from "society?" What is/are your culture/s?
Depending on the responses I garner (if I garner any), I will probably have some more questions. Indeed, I actually do have some specific questions to come that I am not asking now simply because I don't want to bias responses to the questions I have already asked.
I am asking these questions because I am hoping to use the responses as part of the foundation for one of my papers this semester. If you could help me out, I would really appreciate it. I would ask that those who have a background in anthropology or sociology refrain from responding in comments - I am not looking for professional definitions. What I am looking for is purely layperson responses. And if you have the urge to encourage others to respond to this post, I would be very appreciative. The more responses I can get, the better.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
BikeMonkey and Equivalence of Oppression (update)
A certain lovely someone made the point to me that I wasn't particularly clear on a point that I am quite definitely not trying to claim that the bigotry aimed at atheists is like the persecution of the Jews. I am not at all. My entire point was that I have had to deal with some very intense feelings regarding this particular issue. Feelings that are completely valid.
PalMD wrote a rather upsetting post the other day, one that resonated with me on one level and made me spitting fucking angry on another. He finally felt the need to respond to Garrison Keillor's vile diatribe in Salon, trying to put non-Christians in their place in regards to celebrating x-mas. Pal comes from a very different perspective on this than I do, one that I cannot possibly understand, not being Jewish myself. His feelings on this resonated with me not because my experience is the same as his, but because Keillor's sentiments have been thrown in my face as well - sometimes by people who were once my friends and who despite my anger towards them and their bigotry, people I still care about. But that was not my first comment there - my first comment there was an expression of all out rage at something besides Christmas that Keillor ripped from Pal.
I am a musician and a midwesterner raised in Michigan - the same state that Pal hails from. I am not and never have been primarily into bluegrass, but bluegrass and hybrid mountain folk are nevertheless a part of my musical experience - a rather big part. Some of the best times I have had playing music, have been as part of a relatively large crowd of people hanging out and playing bluegrass and folk. Because of Michigan's automotive history and the importation of a hell of a lot of workers from parts of Appalachia, Tennessee and Kentucky, there is a huge presence of this sort of music here. There are professional and semiprofessional bluegrass and hybrid folk players, as well as dulcimer makers who can build instruments to rival the best instrument makers from the aforementioned areas. And I have had the pleasure of playing with a lot of these folks, as often as not, while sitting around a fire.
Here is the thing about bluegrass and folk - no one gives two shits what labels someone wears. If you want to listen and enjoy, you are more than welcome any time. If you want to join in, most folks don't care if you can't carry a tune to save your life, much less care what labels you wear. What matters is that you love music, love the community being fostered right then and there and want to take part - whether by listening or joining right in. That is what bluegrass and mountain music is all about - that is the point of it. Traditionally, folk music of any sort in most cultures has been a great leveler - a chance for everyone in a village or group to be equalized and enjoy themselves freely.
So when I read Pal's heartfelt sorrow at feeling that was taken from him, I got fucking angry as hell - far more angry than I did about Keillor's overt x-mas commentary. And I expressed my indignant anger at the notion that some motherfucker could take something so fundamentally open and inclusive away from anyone, much less someone I like. I was not invalidating Pal's feelings, I was expressing my own - and to some extent expressing my anger and refusal to let motherfuckers like Keillor "put me in my place" as well. Nowhere was I suggesting that Pal's feeling weren't valid or that he should just be able to ignore the bigotry and pretend it doesn't matter. Hell, I wasn't even suggesting that I can do that. Not letting not only people like Keillor or right wing blowhards or people who used to be my friend "put me in my place" doesn't mean it doesn't matter or effect me - obviously it does, rather fundamentally even. I just happen to have a different attitude than Pal does about how to handle it from there - in large part because I have a very different experience from Pal's.
But BikeMonkey, in his infinite wisdom decided that I needed to be put in my place, much like Keillor does - though in a different context. BM doesn't think that my feelings about this topic are valid, because my experience isn't Pal's and my overwhelming privilege means I should just shut the fuck up and pretend it doesn't matter. BM decided that there was some sort of equivalence being made, rather than what actually was happening and assumed he knows all about my great fucking privilege in the face of religious expression. I am going to address this idiot notion of equivalence first, then talk a little about my extreme privilege and experience with bigotry.
There is no equivalence between my experience and Pal's. None. Because I don't actually have a window into Pal's head, I cannot say for sure what he feels, but I do have his words to go by and can assume that this whole situation had a rather profound affect on him. Pal has a lifetime history of being Jewish that feeds his experience of Keillor's diatribe that I do not have and he has feelings that have nothing to do with Keillor that impact what he is feeling about it now. And we have to add to that that he was raised by people who are Jewish and who probably faced even more antisemitic bigotry than he has faced - something that probably had a pretty profound effect on his worldview. There is absolutely no equivalence to our experience, because his is not mine - I didn't grow up with the anything like what he grew up with.
That does not mean that my feelings are somehow less valid than Pal's. They are different - very different. They may not even have the depth of his own, though that is impossible for anyone to judge, because no one has a window into anyone else's head. I don't know what Pal's feelings are or what feeds them - I only know my own and what feeds them.
I am an atheist. I am not an atheist because I wanted to be an atheist, I am an atheist because I finally was unable to perpetuate my faith in the face of so very much evidence to contradict everything I Believed. I feel free now, like a huge burden has gone from me - do not get me wrong - in many ways I feel much better for finally shedding my faith. But that has come only after a nearly twenty year struggle to cling desperately to that faith. I described a great deal of that experience and the abusive nature of my brainwashing here, here, here and a bit here, so I am not going to really go into the abusive nature of my relationship with my faith now - suffice to say, if you do not want to click the links, that like a lot of people I spent a very long time in a very abusive relationship with religion. I will highlight one aspect of that abuse though, because it speaks well to my immense privilege.
Before I do, I do want to be clear that I am pretty cognizant of my privilege. I am privileged and I have benefited from it my whole life. But privilege is relative - it is always relative.
One of the worst abuses my relationship with religion fostered, was my attitude about my neurological issues. At an early age I was taught that I did not have neurological problems - or if I did, it was totally a matter of demonic activity being at the heart of it. I was taught by my fundie mother that it was totally a matter of wholly surrendering myself to her god and following his plan for my life. That if I just believed enough - prayed enough - figured out and accepted her god's plan for my life, I would no longer have any of these problems. On the other hand, I was told by my atheist father that these neurological issues are just as excuse others were making for me and that if I just damned well did as I was told - if I buckled down, I would be ok.
Being a hardcore little fundamentalist myself, this god person was the obvious choice. Not that it mattered, whether my faith was too weak or my will to weak, my inability to overcome my neurological issues without help was entirely my seven year old responsibility. There was therapy in there when I was in middle school, but with a therapist ill equipped to help me, especially given that I was truly convinced by my parents that it was all on my head. Faith or will, it was all up to me and me alone. It wasn't until my entire world shattered around me as a teen, that I changed my view on that - unfortunately it only changed for the worse.
I decided then to embrace my mental illness and in exactly those words. I decided that just as my god obviously wanted me to have sex and use drugs - else he wouldn't have sent the opportunities for both my way so often - I became convinced that this is the way I was made, the way my brain was made and I should just accept it as it was. I decided that the only way I could ever be successful, was if I truly accepted who and what I was, because when my world shattered I didn't stop believing. My beliefs changed to be sure - they changed quite fundamentally. But the Faith was still there - the absolute Belief was still there. Not only that, but it was something that I described as Christian, though I explored all sorts of other beliefs.
I no longer denied that I had atypical neurology, but I didn't believe that I should try to change it - in spite of using a hell of a lot of drugs that did just that. As I learned more and understood more about the world around me and even myself, my feelings about my brain evolved. I accepted eventually that I really would probably do better with help, but help wasn't available and recreational drugs were. But still there was that faith - though even that had evolved further and further.
I should note that I was quite often subject to bigotry from other Christians, because I was not the right sort of Christian and as a rather serious substance abuser and horrendous slut, I obviously did not live their version of a Christian lifestyle. My advocacy for glt rights also counted hard against me, as did my acceptance of evolution.
There were times when I might have let it go, but for the simple stark terror I had of hell and the possibility of hell. That, combined with this belief that there were otherwise unexplainable interventions in my life - the biggest being that I was still alive and relatively coherent. And it was a great comfort when I moved to a new city where I literally had two friends before I moved there. My partner and I had split and I was pretty much bereft of anything approaching the support network that I had developed and fostered back in Lansing. I went to the church that my two friends in Portland were attending and was embraced into a wonderful new family.
Until it all fell apart - until I could no longer reconcile or justify any of it. Then I was rejected by this family I had been part of. I was rejected by people who were an important part of my life and the life of my eldest child - not just in the context of faith, but in a very holistic fashion. I was rejected and my child faced rejection for things he had no comprehension of, by people who were as important to him as they were to me. And ever since, I have either endured rejection from these people or pressure to just read this book or listen to that speaker - and it would all make sense again. Comments that they are still praying for me and have every confidence I will one day return to their god's grace.
And while it is certainly not all, many people I care about find it downright offensive that I would infringe on their holidays and any other aspect of their culture.
Being back in the midwest has brought on other problems. Friends who were my friends in spite of my identifying as a Christian - friends who had been rejected by most people who carry that label, but accepted me because I did not have come to reject me for rejecting any spiritual or religious beliefs altogether. To be sure, I still have many friends - including many gay and transgendered friends. But I have lost as many as I still have.
And I still have to make a lot of decisions about whether or not to admit to being an atheist to whom. There is a very common theme in the midwest (and many places) that people don't care what your spiritual or religious beliefs might be - they just take exception to people who don't believe in any sort of higher power.
I have been soundly rejected by most of my community of friends and loved ones. Was rejected at a time when I was dealing with the trauma of finally getting free of my struggle with religion. As abusive as it was, like many such relationships it was nevertheless a fundamentally important part of my life. It is over and I am free of it, but I am not free of it's influence. I am not only dealing with the hole left by faith, I am dealing with the hole left by many people I love - exacerbated by the bigotry of people I love, the bigotry of strangers aside. And while people can't just look at me and see that I am an atheist, I sometimes have to sit quiet and pretend I am not.
And it is only in the last year, while dealing with this rejection and pain, that I am finally actually getting help for my neurological issues and managing to repair the severe damage those problems have created in my life and in the lives of my children. At thirty three, I am finally getting an education in hopes of pulling myself and my children out of the poverty and near poverty that has been their lot in life.
So no, my experience is not PalMD's experience. His experience may even plumb greater depths than my own, I can only speak for myself on that count. All I can say is that my experience with religious bigotry has had a very painful and profound affect on not only myself, but my eldest son as well. There is no equivalency because Pal's experience and mine are very different and because neither of us could begin to know the depth of suffering the other feels to compare. But just because there is no equivalence, does not make either of our experiences or the feelings fostered by those experiences less valid than the other.
PalMD wrote a rather upsetting post the other day, one that resonated with me on one level and made me spitting fucking angry on another. He finally felt the need to respond to Garrison Keillor's vile diatribe in Salon, trying to put non-Christians in their place in regards to celebrating x-mas. Pal comes from a very different perspective on this than I do, one that I cannot possibly understand, not being Jewish myself. His feelings on this resonated with me not because my experience is the same as his, but because Keillor's sentiments have been thrown in my face as well - sometimes by people who were once my friends and who despite my anger towards them and their bigotry, people I still care about. But that was not my first comment there - my first comment there was an expression of all out rage at something besides Christmas that Keillor ripped from Pal.
I am a musician and a midwesterner raised in Michigan - the same state that Pal hails from. I am not and never have been primarily into bluegrass, but bluegrass and hybrid mountain folk are nevertheless a part of my musical experience - a rather big part. Some of the best times I have had playing music, have been as part of a relatively large crowd of people hanging out and playing bluegrass and folk. Because of Michigan's automotive history and the importation of a hell of a lot of workers from parts of Appalachia, Tennessee and Kentucky, there is a huge presence of this sort of music here. There are professional and semiprofessional bluegrass and hybrid folk players, as well as dulcimer makers who can build instruments to rival the best instrument makers from the aforementioned areas. And I have had the pleasure of playing with a lot of these folks, as often as not, while sitting around a fire.
Here is the thing about bluegrass and folk - no one gives two shits what labels someone wears. If you want to listen and enjoy, you are more than welcome any time. If you want to join in, most folks don't care if you can't carry a tune to save your life, much less care what labels you wear. What matters is that you love music, love the community being fostered right then and there and want to take part - whether by listening or joining right in. That is what bluegrass and mountain music is all about - that is the point of it. Traditionally, folk music of any sort in most cultures has been a great leveler - a chance for everyone in a village or group to be equalized and enjoy themselves freely.
So when I read Pal's heartfelt sorrow at feeling that was taken from him, I got fucking angry as hell - far more angry than I did about Keillor's overt x-mas commentary. And I expressed my indignant anger at the notion that some motherfucker could take something so fundamentally open and inclusive away from anyone, much less someone I like. I was not invalidating Pal's feelings, I was expressing my own - and to some extent expressing my anger and refusal to let motherfuckers like Keillor "put me in my place" as well. Nowhere was I suggesting that Pal's feeling weren't valid or that he should just be able to ignore the bigotry and pretend it doesn't matter. Hell, I wasn't even suggesting that I can do that. Not letting not only people like Keillor or right wing blowhards or people who used to be my friend "put me in my place" doesn't mean it doesn't matter or effect me - obviously it does, rather fundamentally even. I just happen to have a different attitude than Pal does about how to handle it from there - in large part because I have a very different experience from Pal's.
But BikeMonkey, in his infinite wisdom decided that I needed to be put in my place, much like Keillor does - though in a different context. BM doesn't think that my feelings about this topic are valid, because my experience isn't Pal's and my overwhelming privilege means I should just shut the fuck up and pretend it doesn't matter. BM decided that there was some sort of equivalence being made, rather than what actually was happening and assumed he knows all about my great fucking privilege in the face of religious expression. I am going to address this idiot notion of equivalence first, then talk a little about my extreme privilege and experience with bigotry.
There is no equivalence between my experience and Pal's. None. Because I don't actually have a window into Pal's head, I cannot say for sure what he feels, but I do have his words to go by and can assume that this whole situation had a rather profound affect on him. Pal has a lifetime history of being Jewish that feeds his experience of Keillor's diatribe that I do not have and he has feelings that have nothing to do with Keillor that impact what he is feeling about it now. And we have to add to that that he was raised by people who are Jewish and who probably faced even more antisemitic bigotry than he has faced - something that probably had a pretty profound effect on his worldview. There is absolutely no equivalence to our experience, because his is not mine - I didn't grow up with the anything like what he grew up with.
That does not mean that my feelings are somehow less valid than Pal's. They are different - very different. They may not even have the depth of his own, though that is impossible for anyone to judge, because no one has a window into anyone else's head. I don't know what Pal's feelings are or what feeds them - I only know my own and what feeds them.
I am an atheist. I am not an atheist because I wanted to be an atheist, I am an atheist because I finally was unable to perpetuate my faith in the face of so very much evidence to contradict everything I Believed. I feel free now, like a huge burden has gone from me - do not get me wrong - in many ways I feel much better for finally shedding my faith. But that has come only after a nearly twenty year struggle to cling desperately to that faith. I described a great deal of that experience and the abusive nature of my brainwashing here, here, here and a bit here, so I am not going to really go into the abusive nature of my relationship with my faith now - suffice to say, if you do not want to click the links, that like a lot of people I spent a very long time in a very abusive relationship with religion. I will highlight one aspect of that abuse though, because it speaks well to my immense privilege.
Before I do, I do want to be clear that I am pretty cognizant of my privilege. I am privileged and I have benefited from it my whole life. But privilege is relative - it is always relative.
One of the worst abuses my relationship with religion fostered, was my attitude about my neurological issues. At an early age I was taught that I did not have neurological problems - or if I did, it was totally a matter of demonic activity being at the heart of it. I was taught by my fundie mother that it was totally a matter of wholly surrendering myself to her god and following his plan for my life. That if I just believed enough - prayed enough - figured out and accepted her god's plan for my life, I would no longer have any of these problems. On the other hand, I was told by my atheist father that these neurological issues are just as excuse others were making for me and that if I just damned well did as I was told - if I buckled down, I would be ok.
Being a hardcore little fundamentalist myself, this god person was the obvious choice. Not that it mattered, whether my faith was too weak or my will to weak, my inability to overcome my neurological issues without help was entirely my seven year old responsibility. There was therapy in there when I was in middle school, but with a therapist ill equipped to help me, especially given that I was truly convinced by my parents that it was all on my head. Faith or will, it was all up to me and me alone. It wasn't until my entire world shattered around me as a teen, that I changed my view on that - unfortunately it only changed for the worse.
I decided then to embrace my mental illness and in exactly those words. I decided that just as my god obviously wanted me to have sex and use drugs - else he wouldn't have sent the opportunities for both my way so often - I became convinced that this is the way I was made, the way my brain was made and I should just accept it as it was. I decided that the only way I could ever be successful, was if I truly accepted who and what I was, because when my world shattered I didn't stop believing. My beliefs changed to be sure - they changed quite fundamentally. But the Faith was still there - the absolute Belief was still there. Not only that, but it was something that I described as Christian, though I explored all sorts of other beliefs.
I no longer denied that I had atypical neurology, but I didn't believe that I should try to change it - in spite of using a hell of a lot of drugs that did just that. As I learned more and understood more about the world around me and even myself, my feelings about my brain evolved. I accepted eventually that I really would probably do better with help, but help wasn't available and recreational drugs were. But still there was that faith - though even that had evolved further and further.
I should note that I was quite often subject to bigotry from other Christians, because I was not the right sort of Christian and as a rather serious substance abuser and horrendous slut, I obviously did not live their version of a Christian lifestyle. My advocacy for glt rights also counted hard against me, as did my acceptance of evolution.
There were times when I might have let it go, but for the simple stark terror I had of hell and the possibility of hell. That, combined with this belief that there were otherwise unexplainable interventions in my life - the biggest being that I was still alive and relatively coherent. And it was a great comfort when I moved to a new city where I literally had two friends before I moved there. My partner and I had split and I was pretty much bereft of anything approaching the support network that I had developed and fostered back in Lansing. I went to the church that my two friends in Portland were attending and was embraced into a wonderful new family.
Until it all fell apart - until I could no longer reconcile or justify any of it. Then I was rejected by this family I had been part of. I was rejected by people who were an important part of my life and the life of my eldest child - not just in the context of faith, but in a very holistic fashion. I was rejected and my child faced rejection for things he had no comprehension of, by people who were as important to him as they were to me. And ever since, I have either endured rejection from these people or pressure to just read this book or listen to that speaker - and it would all make sense again. Comments that they are still praying for me and have every confidence I will one day return to their god's grace.
And while it is certainly not all, many people I care about find it downright offensive that I would infringe on their holidays and any other aspect of their culture.
Being back in the midwest has brought on other problems. Friends who were my friends in spite of my identifying as a Christian - friends who had been rejected by most people who carry that label, but accepted me because I did not have come to reject me for rejecting any spiritual or religious beliefs altogether. To be sure, I still have many friends - including many gay and transgendered friends. But I have lost as many as I still have.
And I still have to make a lot of decisions about whether or not to admit to being an atheist to whom. There is a very common theme in the midwest (and many places) that people don't care what your spiritual or religious beliefs might be - they just take exception to people who don't believe in any sort of higher power.
I have been soundly rejected by most of my community of friends and loved ones. Was rejected at a time when I was dealing with the trauma of finally getting free of my struggle with religion. As abusive as it was, like many such relationships it was nevertheless a fundamentally important part of my life. It is over and I am free of it, but I am not free of it's influence. I am not only dealing with the hole left by faith, I am dealing with the hole left by many people I love - exacerbated by the bigotry of people I love, the bigotry of strangers aside. And while people can't just look at me and see that I am an atheist, I sometimes have to sit quiet and pretend I am not.
And it is only in the last year, while dealing with this rejection and pain, that I am finally actually getting help for my neurological issues and managing to repair the severe damage those problems have created in my life and in the lives of my children. At thirty three, I am finally getting an education in hopes of pulling myself and my children out of the poverty and near poverty that has been their lot in life.
So no, my experience is not PalMD's experience. His experience may even plumb greater depths than my own, I can only speak for myself on that count. All I can say is that my experience with religious bigotry has had a very painful and profound affect on not only myself, but my eldest son as well. There is no equivalency because Pal's experience and mine are very different and because neither of us could begin to know the depth of suffering the other feels to compare. But just because there is no equivalence, does not make either of our experiences or the feelings fostered by those experiences less valid than the other.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Gearing up for the winter semester
I took the boys back to their mother on new years, amazed again at the ability of my two and almost eight year old to endure ten hours plus on the road with minimal fuss. I am rather depressed they are gone, talking on the phone every day just doesn't hold a candle to snuggles, reading to them in person, being peed on post bath or even having same two year old wander over to the corner to crap in his diaper five minutes after spending twenty five minutes sitting on his potty holding it in. I will also miss the sledding - post tooth coming out and emergency oral surgery actually included. While it was rather horrific, it is also better now and another experience shared with eldest.
But they are back with momma (for now) and I am getting ready for another semester.
I am really excited about my classes this semester, even the bloody math. I am taking abnormal psych, cross culture communications, American sign language, intermediate algebra and language and culture. The last three are four credit classes, making this an eighteen credit semester. I am a little reticent about the load, but ultimately I think it will be pretty easy going.
Abnormal psych is with a rather brilliant instructor and I can expect to write one paper, tests making up the rest of my grade. I am pretty comfortable with my knowledge of abnormal psych going into this class, so I don't expect any problems with tests and most regular readers of my blog know how I feel about papers...For those who don't - I bloody well love writing papers.
Cross culture communications is an online class - something I have never managed to deal with well before. But the instructor is my instructor for interpersonal communications and he made it clear that he is available personally and that he not only has message board discussions, but actually takes part in them. And most excitingly, there are only two tests (IIRC) and the rest of the grade is pretty much wrapped up in three - yes three papers!!!
I am taking intermediate algebra with the same instructor who taught my remedial algebra class and have every confidence that this will be just as great as that was. He was very instrumental in helping me understand concepts that I have had a totally shit time with in the past. He also is very available before and after class, as well as during rather more extensive office hours than a lot of instructors.
American sign is going to be pretty awesome - I actually dropped it last semester, after a couple of sessions for personal reasons, but have every confidence that this will be a great experience. The instructor is great and given my limited experience with her, someone I can totally deal with. She is very pleasant, very warm - without being saccharine, at the same time she is also very strict - a combination I am very fond of.
Language and culture is something I am really looking forward to for several reasons. First and foremost, I am really looking forward to the instructor - I would have taken any class she happened to be teaching this semester. She is the head of the humanities department and there are several things that I am interested in discussing with her - things she has a fair expertise in. And joy of joys, the only class she is teaching this semester is something I very much wanted to take. I am approaching the study of language from a very science oriented perspective - I think it will be valuable to look at it from a humanities perspective, extremely valuable really. I have been reading Terrence Deacon, who among many other things makes a solid case for approaching symbols/language/icons from a broader angle than science really allows for, when engaging the study of language and cognitive/neurological evolution.
And honestly, I have to admit that I am excited about having the opportunity to write a couple of papers in MLA. There is something rather relaxing about the MLA format - not to say that I don't appreciate APA - I do. But I will totally admit to being something of a whore when it comes to writing styles and there is just something rather sexy about MLA...
With all of my paper writing this semester, I am hoping I will be encouraged to write more blogposts - though they will be rather topical to the papers I happen to be working on at a given point. I know that we will get the parameters for our communication papers within the first week - so those will probably be the first ones that I hit on. I also expect to get the psych paper parameters early on as well. I am not all that sure when the humanities paper parameters will come out, but don't expect them until a specified time before they are due. The paper for sign-language will be available right away, but we won't have the background for it until we are well into the semester (I believe that one might be MLA too!!!).
All in all, I am really looking forward to the upcoming semester. It looks out to be totally big fun and excitement through and through (ok, so I am rather less excited about math, but still)...Good times will be had by all!!!
But they are back with momma (for now) and I am getting ready for another semester.
I am really excited about my classes this semester, even the bloody math. I am taking abnormal psych, cross culture communications, American sign language, intermediate algebra and language and culture. The last three are four credit classes, making this an eighteen credit semester. I am a little reticent about the load, but ultimately I think it will be pretty easy going.
Abnormal psych is with a rather brilliant instructor and I can expect to write one paper, tests making up the rest of my grade. I am pretty comfortable with my knowledge of abnormal psych going into this class, so I don't expect any problems with tests and most regular readers of my blog know how I feel about papers...For those who don't - I bloody well love writing papers.
Cross culture communications is an online class - something I have never managed to deal with well before. But the instructor is my instructor for interpersonal communications and he made it clear that he is available personally and that he not only has message board discussions, but actually takes part in them. And most excitingly, there are only two tests (IIRC) and the rest of the grade is pretty much wrapped up in three - yes three papers!!!
I am taking intermediate algebra with the same instructor who taught my remedial algebra class and have every confidence that this will be just as great as that was. He was very instrumental in helping me understand concepts that I have had a totally shit time with in the past. He also is very available before and after class, as well as during rather more extensive office hours than a lot of instructors.
American sign is going to be pretty awesome - I actually dropped it last semester, after a couple of sessions for personal reasons, but have every confidence that this will be a great experience. The instructor is great and given my limited experience with her, someone I can totally deal with. She is very pleasant, very warm - without being saccharine, at the same time she is also very strict - a combination I am very fond of.
Language and culture is something I am really looking forward to for several reasons. First and foremost, I am really looking forward to the instructor - I would have taken any class she happened to be teaching this semester. She is the head of the humanities department and there are several things that I am interested in discussing with her - things she has a fair expertise in. And joy of joys, the only class she is teaching this semester is something I very much wanted to take. I am approaching the study of language from a very science oriented perspective - I think it will be valuable to look at it from a humanities perspective, extremely valuable really. I have been reading Terrence Deacon, who among many other things makes a solid case for approaching symbols/language/icons from a broader angle than science really allows for, when engaging the study of language and cognitive/neurological evolution.
And honestly, I have to admit that I am excited about having the opportunity to write a couple of papers in MLA. There is something rather relaxing about the MLA format - not to say that I don't appreciate APA - I do. But I will totally admit to being something of a whore when it comes to writing styles and there is just something rather sexy about MLA...
With all of my paper writing this semester, I am hoping I will be encouraged to write more blogposts - though they will be rather topical to the papers I happen to be working on at a given point. I know that we will get the parameters for our communication papers within the first week - so those will probably be the first ones that I hit on. I also expect to get the psych paper parameters early on as well. I am not all that sure when the humanities paper parameters will come out, but don't expect them until a specified time before they are due. The paper for sign-language will be available right away, but we won't have the background for it until we are well into the semester (I believe that one might be MLA too!!!).
All in all, I am really looking forward to the upcoming semester. It looks out to be totally big fun and excitement through and through (ok, so I am rather less excited about math, but still)...Good times will be had by all!!!
Sunday, December 27, 2009
An open letter to lazy, obnoxious parents at McDonald's
I accept that going to McDonalds means going to a place where kids are free to be rather kidlike. Doesn't really bother me that much, because as a parent I understand that kids aren't perfect little angels all the time. But just because you chose to take your spawn to McDonalds, doesn't mean they are free to do anything and everything while you sit on your lazy ass - refusing to be bothered by your nasty little issue.
It is especially fucking obnoxious when your spawn are several inches taller than the max height and still they play - trampling children who are much smaller, much younger and far better behaved. It is one thing when they are running up to help a smaller sibling, it is quite another when they are trying their best to destroy the play structure, climbing around the outside of it, hanging from the bar and kicking their feet (as well as small children who are passing) and running down very small children in their haste to get through the structure. Control your fucking vile monsters please and keep the larger ones off the fucking play structure.
My children and the other small children have a right to play on these structures (and park play structures as well) without being shoved around, trampled and knocked off by your moldering pile of uterine fucking waste. My eight year old and even my two year old are better behaved and will continue to be better behaved, than your shit eating waste of oxygen. Why? Because I fucking parent and our personal issues aside, so does my children's mother. You, on the other hand, aren't fit to raise a fucking dog. My eight year old should be allowed to play and have fun, instead of having to protect his baby brother and other small children who get in the way of your mistakes.
If you can't control your children, keep them locked in a closet. McDonald's is most certainly not the appropriate place for them.
It is especially fucking obnoxious when your spawn are several inches taller than the max height and still they play - trampling children who are much smaller, much younger and far better behaved. It is one thing when they are running up to help a smaller sibling, it is quite another when they are trying their best to destroy the play structure, climbing around the outside of it, hanging from the bar and kicking their feet (as well as small children who are passing) and running down very small children in their haste to get through the structure. Control your fucking vile monsters please and keep the larger ones off the fucking play structure.
My children and the other small children have a right to play on these structures (and park play structures as well) without being shoved around, trampled and knocked off by your moldering pile of uterine fucking waste. My eight year old and even my two year old are better behaved and will continue to be better behaved, than your shit eating waste of oxygen. Why? Because I fucking parent and our personal issues aside, so does my children's mother. You, on the other hand, aren't fit to raise a fucking dog. My eight year old should be allowed to play and have fun, instead of having to protect his baby brother and other small children who get in the way of your mistakes.
If you can't control your children, keep them locked in a closet. McDonald's is most certainly not the appropriate place for them.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Driving, Snow and Bloody Teeth
So Friday we drove down to TN to pick up the boys. Planning well, we left early enough and were making good enough time to get there early and start back - thus splitting the trip up into two parts. Unfortunately, that is not how it worked out - though it is good we got going early and made good time. When we were close to the highest elevation of I-75, it started snowing - big fat snow that plopped onto the windshield, rather than drifting gently down. Given this is southern KY/northern TN, folks aren't right familiar with driving in this and that, coupled with a semi broken down meant it took us nearly three hours to get about twenty five miles. We made it and picked up the boys, but spent the night where I usually stay when I go down to visit the boys.
And then there was snow - lots of snow, almost the entire drive home there was snow, though it wasn't snowing much anymore. The roads were pretty well clear until we got into MI and even then it wasn't too bad. All in all a wondrous thing, because the boys love the snow.
Then we went sledding yesterday - thankfully, leaving youngest with the grandparents. Eldest and I had a lot of fun and look forward to the next trip, with one major snag - the tooth incident. Did you know that if it is dealt with quickly enough, permanent teeth can be put back in? I didn't, until the tooth incident.
We went a little ways downhill, when we noticed that the rope was caught under the sled. We stopped and went to take the sled uphill. Unfortunately, I didn't realize that eldest had put the rope in his mouth and was biting on the rope, when I gave the sled a kick and one of his relatively new front teeth came out of his mouth with the rope. One emergency oral surgery later and the tooth is back in - with a pretty good prognosis for no problems with it in the future, given it is still developing.
Hell of a way to learn the lesson about why papa always says not to use our teeth inappropriately. Not to mention a rather expensive one. But all in all, I think eldest is pretty certainly not going to be trying to open bottles and the like with his teeth any more...And papa will be a little more careful about kicking things that are relatively close to the face...
And then there was snow - lots of snow, almost the entire drive home there was snow, though it wasn't snowing much anymore. The roads were pretty well clear until we got into MI and even then it wasn't too bad. All in all a wondrous thing, because the boys love the snow.
Then we went sledding yesterday - thankfully, leaving youngest with the grandparents. Eldest and I had a lot of fun and look forward to the next trip, with one major snag - the tooth incident. Did you know that if it is dealt with quickly enough, permanent teeth can be put back in? I didn't, until the tooth incident.
We went a little ways downhill, when we noticed that the rope was caught under the sled. We stopped and went to take the sled uphill. Unfortunately, I didn't realize that eldest had put the rope in his mouth and was biting on the rope, when I gave the sled a kick and one of his relatively new front teeth came out of his mouth with the rope. One emergency oral surgery later and the tooth is back in - with a pretty good prognosis for no problems with it in the future, given it is still developing.
Hell of a way to learn the lesson about why papa always says not to use our teeth inappropriately. Not to mention a rather expensive one. But all in all, I think eldest is pretty certainly not going to be trying to open bottles and the like with his teeth any more...And papa will be a little more careful about kicking things that are relatively close to the face...
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Nietzche, Kierkegaard and Russell: The Human Condition
For the final essay in my philosophy class, we were asked to decide who ultimately best described the human condition - Neitzche, Kierkegaard or Bertrand Russel. This essay turns out rather circular, because I was rather uncertain about how I felt about it. I spent about forty minutes writing this off the top of my head - I didn't edit it in class, I am not about to edit it here. That would bloody well be cheating...
I would also like to clarify that I do not mean anything disparaging by my comments about "the masses." I don't think there is anything the least bit wrong with caring more about living life, than about what meaning there might be in it all - or what Truth might be, or if it even exists. Honestly, I am often of the mind that not giving a shit would really be preferable to never shutting this bloody damned thing down sometimes. Even with meds, my brain is going full tilt almost all the time - in some ways, cannabis was far more effective at slowing things down. Unfortunately, it also made it rather harder to think properly about things that I need to be able to think about...So it goes and so it is - and without further ado or banal babbling...
It is hard to say that any of these three truly described the human condition, if the human
condition is measured by the life experience of the majority of humans. For most the human condition is to toil as we must to garner material needs that sustain and as much luxury as can be afforded after those needs are met. Through the toil, most just want to do what they must and take their leisure time as just that – leisure. Most people do not want to think much about Truth, the mind or the abstractions that make up human existence.
I also think it is rather arrogant to assume that the dogmatism of those who never travel the
region of liberating doubt is an arrogant dogmatism. While there are certainly those who own an
incredibly arrogant dogmatism, most people engage in a very humble dogmatism, a meek and gentle dogmatism that stems from understanding they accept from others. They do not presume to know but accept the knowing from those who are engaged in the arrogant dogmatism of which Russell speaks. Accepting knowledge from people who claim to know doesn't make the person accepting it arrogant, it makes them quite human.
Throughout the history of our species, since the earliest development of rudimentary culture the
human condition has been to toil, humbly accepting the guidance of those who claim to know and
doing what we must. If left with enough to survive – sometimes when left with less, humans humbly accept the leadership they are given. Given enough discontent and leaders willing to rise up from the humble masses to engage the masses in revolt, the humble masses will change leaders – but even there, the heart of revolution, the masses are humbly accepting the orders of new leaders.
In short, the human condition is the will and striving to survive in the best comfort possible,
dreaming dreams of the young that change to simple desires as one ages. The general human condition simply does not care about philosophy or engage in much consideration of abstractions. The human condition has neither the energy or concern.
But then there is the human condition of thoughtful people. People who are not content to
accept knowledge or dogmatic certainty. For these I think that all three men are correct. The human condition of the thoughtful is to desperately seek for Truth in the face of uncertainty, to accept that such truth may not be found and to be the best they can be by their own regard. It is also to consider and sometimes accept that the truth may be that which is arational, even irrational. Finally, I think that the ultimate joy to be found is the awe and wonder of the child. The acceptance of liberating doubt, is the joy of seeing what is familiar, through the lens of doubt – in essence seeing them for the first time, every time.
What is better than the beauty of the world made fresh and new with every glance. Considering
the mundane in the light of accepting that while Truth may exist, while it is possible that humans may one day find there are no more horizons to delve – it will not happen in my lifetime and therefor my life can be filled with awe and wonder at the mysteries left to consider, the vistas left to explore.
I think that in the final tally, the human condition is all of this. The humble masses who toil and
seek to survive, who accept knowledge, know things for themselves. They also know doubt, for there is ever uncertainty about things that might be considered. And they know wonder, largely stemming from that doubt. At the same time, thoughtful people are not bereft of dogma, some arrogant and some plain – fed them by those who know what they do not know. Accepting there are vistas left to explore, there are those that are and for which they know.
In the end we are, all of us, human. Contradictory, contrary and paradoxical. Each and every
one of us has these characteristics described by Nietzche, Kierkegaard and Russel, in various measures. There is no way to claim that one of these men understood the human condition better than another, because each of them described aspects of the human condition that no person can avoid. What they described is absolutely what it means to be human and likely what it will always mean to be human.
I would just add to this, I am not nearly as humble as I should be most of the time. I too often take myself too seriously and tend to be an all too arrogant motherfucker. I have nothing but the more profound respect for those who are actually humble and arrogantly like to mock those who are more arrogant than I am - reveling in my superior ability at humble grace...(in case you didn't realize - that last line was sarcasm)
I would also like to clarify that I do not mean anything disparaging by my comments about "the masses." I don't think there is anything the least bit wrong with caring more about living life, than about what meaning there might be in it all - or what Truth might be, or if it even exists. Honestly, I am often of the mind that not giving a shit would really be preferable to never shutting this bloody damned thing down sometimes. Even with meds, my brain is going full tilt almost all the time - in some ways, cannabis was far more effective at slowing things down. Unfortunately, it also made it rather harder to think properly about things that I need to be able to think about...So it goes and so it is - and without further ado or banal babbling...
It is hard to say that any of these three truly described the human condition, if the human
condition is measured by the life experience of the majority of humans. For most the human condition is to toil as we must to garner material needs that sustain and as much luxury as can be afforded after those needs are met. Through the toil, most just want to do what they must and take their leisure time as just that – leisure. Most people do not want to think much about Truth, the mind or the abstractions that make up human existence.
I also think it is rather arrogant to assume that the dogmatism of those who never travel the
region of liberating doubt is an arrogant dogmatism. While there are certainly those who own an
incredibly arrogant dogmatism, most people engage in a very humble dogmatism, a meek and gentle dogmatism that stems from understanding they accept from others. They do not presume to know but accept the knowing from those who are engaged in the arrogant dogmatism of which Russell speaks. Accepting knowledge from people who claim to know doesn't make the person accepting it arrogant, it makes them quite human.
Throughout the history of our species, since the earliest development of rudimentary culture the
human condition has been to toil, humbly accepting the guidance of those who claim to know and
doing what we must. If left with enough to survive – sometimes when left with less, humans humbly accept the leadership they are given. Given enough discontent and leaders willing to rise up from the humble masses to engage the masses in revolt, the humble masses will change leaders – but even there, the heart of revolution, the masses are humbly accepting the orders of new leaders.
In short, the human condition is the will and striving to survive in the best comfort possible,
dreaming dreams of the young that change to simple desires as one ages. The general human condition simply does not care about philosophy or engage in much consideration of abstractions. The human condition has neither the energy or concern.
But then there is the human condition of thoughtful people. People who are not content to
accept knowledge or dogmatic certainty. For these I think that all three men are correct. The human condition of the thoughtful is to desperately seek for Truth in the face of uncertainty, to accept that such truth may not be found and to be the best they can be by their own regard. It is also to consider and sometimes accept that the truth may be that which is arational, even irrational. Finally, I think that the ultimate joy to be found is the awe and wonder of the child. The acceptance of liberating doubt, is the joy of seeing what is familiar, through the lens of doubt – in essence seeing them for the first time, every time.
What is better than the beauty of the world made fresh and new with every glance. Considering
the mundane in the light of accepting that while Truth may exist, while it is possible that humans may one day find there are no more horizons to delve – it will not happen in my lifetime and therefor my life can be filled with awe and wonder at the mysteries left to consider, the vistas left to explore.
I think that in the final tally, the human condition is all of this. The humble masses who toil and
seek to survive, who accept knowledge, know things for themselves. They also know doubt, for there is ever uncertainty about things that might be considered. And they know wonder, largely stemming from that doubt. At the same time, thoughtful people are not bereft of dogma, some arrogant and some plain – fed them by those who know what they do not know. Accepting there are vistas left to explore, there are those that are and for which they know.
In the end we are, all of us, human. Contradictory, contrary and paradoxical. Each and every
one of us has these characteristics described by Nietzche, Kierkegaard and Russel, in various measures. There is no way to claim that one of these men understood the human condition better than another, because each of them described aspects of the human condition that no person can avoid. What they described is absolutely what it means to be human and likely what it will always mean to be human.
I would just add to this, I am not nearly as humble as I should be most of the time. I too often take myself too seriously and tend to be an all too arrogant motherfucker. I have nothing but the more profound respect for those who are actually humble and arrogantly like to mock those who are more arrogant than I am - reveling in my superior ability at humble grace...(in case you didn't realize - that last line was sarcasm)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)