The Death of Ivan Ilych

The Death of Ivan Ilych by Leo Tolstoy is a profoundly moving novella that takes the reader through the existential struggles of a high-court judge in 19th-century Russia. Living a well regarded life in the public eye, he takes pleasure in his work and finds great success. When he is struck with a terminal illness, he begins to grow intensly bitter toward everyone he encounters, except his care-taker, a peasant named Gerasim – the only person who showed Ivan Ilych any sort of tenderness.

His wife, the doctors, and his co-workers, were too preoccupied with their own success to deeply care for him during his final days. His wife saw him as a means to an income (particularly the government money she hopes to receive after his death), The doctors related to him as a mere broken object, and his co-workers were preoccupied with who would get promoted when he vacates his position.

Ultimately, surrounded by these superficial relations on his deathbed, Ivan Illych comes to question the whole of his own life. Had he not been merely one of them all along? Now, facing his death, he came to realize that all the while he thought he was moving forward (toward greater success), but he was actually moving backward (toward lesser fulfillment).

This is a story about selling one’s soul to buy success. In the society depicted, success comes at a human-cost – the cost of meaningful human relations. This ultimately comes down to the sacrifice of a meaningful life worth living. As stated by Psychologist Mark Freeman in his 1997 publication in Cambridge Journal’s Ageing & Society:

Tolstoy's book is about many things: the tyranny of bourgeois niceties, the terrible weak spots of the human heart, the primacy and elision of death. But more than anything, I would offer, it is about the consequences of living without meaning, that is, without a true and abiding connection to one's life.^[1]

This psychological “connection to one’s life,” I argue, is necessarily a social connection to others. In a society devoid of loving human relations, all that is left is a disconnected individualism characterized by instrumental relations oriented toward personal success. See my post on personal-development for more on the problems with the personal-development genre.

Though ironically, it was the personal-development genre that brought me to read The Death of Ivan Ilych in the first place. After hearing a piece by Wayne Dyer (below), I was driven to promptly read Tolstoy’s book. Unexpectedly, after reading this book, I came to realize that Wayne Dyer severely cuts the book short by leaving out the most profoundly moving lessons. Rather than looking at the loveless social context or the hollow social definition of ‘success’, he blames Ivan Illych for his dying misery. Here is the clip (enjoy the shot of the intense cameraman lol):

 

Do Not Die With Your Music Still Inside You from Adrian Gilpin on Vimeo.

Was he merely obeying his wife, or was his definition of ‘success’ instilled in him by larger social forces? Can we blame any single actor in this web of superficial class ideals? Perhaps we cannot. Ivan Illych appeared to be living with his “music” all along, only to realize it was a sour tune when directly confronted with his mortality.

So how do we know that our sweet melody is not a sour discord? Perhaps we can only go forward with the awareness of Ivan Illych in his final hours. Contrary to what Wayne Dyer claims, Ivan Ilych’s last words are actually “What joy!”. He exclaims this statement when he overcomes his fear of death, his pain ceases, and he recognizes that instead of death, there is light.

After two more hours of apparent agony witnessed by those surrounding him, Ivan Ilych says to himself, “death is finished… it is no more!” He then draws his last breath, stretches out, and dies.

Living in a society devoid of loving relations – like Ivan Ilych’s – is itself death. This loveless society is ultimately a society devoid of deeply meaningful communal ties. A society devoid of communion is a society devoid of life.

In the last supper, Jesus ordained the bread and wine as symbols of his everlasting life. This became known as the Christian ritual of ‘communion’. To commune means to come together, giving ones life to a greater whole. The crucifixion is not the moment Jesus gave his life for us, as the story goes; he gave his life every single day, advocating for a cause outside himself: the cause of love in communion. I understand ‘love’, in the Christian sense (agape), as selfless offering of oneself, and ‘communion’ as common exchange. This “love in communion” may also be in line with Karl Marx’s vision of ideal human relations…. but this idea will be revisited in another post.

Ivan Ilych’s last encounter with his wife on his deathbed depicts failed communion. When she insists that he take the sacrament of communion from a priest – “since healthy people often do it” – he complies without seeing the purpose. Interacting with the priest, he begins to feel a slight warmth, and this restores a slight sense of hope in Ivan Ilych. But this hope is quickly extinguished when his wife returns to congratulate him after his communion. He recognizes that her concern is a veneer of falsehood, covering up the realities of both life and death.

Communion had lost its core reality: coming together. When love is absent, care becomes mere instrumentality – the rational manipulation of objects.

Perhaps living through a sweet melody means coming together with others and giving yourself to the music. This is not giving your life like the mere sense of Jesus’ crucifixion, but rather, in the life-affirming sense of the last supper. And since I’m particularly Catholic, let me take my version of a “literal interpretation” here. When we come together in communion, we are not individuals sharing mere food-substances for the sake of utility; we are offering our flesh and blood – the substances of life – and in this spirit, we build a life of meaning, together.

_______________________

1.  MARK FREEMAN (1997). Death, Narrative Integrity, and the Radical Challenge of Self-Understanding: a Reading of Tolstoy's Death of Ivan Ilych. Ageing and Society, 17, pp 373-398

Personal Development Beyond the ‘Personal’

The personal development industry has enjoyed astounding growth throughout the 20th century.Fitness-trainers, motivational-speakers, spiritual gurus, and life-coaches have been popping up everywhere.

In the midst of this growing personal-development industry, I think we would do a profound disservice to ourselves if we neglect problems beyond the ‘personal’. In order to facilitate optimal ‘personal’ growth, we need to consider the ‘interpersonal’ realm. This means calling into question the values at the heart of the industry.

As a fitness trainer and academic social theorist, I stand with a foot on either side of the debate on whether one should invest in the American dream (attaining personal success through hard work), or whether one should remain critical of this capitalist industry that profits off of oppressive class, race, and gender ideals.

Preaching the ideals of both the fitness industry and critical sociology, I have struggled to make sense of how I am able to remain passionate about both, without betraying either one. I have only recently discovered what it is about personal development I have a problem with. Class, race, and gender ideals aside, I am deeply concerned with the high value the personal development genre places on individualism. I see this as a problem that can actually reverse ones ‘development’, creating a sense of disconnect and alienation from others. 

Meaningful relationships with others and a sense of community are a large part of personal development that should not be neglected. If taking your own success as a goal in itself is preventing you from having quality relationships with others, you should reconsider your focus.

This is largely why I found so much fulfillment teaching group-fitness classes – particularly aqua-fitness. This sense of contributing to a community of regular attendees motivated me to constantly strive to improve my ability to provide the best experience possible in my classes. My focus on improving the lives of others acted as a fuel for rapidly improvement of my own abilities. I can now say the same is drive fuels my teaching in social theory.

If your personal success is your goal, you are mistaking the means for end in itself. What this means is that your personal development should be a means to an end outside of yourself; for example, working every day to sharpen your individual skills so that you can contribute to a larger cause.

Although I see a narcissistic tendency in a great deal of personal development literature, I think the literature has a great deal to offer if it is approached with the awareness that deep fulfillment is only found when you seek your own improvement for the sake of the improvement of others. To forget this, you may find yourself at the top, but what is that position worth if you find yourself there alone? That is why I advocate for a view of ‘personal’ success that does not stop at the ‘personal’.

This is an introduction to future posts where I will explore this concept of ‘development’ further.

The “Secret” behind The Secret

Recent motivational books like The Secret use obscure mystical concepts to explain common-sense advice. Here, I break down the main message of The Secret to reveal its practical message and explain why it shouldn’t be considered a spiritual text.

First off, the secret is that there is no secret. The main focus of the book, “law of attraction”, is simply the idea that giving attention to a goal will help you attain that goal. I don’t have a problem with its advice for personal success; what I have a problem with is calling it “spiritual”.

Personal success manuals should not be confused with spiritual texts. The former teaches you how to effectively get what you want (whatever it may be), while the latter teaches you how to live a life of deep fulfillment in relation to others, based on a concept of the common good.  

If you think this book is the absolute most profound book you’ve ever read, you should consider getting your dose of spiritual insight from a less narcissistic source. If you have a solid understanding of your ethical relations to others, or are already following a spiritual path of some sort, these ideas on personal development can help you maintain an effective outlook in your pursuits.

Here is the practical advice this book offers:

1) Intent – The ‘believe in order to achieve’ element in The Secret points to the importance of having a clear goal. Having a clear goal consists of visualizing exactly what you want to achieve.

This visualization is more than mere wishful thinking, since you must also be taking small daily actions toward achieving your goal. Developing a clear intent on what it is you want to achieve is absolutely necessary so that you do not get in the scattered habit of floundering between abstract goals.

Getting clear intent through imagining specific goals will put you ahead of the majority of people who are striving toward an abstract notion of ‘success’, without considering what the attainment of their success will look like.

“Desire is the starting point of all achievement, not a hope, not a wish, but a keen pulsating desire which transcends everything”
Napoleon Hill

2) Optimism – This element points to the importance of focusing on the positive. Being optimistic invokes the power of two mechanisms: the ‘reticular activation system’ (defined below), and the power of ‘hope’ (elaborated on below).

First off, lets consider this definition of “Optimism”:

Being optimistic is not ‘blind optimism’ which refuses to recognize anything negative. Optimism recognizes the negative/ risks, but primarily focuses on the positive elements/ expects success. Being optimistic can be defined as “a disposition or tendency to look on the more favorable side of events or conditions and to expect the most favorable outcome” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/optimism).

Notice the two mechanisms in the above definition:

1) “…tendency to look on the more favorable side…”

This is the ‘reticular activation system’:

The ‘reticular activation system’ can be defined as a brain-mechanism responsible for selective attention. Have you ever bought a new car, just to realize you’re now seeing that same car everywhere? In the case of optimism, if your attention is on the positive, you will see more positive. This will increase your awareness of opportunities, allowing you to take positive steps forward, rather than getting stuck dwelling on the negatives.

2) “…expect the most favorable outcome…”

This is the power of hope:

A strong belief that you will achieve your goal, while remaining well-aware of the risks and difficulties, will provide the fuel to your endeavor.

Psychological studies on ‘learned helplessness’ state that without ‘hope’, both humans and animals are likely to give up and accept the afflictions of an adverse stimulus (see the work of Martin Seligman)

As Zig Ziglar says, “If there is hope in the future, there is power in the present.”

Intent and hope create an increased state of ‘resilience’ in an individual.
This ‘psychological resilience’ is the (not so) secret mystical power of The Secret.

In Conclusion, The Secret may offer important practical advice in terms of personal development, but should not be understood as a spiritual text.

Q4JZEWAT55XU

Stop Being Offended by Holidays!

To start off, I want to make my position – and the position of many other atheists – very clear. Last year, in my post titled “Merry Christmas Atheists,” I argued that “the problem of saying ‘Christmas’ vs. saying ‘holiday’ is not an atheist battle, but rather, an inter-faith battle. Just the other day, this was confirmed by a post to  r/atheism, (“the web's largest atheist forum”) asking, “As an Atheist, are you offended when wished "Merry Christmas"?” The response was a resounding “No,” and several expressions of openness to the holiday. “Slacktoo,” a fellow ‘redditor’, responds:

No, in fact I wish others Merry Christmas and celebrate the holiday joyfully. While having origins in pagan and Christian mythology, it has evolved into an exciting festive holiday that can be celebrated by people who have no adherence to such superstitions.

But this openness is not just unique to atheists. It is a quality I have encountered in many religious people and minorities as well. Here is the key to this attitude: not believing the “holidays” are about ONE privileged group. Rachel Olivero, in a news article, says it best when she states:

In 2011, can we celebrate Christmas in our schools? Absolutely — say Merry Christmas!" she said. "At the same time, don't be offended if someone comes up to you at another time of year and says, 'Eid Mubarak' or 'Happy Diwali’.

Whether one celebrates the Pagan ‘solstice’, the Christian ‘Christmas’, the Capitalist ‘Christmas’ (often referred to as ‘holiday’), or any other tradition, is irrelevant! Drop your self-important holiday identity long enough to feel a sense of ‘joy’. But who are these religious Scrooges?

There are two supposed ‘types’: the group labeled “politically correct” who are “easily offended by Christmas”, and the Christians who are reacting to popular use of “holiday”. The first group is said to be composed of minorities who have “taken over” and atheists who are trying to “hijack Christmas,” whereas the latter can be seen complaining on fox news. I claim that the first group virtually does not exist – it is a strawman put into popular discourse by the latter group.

It is ironic that “happy holidays” is considered the politically correct phrase, when it is actually more likely to offend someone. So what is the main reason given by those feeling threatened by “happy holidays”? It all comes down to the argument that Christmas is no longer accepted as politically correct. But this is to deeply miss the point of the word “holidays”.

The use of “happy holidays” is not meant to replace Christmas, but rather, it is meant to include Christmas, along with any other tradition observed around late December. The “offended minorities” and “angry atheists” are but mere fictions. On a private individual level, no one is banning the use of “Christmas” –  or any other tradition title for that matter. The word “holiday” is merely a viable option when talking about the holidays in general, or when governments/ public entities want to send out a festive greeting from all of its groups, rather than just one of them. Notice I use “from” rather than “to”.

Wish me the title of your tradition, and I will wish you the title of mine. Being offended by holidays –  particularity, the word “holiday” itself – is to miss the point. With that being said, I’d like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a fantastic holiday season.

A New Personal-Development

Maybe self-improvement isn't the answer.... Maybe self-destruction is the answer.  ~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club

How do you partake in personal development, if self-destruction is the answer? Eckhart Tolle’s spiritual insight and Owen Cook’s ‘Real Social Dynamics’ seem to be part of a new genre of personal development where the goal is actually to destroy the ‘self’.

The old models of self-improvement seem to emphasize self-esteem through building up the ego. Eckhart Tolle, in his books “The Power of Now” and “A New Earth”, is quick to determine the ego as the target of destruction. In his books, the ego represents a ‘false self’ constructed by social conditioning upon which the identity of the individual rests. This identification is said to be the root of all human struggles; we are constantly trying to reinforce our positive sense of self by reacting against all those who threaten the boundaries of our ‘self' concept’.

What does it mean to enact self-destruction? Rather than trying to build up a sense of self by collecting more and more STUFF (material possessions, physical characteristics, belief-systems, and ideologies), the act of self-destruction says “screw it all".

The things you own end up owning you.  It's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything.  ~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club

How does this relate to spiritual belief-systems? Having a belief-system is like owning a material possession. They say you are not complete without one; therefore, ‘dissatisfied lack’ is the default state of ones constructed reality. In the same way consumer culture constructs our desire to be ‘complete’ through commodities, spiritual belief-systems construct a reality where ‘lack’ characterizes the individual who is not able to identify themselves under a specific tradition.

The good news is that this reality does not apply to you if you are simply aware that it exists. This will also allow you to understand why so many religious people are quick to defend their faith; their sense of self depends on it.

Attacking someone's belief system is like attacking their sense of self in the same way that insulting their clothing may offend them. This is not to say we should avoid dialogue with religious people in fear of offending them; the opposite is the case. We should engage in conversations about spiritually more often. But remember, don’t be a dick.

The socially conditioned ‘self’ does not dissolve without a fight; attacking it will only make it stronger. The ‘self’ will sense threat, pump itself up, and come back bigger and stronger than before. Rather than setting up this reality of ‘battle’, the method of seduction is far more effective.

Be the change you want to see. Only when your own ego is dealt with will you be able to offer complete value to all you encounter. This state of being is the art of seduction (weather it be in the context of work, family-life, or dating). Arguing with religious persons for the sake of being right only builds your own sense of identity as superior. Rather than taking value in the form of argument, one must provide value in the form of careful dialogue. 

If value is light, taking value leads to darkness. We can not get rid of darkness with more darkness. When your sense of ‘self’ is not the measure of your value, the value you offer provides the basis for your happiness.

Beyond Atheism

You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world. – Tyler Durden

You are not your belief system. You are not even your lack of a belief system. In the same way theists gain a sense of identity through their display of a belief system, atheists gain a sense of identity through their opposition to belief systems. Doesn’t this sound absurd?

I understand the word ‘atheist’ has served well in mobilizing an opposition to the harmful side of religion, but I say lets evolve.

Fuck off with your sofa units and string green stripe patterns, I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let... lets evolve, let the chips fall where they may. – Tyler Durden

Only when we can stop messing with the tasteless decor of outdated belief-systems, can we design a masterpiece. Lets focus on what we stand for, rather than what we don’t find fashionable. By fixating on the belief systems of others, we’re being drawn into their reality of identification. With identification comes boundaries, opposition, and a world full of resentment.

It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything. – Tyler Durden

It is not enough to lose rigid belief systems. Oppositional identities maintain the same belief as the failing “war on drugs”, “war on terror”, “war on crime” mentality; the belief that “we” have the truth, “they” are wrong and now we must stomp them out.

The days of “militant atheism” must come to an end before atheists spark the next ‘religious war’.

Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace... – John Lennon

When John Lennon talks about no countries and no religion, he is talking about no boundaries. Having “no religion” can not mean a world of atheists since atheists can only maintain their identity so long as theists still exist; an ‘us vs. them’ mentality is vital to defining yourself in opposition to an ‘other’.

Evolve. When boundaries are dissolved, the identity you hold will stop holding onto you.

Arguing with Religious Fanatics

We all know the popular brand of atheism which tends to poke fun at religion and assert its truth by appealing to science and rationality, right?

I've come to see this type of atheism as reactive rather than proactive, and makes people seem arrogant rather than pushing them to understand the deeper issues.

This reactionary atheism also makes religious people angry rather than logically convincing them of anything. I don't think logic and rationality are the best tools in these types of arguments and this is why:

Contemporary religion and the increasing level fundamentalism is a reaction against techno-capitalist culture where everything is ultra rationalized to the point where some people are not feeling satisfied or fulfilled in an environment they perceive as sterile. Most atheists think more rationality and logic is the cure, but this is a mistake since its like adding fuel to the fire; they will only get firmer in their beliefs since someone is trying to give them more of the "problem".

Look at it this way: If a religious person tries to convince you that they are right, they will give you mystical reasons which, in your perspective, is just more of the problem. As an atheist, one should consider arguing in ways which do more than just shake up the hornet-nest.

Appealing to the motivations of the other person is one of the most effective ways to argue. If their problem is a lack of emotional depth in the world, than maybe atheists should consider their sense of reality rather than appealing directly to science and rationality. This is not to oppose emotion to science, Carl Sagan does a wonderful job at articulating the two simultaneously. 

I don't condone the religious atrocities, nor do I have anything against science and rationality. Although I think the popular brand of militant atheism is probably liberating for people who have recently 'came out', I encourage people to develop more sophisticated ways of looking at the issues rather than getting stuck in a reactionary rut.

Sean Carroll: Distant time and the hint of a multiverse

Sam Richards: A radical experiment in empathy

Video and description from TEDTalks April 2011

By leading the Americans in his audience at TED step by step through the thought process, sociologist Sam Richards sets an extraordinary challenge: can they understand -- not approve of, but understand -- the motivations of an Iraqi insurgent? And by extension, can anyone truly understand and empathize with another?

The Mountain

The Mountain from Terje Sorgjerd on Vimeo.

This was filmed between 4th and 11th April 2011. I had the pleasure of visiting El Teide.
Spain´s highest mountain @(3715m) is one of the best places in the world to photograph the stars and is also the location of Teide Observatories, considered to be one of the world´s best observatories.

The goal was to capture the beautiful Milky Way galaxy along with one of the most amazing mountains I know El Teide. I have to say this was one of the most exhausting trips I have done. There was a lot of hiking at high altitudes and probably less than 10 hours of sleep in total for the whole week. Having been here 10-11 times before I had a long list of must-see locations I wanted to capture for this movie, but I am still not 100% used to carrying around so much gear required for time-lapse movies.
A large sandstorm hit the Sahara Desert on the 9th April (http://bit.ly/g3tsDW) and at approx 3am in the night the sandstorm hit me, making it nearly impossible to see the sky with my own eyes.

Interestingly enough my camera was set for a 5 hour sequence of the milky way during this time and I was sure my whole scene was ruined. To my surprise, my camera had managed to capture the sandstorm which was backlit by Grand Canary Island making it look like golden clouds. The Milky Way was shining through the clouds, making the stars sparkle in an interesting way. So if you ever wondered how the Milky Way would look through a Sahara sandstorm, look at 00:32.

Available in Digital Cinema 4k.

Like my Facebook Page for updateshttp://www.facebook.com/TSOPhotography
Follow me on http://twitter.com/TSOPhotography
Press/licensing/projects contact: terjes@gmail.com
Music by my friend: Ludovico Einaudi - "Nuvole bianche" with permission.
Please support the artist here:
http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/una-mattina/id217799399

Thank you to my sponsors:
http://www.canon.com
http://www.g-technology.com
http://www.dynamicperception.com/ (Best dolly in the world!)

Ric Elias: 3 things I learned while my plane crashed

Video and description from TED Talks April 2011

Ric Elias had a front-row seat on Flight 1549, the plane that crash-landed in the Hudson River in New York in January 2009. What went through his mind as the doomed plane went down? At TED, he tells his story publicly for the first time.

Dalai Lama on Religion

"Developing love and compassion and reducing anger and spite is a universal activity which requires no faith in any religion whatsoever." - Dalai Lama

In a previous post I talked about the problem with modern religion in order to consider the potential ‘religion’ may hold as an institution. This quote from the Dalai Lama adds another layer to that critique. Don’t you find it ironic when you hear stories about angry religious people who are full of spite? I don’t think religion is inherently bad, but I find many people either miss the point or move away from it since they don’t see a point. Those who miss the point – at the most extreme level – are out protesting in anger and burning the holy books of other religions groups (See Terry Jones). Those who don’t see the point have most likely been turned off by religious extremists, or have been brought up in sterile traditions which shove morality down your throat – or both. So what’s this point I’m talking about.

The point is increasing happiness – what we all look for anyway – through cultivating ‘love’ –Basically learning how to love harder. Now If you’re skeptical, let me explain. As Plato’s Socrates said, the highest purpose of love is to become a lover of wisdom – for him this is equivalent to becoming a philosopher. Wisdom, in its mystic sense, can be found at the core of each religion – hence the term ‘wisdom tradition’. If you strip religion of all its doctrine, hierarchies, and ‘unwavering’ laws, you will be left with its core ‘wisdom’.

By wisdom I don’t mean hidden rules or knowledge; I mean practices – particularly, practices which cultivate love. The benefits of specific practices can be seen in within the field of positive pychology (click to view insights into Buddhist practices). Loving-kindness meditation is actually considered a practice of Buddhism. This is not limited to Buddhism, but can also be found in Christian monasticism and several other religions. When you get down to this level of religion, it begins to lose its strong attachment to faith, authority, and other modern institutional structures.

So how does this relate to the Dalai Lama’s quote? He says love and compassion “requires no faith in any religion whatsoever." He has also said “kindness is my religion”. By equating religion with kindness, this eliminates the institutional structure altogether. If religion becomes ‘kindness’, where is the need for faith? The alternative to focusing on faith – which presupposes knowledge and laws – is the focus is on practices which are a tool for growth. Of course, this is a break from ‘religion’ as we commonly know it.

Rather than being a mere part of the flock, over-determined by the laws of a master, one must make religion into ‘kindness’; only then can freedom and individual growth begin to occur. On that note, I will end this post with another quote:

“All major religious traditions carry basically the same message, that is love, compassion and forgiveness, the important thing is they should be part of our daily lives.” – Dalai Lama

A Peaceful Stand Against Pastor Terry Jones

Photo Credit: Ian Kushnir

Hundreds of people from different faiths came together Thursday afternoon to take part in the opposition against Florida Pastor Terry Jones. The InterFaith Leadership Council of Metropolitan Detroit organized the event, held at Dearborn's Islamic Center of America.

The ICA hosting committee greeted visitors at the door and provided head scarves for women upon entrance. Just before entering the main hall, a large white banner that covered a long table had a number of attendee signatures written on it. In the center of the hall laid a red carpet that led to center stage of the religious panelists. 

As people filed in to take their seats, smiles were exchanged and hugs were shared, giving the gathering a peaceful atmosphere. The attendees, though diverse in the faiths they practice, were unified in their message.
Exerpt from The Dearborn Patch

This is a sight I like to see: unity in difference. But here is a different perspective on the recent events. ‘Spirited Atheist’ Susan Jacoby Writes:

Respect for religion—any religion—is not required under American law, despite the wrongheaded idea that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. You can burn copies of the Torah, the New Testament, or the Koran…

There is absolutely no moral equivalency between the symbolic act of one demented pastor—who apparently commands a congregation of only 30 warped souls—and revenge killings abetted by the voices of so-called religious leaders in Afghanistan
Exerpt from The Washington Post

This is a reaction to the claims of those who blame Pastor Terry Jones for the revenge killings which resulted from his actions.

Of course there is no moral equivalency between disrespect and killings. Although respect for religion is not required by law, I stand for earned respect – those in Dearborn have earned respect and deserved to have been shown it. But lack of respect is not the main issue here; the issue is Jones’s hateful speech and actions. His actions are a perpetuation of a cycle of hate. Hate and anger only leads to more hate and anger.

But what about the interfaith gathering? This breaks from my logic of harm begetting harm. The gathering is significant because it is an example of a hateful action causing a positive reaction: a diverse community uniting. These are the reactions we need to see more often.

In the end, Paster Terry Jones is an example of a hateful person who will merely create more hate in those he is against – this is the downward spiral we need to watch out. Rather than engaging in negative reactions, we must first consider the harm we may be perpetuating. The interfaith response is an example of a path one must consider before engaging in protest.

Perhaps one day responses like this will not only be ‘interfaith’, but inter-faith/non-faith. What a day it will be when atheists will be welcome with arms-wide-open in a country were they are currently its #1 hated minority. Until then, all I can say is this: always consider your reactions; they can be part of the problem or part of the solution.

The Arrogant Atheists vs. The Dogmatic Religious

This reminds me of the popular Atheist vs. Religious debates: O'Reilly vs Dawkins, The Richard Dawkins Forum (which I had once been a regular contributor), Reddit Atheism, the Hitchens vs. Hitchens debate and several other Youtube videos.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy a hardy laugh at religious ignorance; as well, I can appreciate an eloquent argument by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, or Sam Harris. Although they can be amusing, these discussions are usually futile and breed resentment. 

By giving attention to what we don’t like, we actually strengthen its stance. This creates a looping effect where each side gets firmer in their stance and more resentful of the other.

Lastly, both sides tend to make the same fundamental error of judgment; they both appeal to the absolute worst/must harmful individuals of the other group. This is especially evident in the Hitchens vs. Hitchens debate where Christopher generalizes the fundamentalist stance on ‘religion’. The same goes for Christians who think all atheists are arrogant or immoral. We should be careful of the tendency to judge ourselves by our best characteristics and the other by their worst.

I find discussions on religion quite fascinating and think they have the potential to unite differences rather than merely dividing them.

Arguing Against Religion

“Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” - Carl Gustav Jung

Original Link: Rage Comic

Sigur Rós – Gobbledigook

The Problem With Modern Religion

“For of the fast stage of this cultural development, it might well be truly said: ‘Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart’” – Max Weber

Why keep talking about religion? Well, I think it has something to offer. There is something to be said about a regular collective gatherings which encourage states of intoxication. That’s right, states of group intoxication – and I’m not talking about the bar! This doesn't sound like the religion you know? Well that’s because modern religion has been sterilized, sanitized, and stripped away all the fun stuff – the bliss.

Max Weber’s quote appears in his book Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1908). It was written in response to a dramatic rise of modern ‘work ethic’. Basically, this ‘ethic’ consists of working as hard as you can to please God; but there’s a catch (there’s alllways a catch with God): you can’t enjoy any of the profit you earn from your work; it must be strictly invested and never used for pleasure. This is the modern ‘ascetic ideal’ – the same ideal Nietzsche hated. This ideal boils down to one thing: being completely rational and disciplined all the time wile avoiding any kind of pleasures.

So what’s wrong with being rational? Well, this is not you’re ordinary type of ‘rational’, this is extreme rationality where every action must be reflected upon for its instrumental utility. In pushing ones self so far in this direction one grossly neglects some of the most important things: passion, sensation, and emotion.

Now I’m not trying to get all ‘new agey’ here. I really think we need to start paying more attention to these other parts of the human experience. The protestant ethic did not disappear; it is alive and well in almost all religious and corporate institutions. The difference is that we no longer place God at the top (Nietzsche was right when he said God is dead). Money is our new object of worship.

So now what. How can we bring back passion to institutions that have been hollowed out? How can we bring meaning back to a sterilized zombie religion and a psychopathic corporate world? We don’t need a new God to save us; we need passion. We can learn a thing or two from the pre-modern world. We once thought of them an unhappy ‘primitive’ world which needed happy civilizing. I’m starting to wonder if we had it backwards.

Here are some clips to consider. Enjoy!

Human Planet: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12618167

Gross National Happiness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zqdqa4YNvI

Einstein Quotes on God

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.

God always takes the simplest way.

God does not play dice.

God may be subtle, but he is not malicious.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.

I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil.

I want to know all Gods thoughts; all the rest are just details.

Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God.

That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.

When the solution is simple, God is answering.

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.

God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.

Muslims Serve Christmas Eve Dinner to 300

Here is a good example of non-attachment to the ego identities that separate and divide. It is nice to see positive religious news for a change.
Source: The Montreal Gazette

Sadaf Kotwal of the Islamic Community Centre of Brossard helps serve dinner at the Old Brewery Mission on Christmas Eve.

Photograph by: PIERRE OBENDRAUF, THE GAZETTE, The Gazette
_________________

It was in a spirit of giving that members of a South Shore mosque contributed $2,000 to sponsor the Christmas Eve supper at the Old Brewery Mission and spent two hours serving it to more than 300 people.

This is double the minimum $1,000 contribution the mission seeks from those who sponsor a supper.

It was believed to be the first time an Islamic community group has volunteered to sponsor and serve an evening meal at the mission, officials said.

Following afternoon prayers at the mission on Clark St., about 20 members of the Islamic Community Centre of Brossard set the tables and passed plates of chicken, rice and steamed carrots to the first shift of diners.

Ismail Mohammed of Greenfield Park, a retired CBC accountant, said he had suggested sponsoring the meal to fellow mosque members.

"We don't celebrate Christmas, but serving humanity is serving God. That is what our teaching says," he observed.

"We want to work with people from all religions," he added. "We came for peace in this country and we want to establish peace," said Mohammed, a native of India who grew up in Pakistan.

Monique Khan of Brossard said serving others is the perfect holiday activity: "I feel happy when I make other people happy. It's a time for sharing and we give what we can"

Her husband, Irfan Khan, a building technician, said feeding the needy is about immigrants contributing to their country.

"When we came here, we didn't have anything. We worked hard and we did well. This society has given us so much, and now we have to give back."

Said Suleman, who came to Canada as a refugee from Eritrea, said many fellow Muslims are successful and highly educated and "it's time to step in and do our share."

"We have to think of others, of feeding our neighbours, to really participate."

Sabiha Sheikh of Brossard, a part-time bookkeeper, said she often helps serve food to people in other mission-type settings.

"It's time for us to contribute to the city we live in. We want to show that we are caring people -we are generous and want to share."

iblock@montrealgazette.com

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Muslims+serve+Christmas+dinner+Brewery+Mission/4026100/story.html#ixzz19P0QguHq

What is Atheist Spirituality?

After a year and a half of writing on this seemingly oxymoronic subject, this question continuously arises. Although many past posts have attempted to clarify this concept, there has been constant development in my understanding.

How can there be an ‘atheist spirituality’? An answer can be developed through looking at the preconceptions we may have about the word ‘spirituality’. The word ‘spirituality’ is strongly, and unnecessarily, bound to ideas of religion, dualistic philosophies of transcendence, and dogmas demanding faith. In the modern era, spiritual practices have been largely institutionalized into formal faith categorizations. Spirituality has become the prime commodity of the religious institution. This association between religion an spirituality has become intensely entrenched in most modern cultures.

What about people claiming they are ‘spiritual but not religious’? Aside from increasing fundamentalism, there is a widespread lack of trust in religious institutions. The world is becoming more dichotomous; as fundamentalists become increasingly rebellious when faced with modern ideals. This influences modern individuals who are loosely religious to become sceptical of these institutions since they increasingly seen as being harmful. While continuing to practice spirituality on a personal level, many are disassociating themselves from religions which are developing a poor reputation. This personal belief or practice may still be entrenched in the dualisms of religion; therefore, it does not answer the question of an atheist spirituality.

What makes an atheist spirituality different? An atheist spirituality departs from the mainstream paradigm. It goes beyond ‘spiritual but not religious’ by rebelling against religious constructions. The philosophical shift from dualism to materialism can be illustrated by following historical ideas about the ‘soul’. Socrates can be noted as arriving at the necessity of the soul through questioning what is the user vs. the used. We may use a pen to write; therefore, the pen is the object (used) and the person is the subject (user). Socrates continues by asking: but isn't the hand used as well? and what about the eyes? Eventually, we may realize that everything on our body can be used – even our brains may be used to contemplate the process. This is where Socrates concludes that the user must be an immaterial soul. Fast forwarding, we can look at Cartesian dualism associating the soul with the ‘mind’. Descartes thinking-being of mind is the subject who acts on the objects of the profane bodies and earth. Fast forwarding again, we can see imminent conceptions of ‘God’ in the materialist philosophy of Spinoza. See his Ethics for extensive elaboration on this philosophical position. Deleuze, the most contemporary and my personal favourite, has written extensively on materialist philosophies of life; click ‘here’ to see a former post on Deleuze.

What does the materialist paradigm mean for ‘spiritual’ practice? This shift revolutionizes the dominate western conceptions of spirituality by changing all former definitions. The definition of ‘God’ is transformed into a pantheistic ‘God’ which Rickard Dawkins claims to be a “sexed up atheism”. Sin is no longer bound to transcendental judgment, but rather, becomes an individually autonomous ethics. Spiritual experiences of awe and wonder are no longer attributed to the presence of a divine entity, but rather, can be experienced through the glory of nature, evolution, and contemplating ones part in an infinitely unthinkable unfolding of life. Mystery of ‘God’ becomes the mystery of nature – a mystery which may infinitely extent its reach past our momentary understanding. Ritual becomes more than mere compliance for the sake of salvation, but a practice of affecting the mind-body (regarded as one) for the sake of happiness. Spirit is no longer the magic entity hovering somewhere in or around us, but rather, it is the human spirit: the spirit of love, joy, happiness, and peace. Although these virtues resemble those of Christianity, they are not seen as given by a God as a reward for good behaviour; rather, they are seen as virtues which come from within and can only be achieved in the present moment, not requiring a specific set of predetermined beliefs or rituals. Beliefs may be held, but are held loosely and not bound with one’s identity. Specific practices may be used, but their use is regarded as a way of changing one’s mental state. Mental states are also regarded as material since they rely on complex material interactions. An atheistic spiritual life is one of nomadic being, not clinging to fixed identity templates.

With all this said, openness to discovery may lead spiritual atheists in a multitude of directions. Since the joy is in the journey, future posts clarifying ‘atheist spirituality’ may differ from this one. Openness to experience is the way to ‘salvation’ in this search for spiritual complexity and life-fulfilling atheism.