Arash's World

The Difference between Pride and Arrogance

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 01:43:00 +0000

There are certain words that have a hard time shedding off their negative connotations. For example, the word “stubborn” or its equivalent “pig-headed” are generally not positive traits yet they can easily turn into “steadfastness” or “personal integrity” if you look at the other side of the coin.

Certain words distinguish themselves by degrees, such as ambitious which has mainly positive connotations until it reaches its extreme point in terms of being overly ambitious. In Spanish, “ambicioso” is mainly a negative trait denoting a money-driven person who will stop short of almost nothing. What about the words “pride” and “arrogance”? How are they similar, what are their connotations, and in what ways are they negative?

We can easily classify “arrogance” as a negative trait. Arrogant people are condescending and believe themselves to be superior, whether in looks, knowledge, wisdom, or all of the above. It is also often part of an illusion – or rather delusion – about one's own characteristics; they are overblown and distort the positive traits one may have.

Yet all this time, the main aim of the arrogant person is to overshadow others. In fact, it seems that arrogant people are always claiming that they are superior and in order to feel that way, they have the need for -- and often take delight in -- putting everyone else down. An acute or even obsessive sense of comparison is a marked by-product of the arrogant person.

Where does pride fit in? We can be proud of our own accomplishments, our country or friends and family. If you act and do well on a task or in a given situation, be it a job well done or good grades in a course, you have reason to be proud. The main direction of pride is toward within in contrast to arrogance which has a more outward focus.

But it can become a little tricky. When you are proud of your country are you not ipso facto comparing yourself to other countries and claiming to be superior? Is this really based on your own achievements? Are you not deluding yourself with pride in non-existent abilities? In other words, can you fully identify yourself with the given traits of your country? And how congruent are they with reality?

Pride can enter a dangerous terrain where it mixes with wishful thinking -- if not delusion -- and hence it may find itself in the unwanted neighborhood of arrogance. Pride then needs to be checked so that it does not turn into arrogance. There is nothing wrong with taking credit for your efforts and accomplishments. In fact, we do so quite rarely and not enough. The proverbial “tap on the shoulder” for a task well done can boost one's confidence and does no one harm in the process.

You can be proud and also realistic about a situation. I did well, but I could have done better. At the same time, doubts play a steady part in a humble person's outlook. And again, being proud of your efforts does not mean that you are better than others. It is not a judgement on a global quality. It simply means that you may be better at a given task or job. For example, it does not necessarily follow that being an excellent hockey player will also make you a great father (though it is possible). We must be careful not to mix our apples and oranges.

But can you be proud of who you are? That is a question that baffles me. Are you who you are based on your own choices? Can you fully take credit for your personality, for instance? In other words, can you take credit for something that may be out of your control, such as genes? To a certain extent you may have control over your looks. You can also make active use of your talents. But are you not essentially born with these traits?

In recent times, pride has been used to express confidence in one's different sexual orientation. After a long time of being oppressed and having to hide one's orientation, more and more people are “coming out” in the open and are affirming with confidence who they are. Unfortunately, we are still a million miles away from equality and full acceptance.

Yet regardless of your orientation, is this something you can be “proud” of, namely a conscious and deliberate action or accomplishment? To me, it seems rather a linguistic play on words but not a real effect. In this case, I would replace pride with courage. It is living out your own desires and being who you are without hiding an important part of your own nature, your self.

The pride one may feel is, in my opinion, about this type of courage, about standing up for who one is despite the consequences and strong opposition of mainstream society. It seems to me a contradiction to say that you are proud of who you are, your traits and qualities, whereas it seems easier to accept the fact that you are proud of what you have done with your life, your actions and accomplishments. But if you believe that nurture overruns nature, then you could be proud for both options.

In short, there is really nothing wrong with being proud. In some cases, it may lead to stubborn behaviour, yet in others it can be about human rights and the right for dignity. You can be proud of your accomplishments and to an extent of your country, as long as you are realistic about it. At the same time, you must be careful and aware that pride does not turn into arrogance. In some cases, the line between the two may be paper-thin.

Suckcess, Wu Wei or Why the right Attitude goes a long Way

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:06:00 +0000

D.A. Pennebaker's film "Don't Look Back"

What is success? How is it measured? Is it related to having a fat bank account? Fame? Power? True love? Unlimited Sex? A Family? All of the above?

Many will say, in true existentialist fashion, that it depends on the individual and that everyone makes their own choice. But the truth is that success is almost always about what one doesn't have. The poor dream of money, the rich of true love, while the famous envy us and want to be like us, ordinary people with a simple life.

Often success becomes the phantom that we haunt and that in turn haunts us. People can get obsessed over it. The drive for self-improvement or, in its impossible form, the quest for perfection can be applied to pretty much any part of our lives, be it our personal trials and tribulation or those at work. At the latter, it is the sought-after promotion that goes, more often than not, hand-in-hand with a raise. As your money in the bank inflates, so does your pride.

The counter-culture, often deemed the hippie culture, has time and again challenged our notions of success. They do not believe that it can be measured by material worth. Many, in fact, turned their back on traditional life and values, such as career, family, children, house ... and experimented with notions of free love with an airy free spirit, the (almost unbearably) light feeling that deems itself immune against the push and pull of gravity. In most people's eyes, they were the epitome of failure, while they themselves were laughing at the preposterous and self-deluded vanity of the well-dressed business-person.

When it comes to success, people often see it as a form of competition. As a result, people become competitive. If everyone were successful, let us say if everyone were rich in this world, then money would, in fact, lose its value. Success is having that which others do not have. If at work I am surrounded by CEOs, I can hardly claim to be anybody special or to have achieved anything significant. It is the fact that these positions are coveted and desired that gives them value, intrinsic or not.

Moreover, success, being veritable competition, is all about winning. Nobody wants to lose and be left behind. It is, for most of us, not just about participating but we want to have something to show for. Be it a medal or a degree, any kind of recognition will do to make our efforts worth it all. Few people will brag about losing because let's face it, losing is for losers.

In short, we are driven by ambition to reach or attain that which others do not have. That explains why athletes want to break records and why the super rich are never satisfied with the amount of money and power they have. Success, in its most empowering sense, is a drive for progress, yet in its debilitating aspects, it deprives us of happiness and a balanced life. So how can we aim for success without becoming enslaved to it?

Of course, we could continue deconstructing the notion of success and go into leftist discussions of the harms and dangers of capitalism and the pitfalls of a consumer society or a psychological treatise on the ever-present dark side of human nature, where we never reach full happiness until we die. Yet it can be solved in a rather simpler fashion, namely with the all-important trait of attitude.

Attitude on its own, is something you generally do not want to have. Someone with an attitude are those who constantly complain and think they are better and more valuable than the rest. They are usually closed to learning or new experiences. However, there is such a thing as a good attitude and those are the ones who may be easygoing or even modest in their outlook.

I have previously blogged about humility, and I think it should be an important part of everyone's life, regardless of creed or economic status. By humility I do not condone stupidity; it does not mean that you let others trample all over you nor that you ignore or look the other way. Likewise, I do not think that turning the other cheek is the best philosophy in this world full of hungry wolves.

By humility, I mean a detached, somewhat Buddhist sense of letting things be and develop in their own fashion, what the I Ching would call Wu Wei, “acting without actions.” It does not mean to stop driving for success, but that you watch yourself and that you do not wear yourself out in the process. Having your foot always on the gas pedal does not mean you will get to your destination safe and sound. It is more about knowing when to push ahead and when to slow down.

I believe that athletes may have an ingrained sense of Wu Wei, especially if they are fully in touch with their bodies. You can push your body to amazing feats, but you have to give it also enough time to recover. We can work hard, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, but we need to know when to take a break. The time off will not be time wasted but rather time well spent because you are recharging yourself and will be more likely to succeed at whatever undertaking.

The fact that many believe “time is money” has robbed many an ambitious or greedy person of several hours of sleep. And success may be about winning but is not about speed. We can be successful in due time and again I let the variable success open to individual interpretation and meaning-making.

As you gain success and as you keep looking forward, do not forget to look back once in a while and remind yourself of being humble. During the victory triumphs of ancient Rome, the generals usually had a slave whisper in their ear memento mori, “remember you will die.” In a moment of shining glory, we often tend to forget the human predicament that we come out of dust and to dust shall return.

The Implications of Chaos and Order – Political, Psychological and Otherwise

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:11:00 +0000

There are various types of personalities out there and each of them tends to have their own approach toward organization. There are those who are messy, whose rooms look like the aftermath of a tropical storm, whose hair is generally disheveled and whose shirts are ironed only on very rare occasions. They have a distraught and sometimes lost look on their face; they may temporarily forget on which planet they live. They can be found among the creative professions, such as the field of poetry and / or higher education.

Then there are those who are spotlessly clean and kempt from head to toe. In fact, every single hair is taken into account and is accounted for. Aside from the fact, they never seem to have had a bad hair day in their whole life (not even in childhood!); their shirts are ironed and starched and their color-coded clothes match perfectly. Everything about their demeanor shows deliberately calculated order. These people are meticulous in their plans and hate events that are unpredictable, such as weather or traffic, something that, in fact, may drive them mad.

Most of us will find ourselves somewhere in the middle of the two, but we do have a certain tendency or proclivity toward one or the other. Now let us call the first one Chaos and the second one Order and see how they have different implications.

Of the two, Chaos is the more dangerous one. He is unpredictable and actually does well in vague and uncertain circumstances as he relies mostly on his creativity to solve problems. The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not affect him; Chaos is not really afraid of falling into further chaos as this is already his element and surrounding, but it is Order who fears and dreads the decay and falls into disorder, his avowed nemesis.

Politically, Order will find more joy and relaxation in clearly defined maxims. Hence his outlook is more conservative, which often promises a more stable basis due its reliance on clearly defined rules and concepts. In the ideal world of Order, there will be no acts of vandalism, no social manifestation but a constant assurance of a status quo that provides a safety net. Anyone who breaks this person's idyll will have to deal with the stabilizing (police) force, which is the “magical” group that tries to maintain order in strict logical defiance to the natural laws of thermodynamics.

Chaos, however, is not fazed by revolutionary movements. In fact, change is not something he fears but rather something that he embraces. Chaos is instinctively against order because he feels that the latter will keep him in a stranglehold. Chaos insists on his own rights and those of others. They are the strong supporters of human rights at the cost of creating revolutions or anarchy so that the world may become a more just place. Chaos and police are often in conflict especially when it comes to ideology because police uphold the status quo and order through the means of authority. Chaos does not believe in authority, which he believes, limits his creative powers, conscience and freedom.

When it comes to control, Chaos is the more easy-going. Chaos believes in letting be, going with the flow, of taking one day at a time. Chaos does not plan his day, let alone his life. Order, however, is driven toward future success, and it is also why he values money as a safeguard and measuring stick of success. Order believes one ought not to waste a single moment in life. Order is also thrilled by self-improvement and perfection, and he will not give up until he reaches his set goals. Many of these people may turn to religion, which promises and advocates a harmonious balance between this world and the next.

The political world is run more by Order than Chaos. Government per se cannot exist as Chaos or else it will self-implode. Bureaucracy is Order's best friend as it helps organize and classify people, providing a clear overview for Order and aiding him for control and even manipulation.

The capitalist world is made for the ambitious and relentlessly hungry like Order. They thrive under it more than Chaos. Chaos may like its reliance on freedom, but he soon finds out that laziness equates death in such a rapidly progressing world, where material success defines who you are and what you can do. As a result, Chaos may become a socialist; however, he is often disenchanted with communist forms of government, which is, in fact, nothing but Order in disguise.

Of course, these are the extremes. Every artist will need structure amid the chaotic and creative energy within. Structure is necessary for a good work of art as much as ideas. The only exception would be perhaps Surrealism. Yet then again, the moment a manifesto was written about the Surrealist movement, Order gained the upper hand.

I am definitely not advocating that people should become lazy or have no dreams. I am myself enough Order to be disenchanted with any form of anarchy. Revolutions have brought up more of the same old, sometimes even more Order and less freedom. But what I am hoping is that those who are Order will loosen up a little and let some Chaos leap into and seep through their mindset. Chaos is loyal to playfulness and a little play, as the saying goes, will not be bad for Jack's (mental or otherwise) health.

The Insecurity behind Macho Behavior and the Sensitive Man

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 19:05:00 +0000

Man is obsessed with manhood. The idea of the supermacho, be it Rambo, GI Joe or its android equivalent of Terminator is a source of fascination for the testosterone-driven, fast and furious macho-macho man. And this idea has somehow managed to skip and hop across borders and cultures making us wonder if it is a case of really well-executed marketing or -- God forbid -- a DNA defect on the Y-chromosome.

Unfortunately, the Judeo-Christian tradition has also given the “benefit of the doubt” to women, both sexualizing, i.e. demonizing woman, while at the same time making her an eternal symbol of impossible purity, the case of virginity even beyond childbirth. This comes from a tradition that sees adultery as a man-given privilege, one of the first recorded instances of a double standard. A man could have intercourse with any unmarried woman but he was not allowed to have sex with another man's wife, which was considered a sin. On the other hand, a woman was not allowed to have sex with any man, married or not, save her husband.

All this I claim has pumped up the macho ego. By being allowed to act out his fantasies and by being encouraged by peers and society to state and assert his manhood, man has come to not only strive toward an unhealthy image of himself, but also project what he is not. Any type of weakness -- and feeling has been labeled so in that twisted mind -- is to be strangled to protect the false image of manhood.

This may explain highly damaging behavior like shaking hands of sons instead of hugging or kissing them goodnight, a concept that the psychologist Watson once proposed to ensure a “manly” upbringing. Men are not supposed to cry and must always suck it up, while anything else is considered effeminate and gay. By stifling each other emotionally, man has created his own version of hell and suffering.

Yet that image of the macho is of course only intended for men. If women adopt that kind of attitude, such as a “boyish” (out)look or aggressive behavior, then these women are shunned since they are perceived as a threat and as an unwelcome rival to masculinity. Indeed the Victorian era tried its best to instill women with a fake sense of honour and sets of so-called lady-like behavior and occupation. As such, men are supposed to wear the pants and when they do not do so, they become the laughing stock of their peers.

But I am not meaning to point the finger nor lay blame on something that has gone wrong over various centuries. In fact, I am going to show us -- of the male persuasion -- how we would benefit much more from accepting our feminine side and to reiterate what women have been reproaching us for eons.

In fact, those gun-swinging, steak-slinging cowboys at heart are full of insecurity. They are limited not only in their perspective (and sometimes alas intelligence), but they are constantly afraid and feel always threatened by any one who does not fall into the same trap. If a man decides to stay home and take care of the kids with his wife bringing home the proverbial bacon, then the macho man sees it as a personal threat to his macho prison.

Likewise, this explains why gay men so much terrify them because they embody the feminine aspects that the macho would like to embrace but dares not to do so. Not to mention that this life-long steroid ambition has made him infatuated with all things masculine and has inadvertently created a homosexual -- but deeply frowned upon -- fascination for other men.

Yet the “sensitive” man who is in tune with his female nature, who embodies both yin and yang within is more at peace with himself and in fact more confident in his wide range of talents. He can fully accept and develop any talents that are considered feminine to begin with, anything creative, educational or health-oriented. Yes, that includes male nursing.

This sense of freedom creates more opportunities and diminishes fear and paranoia. The man who is not insecure in his personality can also have homosexual friends without the fear of being accidentally converted or subverted, as some claim.

The sensitive man has no need to prove his manhood by taking on or watching aggressive sports, nor by getting into fights or pushing wives and girlfriends around. The sensitive man can also cry whenever it suits him and show compassion and empathy toward others, not because he is weak, but he is much stronger than any macho man can dream of.

The God Factor: Using the Almighty as Pretext for Death and Mayhem

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 19:23:00 +0000

Now that we are entering what is deemed the last year according to (certain morbid interpretations of) the end of the Mayan calendar, I decided to post less on the fact that Doomsday is near (it is and has always been near since time immemorial or like the truck in your side-view mirror, it is nearer than you may think) but more on the fact that God has been used for many inexcusable and shameful acts since the existence or invention of religion.

It is most interesting that the sixth season of Dexter dealt with a Doomsday killer who, as the serial-killing protagonist Dexter Morgan himself proclaims, used God for killing people rather than what in the Doomsday killer's perturbed mind was mandated by God Himself. Although this particular season offered alas one of the sloppier writings in the history of the series, this conclusion is worth taking note of.

Now let us backtrack for a moment and take a look at Abraham. He was told by God to sacrifice his only begotten son. And let us do what is considered a serious case of anachronism and keep Dexter's comment in mind. Suddenly we are appalled. What if it was not God who commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son but rather the twisted mind of a religiously intoxicated father who then, thank God, sees reason in the last possible moment.

And what if we look at the crusades less as rescuing religion and killing in the name of God but as a calculated act of bloody business as wars happen to fill up the bloated pockets of certain scrupulous people. Yes, bloodshed unfortunately makes profits and no sense.

And let us speculate more along religion's dark passageway of memory lane tour and revisit the Spanish Inquisition with Dexter's voice in the back of our minds. The medieval religious frame of mind was that torture was all right. They devised the most horrid and sadistic tools of prolonged and painful torture to make the wicked souls confess and repent of their deeds. They even built thicker walls in the monastery so that the ear-deafening wailing did not penetrate to the outside world.

I once had the opportunity to ask a young lad dressed up as a monk to ask why the monks of old were so seemingly cruel. I had been given a tour of the premises that had brought about a lot of suffering to people during the darkest of ages where human rights had been a costly privilege of the chosen few. This monkish lad told me that the actual monks of the past believed that the more the sinners suffered, the more chances they had to get to the gates of heaven. That meant that torture was actually good for them, purifying their souls. Again what if there was dark sadistic pleasure involved and that the brutal destruction of people was just another case of misreading God's word.

In fact, the Bible itself comes with a caveat to the readers and interpreters. There is always the possibility of the devil's reach. The hand of the devil may be at play and both preachers and common folk alike need to be careful about the voice they are hearing. Martin Luther, himself a founder of the Protestant religion, was often riddled and befuddled with the same question. Are these ideas inspired by God the Almighty or the equally forceful and beguiling and convincing Evil One? Or what if the gnostics observed the truth while mainstream religion has taken the wrong turn down the road?

Although most of this here may sound anti-religious, I believe it is not. It is more about the God factor, the image and attributions to God that are often equated with fear and punishment. It is the thundering voice of Thou Shalt echoed with the pending threat of Or Else ... This type of thinking has more often benefited people in positions of authority, anywhere from religious leaders to politicians to business people, or sometimes even the combination of all three in one. So much has been done in the name of God that if God were dead, as Nietzsche claimed, then He would turn in His grave. And if not, as I claim, there should be some kind of equalizing force that would create a form of cosmic justice.

In any case, I have a hard time believing that any war or bloodshed can be justified in the name of God regardless of religion or creed. Some of those who claim that God has spoken to them may be listening to their own dark “passenger” or nature. However, those who truly subscribe to God's will are not Machiavellian and do not think that the good will justify any end, including torture, death or the end of the world.

On Beauty, Personality and the Influence of Confidence

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 02:40:00 +0000

Although I fully subscribe to the idea of beauty being in the eyes of the beholder, there are still cases where beauty cannot be seen, no matter how hard you look, and how permissive and easygoing the beholder may be. There are people who are simply not beautiful, not by any classical or modern standards.

Of course, the question may arise what exactly is beauty, and we might get into a discussion of geometrical proportions, including symmetry, shapes and sizes. And many may cry out how beauty is relative and subjective, and I fully agree with you, but notwithstanding all that, we do, more often than not, agree on what is deemed beautiful and by exclusion what is not.

So what if you happen to score low on the beauty level? So what if you are not certified to be among the sexiest men and women alive? Exactly, don't despair. You still have a go at beauty because there is still the matter of personality.

Personality is another shady area though. The main problem of personality is that it is often not immediately visible. It is not apparent to the eye, but rather revealed over time. This fact puts personality at a serious disadvantage. Beauty is in your face, but personality involves some digging. You can see beauty as a mask while personality is what looms underneath.

So what does it mean when we say that someone has a good personality? It may be tied to ethical principles, somebody who is honest and upright; it could also be judged on affective grounds, such as caring and loving predispositions, or even other characteristics, such as being responsible, intelligent, easygoing, fun and creative. The absence of (a good) personality would be shallowness, vanity, excessive pride and so on.

In other words, having a companion who scores high on the looks department but is bankrupt on personality by having shallow convictions and beliefs and by offering merely empty platitudes will not constitute the best “catch,” however much at first glance or on a superficial level this may seem a fact.

Hence personality can rescue beauty or make up for a lack of it. In fact, I must confess that I have had crushes in the past ( I stress the word past because I am currently happily married) where the person in mind would have generally failed beauty contests. Yet in such cases, what amazes me about these women is their confidence.

These people are aware that they are not exactly good-looking but they manage to shine with confidence which immerses them with a light that somehow transcends beauty itself. In fact, even an average-looking person with confidence on her side can wipe out the competition of pretty much anyone.

Strangely enough, for beautiful people confidence actually detracts instead of adding to their looks. If you are blessed with looks what would add to your beauty is a moderately timid stance. This is because everyone already knows you are beautiful and if you exude confidence on that respect you will end up appearing cocky. It's when people say that she is beautiful and she knows it!

Let me explain this point by giving examples of movie stardom. Recently, Jennifer Aniston has been named the sexiest woman alive beating out Madonna and arch-rival Angelina. We would think that Angelina may be more interesting or exotic in her looks, but Jennifer comes off as a little shy in comparison, which adds to her overall appeal. I am not claiming that Angelina is shallow or anything like that, but that the confidence that she exudes may eventually work against her. Another ideal would be Nicole Kidman who manages to balance her beauty with her personality. Again I have never had the fortune to have met any of these ladies so I can only speak about appearances, of how they appear to me.

Let us look at an example where looks were replaced by confidence. I must say that I do not find Zooey Deschanel attractive by any classical standards. Yet she has managed to win over people's heart through her personality, at least judging by her movies. She seems to be witty, exuberant, yet at the same time both complex and confident. My knowledge of her is based mainly on (or rather limited to) the movie “500 days of Summer.” There were moments where I did not really see why the male protagonist was so infatuated and captivated by someone who was not that beautiful after all, but again she, to put it in an overused expression, made up for it in the personality department.

So there you have it. An analysis of beauty, personality with the variable of confidence thrown in for good measure. Feel free to completely agree or disagree with me. Yet one thing that strikes me often is that yes, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but this also means that it is hard for us to gauge our own looks because we are willy-nilly biased and also caught up in a world of appearances and media frenzying.

Beauty can be at the same time defined as cultural or dependent on society and media. What constitutes beauty, more so for women, has changed over the years. While plump women used to be considered the ideal body image in the past, we are nowadays often bombarded with images of super-skinny, borderline anorexic women. Despite these fluctuations of taste and fashion, I believe that there is a core tacit agreement on the notion of beauty, even though it cannot be set in stone nor clearly defined or outlined.

Zat you, Santa Claus? Letter and Questions for the Ho-Ho-Ho Man

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 20:42:00 +0000

Dear Santa,

I am writing to you despite the fact that I do not officially believe in you. In fact, I believe that it is more likely that there are aliens out there than the possibility of your existence. Despite all that, you do exist; you exist in the hearts and minds of many children, and I will gladly foster this same belief in my own child.

You see, when my son saw one of your incarnations at your self-named parade, his face glowed with joy. He clasps his hands in awe whenever he sees you on TV, and he is following my own childhood tradition of counting down to Christmas with a chocolate-filled calendar.

I want to say thanks. The innocent bubbles of childhood will burst sooner or later, a victim of temporal circumstance, and we will get more cynical, but, at least, there used to be magical moments once upon a time. We can tap into it every now and then and hopefully at least once a year for memory's or nostalgia's sake.

Actually, dear Santa, I never had the privilege of believing in you. I grew up in an environment that stressed the religious over its more secular and jocular aspects, and yes, you may think you are special but you cannot ever reach the status and respect of the Son of Man who was (supposedly but not really) born around the time you come around from your far-away home in the Cold North.

Ironic, no? You come from the coldest part of the planet to bring us a little warmth. Yes, Humbug aside, Christmas can be special for adults alike. They say it is a time for family, but it is mainly a time of coming to terms and setting priorities. It is the last step before the new year, that point in time of reckoning and resolutions.

I reckon you bring justice in your own way. You punish the naughty witht he absence of toys and joys. But what about adults? Can they escape retribution simply because they have stopped believing in magic and supernatural beings? Are they exempt then? Or do you agree that those people are all naughty and no nice children trapped in adult forms?

Again, Santa, thank you for being so jolly and so round. And I hope to be in your good books this year, presents or not. Either way, I will leave you a glass of milk and cookies on the window sill, just in case you come around.

P.S. Here are some questions for you. Answer them at your leisure because I know you are a busy fellow during the Christmas season.

What is your nationality?

You come from the North Pole, so it means that you have no nationality, right? But then how can you travel to and through places like the United States which is so stringent with passport requirements and border security issues?

What were you like in your younger years?

There is practically no biographical information about you. Who are your parents? What did you think of high school? What is your level of education? Are you romantically linked to anyone?

How do you keep yourself happy?

How do you manage to keep good cheer all the time? Do you listen to Christmas carols nonstop? Do you shun the news?

What do you do the rest of the year?

What do you do when you are not in demand? Do you dedicate yourself to other activities like martial arts or monopoly? Do you watch movies? Who do you hang out with, reindeer excepted?

Do you know what the word “ho” means and that your first name comes dangerously close to a dangerous evil entity?

Purpose or just a crazy coincidence?

Keeping it Real and Being against the Art of Flattery

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:13:00 +0000

Stańczyk by Jan Matejko

They say that if you want a job nowadays, it is all about the contacts you have. Although education is important (and beneficial) and although your resume may be bolstered by hands-on experience, it will be much more difficult for you to land the job unless you do a little bit of networking on the side. Or as they also say, it is not what you know but who you know.

Despite my belief that merits should speak for themselves, I can see how personal characteristics can be vital in the job market. The employer who either directly or from hearsay can vouch for the job-seeker's personality will choose you because personality goes a long way. Sure, the employer can always check and verify your references but it would save them a lot of time and hassle if you are at least somewhat familiar to them.

I do not doubt that personality should be a major factor in hiring decision. Someone who has education and experience but has a lousy temper or lacks professionalism in their demeanor or actions may not be as qualified as others who make up in the personality department by being cheerful, responsible, independent and a team-player at the same time.

All this preamble will (eventually) lead us to the main topic at hand here: flattery. Networking may get you the job but in order to keep it or to advance in it, many people use flattery to their advantage.

Flattery is as old as Swiss cheese. It was used freely and extensively among the aristocrats, for example. When you are facing a despot king who may lack rhyme and reason but who still had power and authority, in particular, power over your life and fate, then you would be wise to flatter him to be and remain in his good books. I believe one of the best examples to be the fairy tale “The Emperor's New Clothes” where everyone agreed to flatter the king on his super-lightweight, non-existent clothes. To state the truth in such a situation means risking imprisonment or even death.

It has been a similar case with the royal advisers of old. Afraid of giving “bad” news, they would flatter the king, conveniently gloss over his errors, diminish and conceal the reasons for defeat, especially if the king's decisions had a hand in it. The only person at court who would give real advice would be the court jester or clown. Being considered a fool anyway, he had nothing to lose and in Shakespearean manner he could criticize and expose the king's flaws, although Shakespeare may have romanticized that notion to a certain degree.

Yet the point here is that flattery has not gone extinct and is still at full force even within modern democratic systems. For instance, it is alive and kicking in the modern job market.

Professional flatterers exclaim that it is a jungle out there, a world of dog-eat-dog so they are merely trying to survive. By making the boss feel good about herself their chances of survival would increase, according to their logic. Face it, next time there is a higher position at stake, it is not usually timid hardworking Joe who gets promoted but charming verbal master Steve.

To shed some more light on this situation, let us define flattery here. Flattery is information that regardless of its validity is meant to please the recipient. There are other derogatory terms used for such behavior, “boot-licker” and “ass-kisser,” for instance, but I am not here to insult anyone, so we shall play it fair and clean.

As can be seen, the motive is to make the boss feel good about himself and it is purely for selfish reasons because the flatterer is driven by ambition and wants to succeed. Flattery is hence not only an art form but can be used as a weapon. It is a form of art because there are certain skills involved, and the professional flatterer knows them by heart and has them imprinted on his sleeve.

A little bit of flattery here and there may be all right although I am instinctively opposed to it as a rule. Honesty and integrity are often not so compatible with the flatterer. And they can be scrupulous. In order to reach their goal, these ambitious people may even use gossip, flattery's dark sister, to get to their position.

After winning the trust of the boss through affected kind words and a show of steadfastness, the flatterer has worked his way up to the boss's confidence. Then comes the cruel blow, a piercing comment about a co-worker which, true or not, may be the end of that person. And the flatterer is deep inside quite insecure and envious and she would not want the co-workers to “steal” from her what she “rightfully” sees as her own, job security or the desired upcoming promotion.

Unfortunately, in the real world, these flatterers do get what they want regardless of whether they are truly qualified or not. They charm their way through but deep inside they resemble snakes that can bite and poison you with words and deeds at any given moment. So whether you are a co-worker or a boss, please heed this advice: Beware of the hidden fangs of the flatterer!

Different Meanings of Possession

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:18:00 +0000

There are many things we can possess, ranging from the tangible, such as property, cars, shoes, and jewelry to the intangible, such as status, reputation, success, and ideas. There are other things that are a little bit of both, for example, a bank account with money in the form of numerical statements, credit card bills or electronic money and credits. But we are led to believe that we can possess all of these things and much more.

Regardless of whether it is tangible or intangible, to possess is an active verb. It denotes ownership, that something is mine and that it is, at least conceptually, in opposition to ideas of any notion of "shared" ownership. One may possess "part" of something, say a shared business venture or you may even “share” your possessions with your wife and family, but at its core most of us prefer sole ownership and we may even extend this idea to people, such as possessing a family inclusive of wife and kids.

But we refrain from using the verb possess here, which may appear too aggressive and uncompromising. So instead we use the verb to have. We then have a family, a car, a business, a job. It can even be extended to include rather abstract ideas, such as time. To claim that you “have no time” implies that time is something that can be possessed and not be possessed at different times. Similarly, it may be commonplace but equally bizarre to state that your body is yours. Is your body your possession? Is your mind for that matter? Can you lose ownership, let's say in terms of “losing” your mind, which once used to be yours but now is up for grabs? Or what about selling, renting or sharing your body with others?

This leads us to another matter, that although we may possess objects and people, we can also be possessed by them. The verb to be possessed has now become passive and we turn into victims because it is the thing itself that is driving us. In such terms, to be possessed is similar to be haunted or obsessed in the sense that you are about to lose or have already lost control. For instance, you can be possessed by certain ideas so that it becomes more difficult to think clearly. The idea that you "possess" can come to haunt you and you will "be possessed" by it.

In other words, you need to be careful. The things you claim to possess can, in fact, take over and possess you. Think about money, for instance. Most of us may work hard to get our hands on a little bit of this sought-after, more often than not, elusive item. At first, we may be aware that money is nothing but paper which, nonetheless, gives us the means to have financial transactions. We can buy this and that and it will become ours then.

However, once you start collecting money as paper or as growing numerical figures on electronic screens, some people lose control. Instead of possessing it they become possessed by it, or at least the idea of money. We then forget that money is symbolic and that it is a means not an end in itself; in our confusion, we cannot think clearly (obsessed as we are) and may spend years, even a lifetime, seeking it.

In the same way, we may be possessed by fixed ideas, which can include religion for that matter. People who become so possessed with this subject that they lose sight of what it really was that attracted them to religion in the first place.

And it is only a small step from possession to obsession. If you are aware that whatever you have, tangible or intangible, is nothing but a loan, including the most precious of them all, your own life, then you may be able to see the fallacy of any type of so-called ownership. Yes, we may own cars and computers, but they are impermanent things and will break down sooner or later. And then we are left with nothing.

PS: Dear Readers! Sorry I have been rather absent here lately. I have been possessed by work and have possessed very little time for writing. On the bright side, I have possessed ideas so soon there should be a more steady flow of writing again.

Being a Father – Three Years Later: The Question of Discipline and Authority

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:58:00 +0000

As I continue jotting down some of my personal perspectives on the progressive stages of fatherhood, I must say that there is so much happening at any given time period that I will not be able to do the subject justice. Yet it goes with the common piece of wisdom that you do not really know what it is like until you experience it yourself.

And, in fact, these are my personal experiences and observations yet they will tend to be universal among many fathers out there. At the same time, this is not meant to sound in any way superior or haughty on my part but I am simply stating that two fathers who truly care about their offspring will understand each other with a simple glance.

My son never ceases to amaze me. The fact that communication has become much less of an obstacle and that there are a host of topics to talk about is only part of the matter. He can string full, and for the most part grammatically correct, sentences, but it is rather more amazing that he has begun to reason. Yesterday evening I told him that I would buy him something he wanted, and he just pointed to the window claiming that it was too dark for me to go outside and buy the mentioned item. I had to bow my head and accept his convincing logical point.

And then there is a slew of questions that show a budding desire with an almost despairing and impatient sense of curiosity. I have also both anticipated and dreaded this moment. It is part of his education, and I will do my best to foster and try to assuage his curiosity; yet at the same time, I dread it because it will probably reveal to him his father's gaps and holes of knowledge.

I am of the persuasion that children know and understand much more than we give them credit for and that we should never underestimate children nor stunt their intellectual growth. Hence, especially over the past year, I have engaged in reasoning with him as much as possible. Mostly I have been successful; at other times, the tantrum may have been too intense for logic to find a passage and break through.

When it comes to parenting, I instinctively do not like authoritarian behaviour on the part of parents. The intentions may be good and many will claim that such behaviour is meant to create discipline and responsibility. However, I believe that discipline is something that needs to be internalized so that it can become a force to be reckoned with. Outward discipline as well as motivation is too contingent on the presence of authority. Once the presence is removed, so is the threat of punishment and hence the disciple in question will fall back and return to his or her “undisciplined” way of life.

As a result, I will try to ensure that my son will learn to respect authorities up to a certain degree. I will not stand for “blind obedience,” not even to myself for that matter, because authority that is not questioned will bring more problems than benefits. And here we return to the importance and necessity of reasoning.

If my child is equipped with reason to think for himself and be able to recognize flaws and holes in arguments, the best kind of weapon for life, then he should be fine. In fact, I meticulously avoid stock phrases like Because I say so or I know best and replace them with reasons and explanations that I deem appropriate for his level of understanding. Daddy may know a few things here and there, but unfortunately Daddy does not know everything. Nobody does. But at least we are trying.

God as a Piece of Heavenly Cake

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Sat, 24 Sep 2011 22:43:00 +0000

Religious debates will go on for all eternity and it is as rare as a blue moon that religious authorities come to a consensus or see eye to eye. In fact, more commonly there will be splits and rifts within a religious body. Whether it is Buddhism with its small and large spinning wheels and vehicles or the debate over the legitimacy and authority of the Pope and the use of confessional booths or even delicate and controversial questions concerning the Holy Book, disagreements abound and little consensus is reached. Religion seen globally and historically is filled with instances of conflicts and quarrels.

But why? If we look at the main world religions, they have actually more in common than they would dare to admit. Indeed Christianity, Islam, Judaism believe in a God that has very similar characteristics, while in Hinduism there may be many gods but they are, when all is said and done, manifestations of a unifying divine spirit. As to Buddhism, they may have a slightly different depiction of what constitutes divinity, a more introspective universal embodiment but essentially there is not much of a serious clash either to the aforementioned representations of God.

So here is my proposal. Let us all agree and live in peace. Let us all partake of the divinely delicious (or deliciously divine) heavenly cake. Think big. A cake that supersedes the Tower of Babel, but unlike the tower, one that unites instead of alienating people. Now this cake that is enough to fill the stomach and mind of every being on this planet can easily be divided into pieces. So for all those religions who want to be in the right or who prefer to think they are the only true religion, you can have your own slice and eat it too.

The amazing thing about this cake is that every slice contains the divine essence and is, ipso facto, infinite. In fact, as a mathematical expression if you divide infinity by five you will still be in the infinite range. Such would be the case of God. Whether you divide Him (or Her or It or Them) you will still end up with more than you can chew and handle. There is no need to want the whole cake; no need for excessive greed or pride or arrogance for that matter. To each their own piece of cake.

This leads us to the following question: Whose slice of cake is actually better? Would that make a difference though? They are all from the same cake and just for argument's sake, they have been divided in equal parts (in reality it is a difficult task when you are dealing with infinity). Can you claim that your piece tastes better than the other person's?

And then we are caught up again in a world not made of facts but opinions. The fact is I am eating a cake, which can be defined with certain properties and characteristics. This one has frosting but of different flavors and colors, just to add a bit of variety because I highly doubt God to be monotonous and I believe Him to be the best chef or pastry-maker there is in this or any other universe.

Suddenly we are not dealing with facts anymore. What we are considering is not a fact, but an opinion. And opinions are exactly that; they are what and how people think and feel about certain issues. When it comes to taste you cannot claim that this food tastes better than the other based on reason or empirical facts. It seems ridiculous to claim that one's cake tastes better simply because you prefer lemon over chocolate! Lemon is great, but so is chocolate. Yet some people do not like either. They should not burn in hell for their taste buds and culinary preferences, don't you think?

Opinions then cannot be judged on a scale of right or wrong. They are reflections of personality, genetics, culture, upbringing and personal taste. So let's all have cake and let us share and break dessert together. And if you do not like my slice of cake, I will have to live with it and so do you, but at least neither one of us will hunger in mind or spirit because there is more than enough cake going around for everyone.

What it might feel like when Epiphany kicks in

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 17:32:00 +0000

Insight, epiphany, understanding, sudden realization – it comes under a variety of names, shades and classifications. In short, they are moments when something (or everything) suddenly comes into focus and you grasp it better. It is the camera lens that zooms in and gives us a crystal-clear image of what is really going on within and without us. But once you are lucky enough for this realization to kick in -- and in my opinion it is a matter of time and effort -- what will be your reaction?

There are two possible types of reactions I can think of when the moment of realization takes place. The first one would be that reality was all a sham. It is suddenly realizing or perhaps being told that life has been not only an illusion, but actually a kind of cosmic joke. It's like an episode of “Punk'd” or “Candid Camera,” where the host (God? An angel? The devil?) points towards the secret hidden camera.

When that moment arrives, there are two kinds of reactions. You may feel frustrated and angry. You may want to sue the host for wasting your time and making you suffer all for nothing. You may be angry to have been taken for a fool.

Or you may be relieved and happy. “I knew it all along,” you may shout out to regain a few shreds of dignity. Or you may smirk about it and be pleasantly surprised. You may even be amazed at the ingenuity of the “host” or “creator.” Or if there be no host, the atheist will give you a sermon on how they were right all this time.

In its Judeo-Christian version, you will be a game-show candidate. You will be told that all your life was just a test, a kind of reality show contest. You will then hear if you have made it or not. Did you win the grand prize? Will you get to enter heaven or did you not play according the rules, did you get disqualified, would you end up in hell for being such a lousy contestant after all? Or will it be a matter of random luck: Choose one among three doors and find out what lies behind it!

Another way we may realize the truth would be what Zen calls satori, generally known as enlightenment. It also contains the element of sudden insight or surprise, you may see it all as a sham, but you would only have yourself to blame. You will be like the dog chasing its tail and suddenly you stop and realize what it was all about. Yes, happiness and salvation were always there in front of your very own eyes. The devil (!) was in the details, and we have spent so many years just running around like a headless chicken, following the unnerving and incessant chatter in our heads. Everything is and has always been beautiful but we just failed to look at it properly.

Either way, I do believe one day there will be insight and everything will make sense. Perhaps not in human terms and perhaps not even very logical, but one moment will come in this (or the other) life where everything proverbially speaking falls into place. And yes, if the atheist is right, we would just fall into eternal sleep. Life may have been nonsense, but at that point, who cares, there is nobody to feel or regret anything and one would dissolve with all the natural elements and become enmeshed with loose particles whirling in the empty air.

Chris Hedges and the Dilemmas of the Liberal Christian

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:13:00 +0000

Chris Hedges

There is often a strong imbalance when it comes to the media and its coverage of religion. The media mostly focuses on the more sensational and often downright outrageous events and claims and is not so much interested in showing a balanced perspective. This is not necessarily out of vicious or deliberate intentions but rather because news must sell and the best kind of news is of the sensational type.

As a result, religion, a highly personal and controversial topic, is given ample treatment but predominantly of its most extreme aspects. In such cases, Islam becomes willy-nilly intimately tied with Islamicism and Christianity with the fundamental Christian right movement hence ignoring a large part of both Christian and Muslim communities that are more liberal and tolerant in their views and attitude and that continuously promote peace and understanding. Just to give one example on the Christian side, based on the media coverage one can get the bloated or distorted impression that all Christians believe in the pseudo-scientific claims of creationism and that hardly any Christian accepts the theory of evolution.

In reality, there are various theists who advocate evolution theory and have done so in the past. Not every Christian denomination claims that the Bible never errs, especially when it clashes with generally held and understood scientific claims. There are other instances such as the belief in slavery which every true Christian would -- or rather must -- object to on moral grounds but which seems rather commonplace and accepted in the Holy Book. That being said, I am certain that most Christians are opposed to the idea of slavery.

My intention here is not to discredit or bash certain rather irrational aspects of Christianity. I strongly embrace the healthy view of equilibrium. My focus here is mainly a defense for “god-fearing” intellectuals like Chris Hedges who share an uneasy fate and find themselves in no man's land because they are in the crossfire from both sides: a) The liberals who often deny the existence of God, b) Those who consider themselves devout believers and who think that being liberal betrays the foundation of their religion.

Many liberals nowadays opt to turn their back on religion which they may regard as a limiting ideology. The fact that there are even people who believe that Creationism should be even taken seriously, let alone taught in schools, is demonstrated as evidence for a narrow-minded and misguided perception of the world. In addition, many intellectuals are wary of religious dogma which has unfortunately been used to control and manipulate people and which is, has been and will be the cause of many wars because of its tendency, intentionally or not, to support bigotry, prejudice and hatred.

Furthermore, most scientists who embrace the scientific method find no reason for an existence of God since the mechanical view of the world does not need to make room for a creator. Science may have created some certitude and bragging rights regarding predictions on nature, yet at the same time, it has made us humble showing us that we are not at the center of the universe and that physical laws can explain various processes without having to resort to an omnipotent creator and controller of the world. As such, intellectuals like Chris Hedges who mainly subscribe to the liberal ideas but continue to believe in God by finding a compromise between the realms of science and religion are sadly in the minority.

Yet such a Christian liberal faces opposition at his own camp, so-to-speak. Many religious groups are wary of putting any sort of limits on the Bible and the powers of the Almighty. These people subscribe fanatically and unconditionally to the will of God and eye advances in science with suspicion.

They believe that technological and medical advances would infringe on the powers of God. If stem cell research continues and cloning is practiced at a fuller scale it is considered interference and tampering not only with nature but with God's (often inscrutable and mysterious) plans. In other words, the scientist and the liberal are regarded with great suspicion for they seem to be playing God; they are the ones who are constantly eating from and digesting the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge, an act curiously enough considered a grave sin.

So the liberal Christian becomes isolated and has no friends on either side of the spectrum. He finds himself in a comprising situation, but it makes him so much more courageous because he is defying the general stream. He is swimming against the current by holding onto his own truly felt and experienced beliefs. And at the same time, he is free and tied to no specific side or dogma.

Religion, Law and the Need and Desire for Justice

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 17:21:00 +0000

Triumph of Justice by Hans von Aachen

Throughout history, people have been drawn to religion for a variety of reasons. Religious belief and practice often fulfill social, psychological and philosophical needs. Therein included are also the big existential questions like the purpose and meaning of life, the question of the afterlife, and a strong need, desire and longing for justice in a seemingly ambivalent world.

The meaning of life is ultimately a highly subjective question and in this case I subscribe to the existential and multifarious trend of choosing the best path for the given individual or, to dress it in colloquial jargon, the unobtrusive and egalitarian “whatever floats your boat” philosophy. When it comes to existence after existence, I have blogged about the mystery of the hereafter to a limited extent in my questions about the afterlife post. Here I would like to focus mainly on the need and desire for justice.

As a child, we rely on our parents as the ever-present enforcers of justice. In our eyes, they punish the wicked and reward the good. We hold onto the “childlike” belief that there is a justified and just moral order in the universe. At this point our morality is still in its budding infancy but when it comes to ethical questions we sense -- or may even deeply believe -- that good actions, such as being honest and telling the truth, not intentionally causing harm or suffering onto others will bring us benefits, candy, higher allowance, sometimes even abstract and intangible benefits to our psychology and well-being in forms of praise and respect.

On the other side of the spectrum, being “bad” is tied to negative consequences, such as (God forbid) corporal punishment, a decrease in allowance, and a denial of our wishes and desires, especially on the items petitioned for in a Christmas letter to Dear Santa. The latter by the way can be a useful tool for disciplining children in terms of negative reinforcement since evidently Santa asks parents if their children are well-behaved and his opinion and judgment carry weight and matter indeed.

However, soon enough we make some of our first and initially painful realizations about life. Our parents, after all, are human beings, and they are limited in their powers. They have to obey the law (not only of gravity but also the rules of society) and have to accept its representatives; the priest can order them about; they have bosses at work who are superior to them while our dear parents must swallow their pride if they do not want to lose their position (= income and livelihood) and so on and so forth. Moreover, they have their own share of flaws and weaknesses. In other words, they lose some of the power we had inferred upon them in our childish naivete as glorious bringers of justice.

As a result, they need to be replaced. The common phrase of retributive justice I will tell my Mommy / Daddy tinged with a fair amount of threat translates into its abstract equivalent I will call the authorities. The police then becomes the principal and most visible enforcer and embodiment of the law in addition to a host of government organizations.

Yet soon enough, we recognize the flaws of such fallible systems, we realize that even the sanctified law has its pitfalls and biases, not to mention its own price. You can literally get away with murder if you play your cards right or if you are rich and / or famous. This often profoundly affects, even shakes our belief in the justice system that is run, after all, by humans and humans tend to err being far from perfect while at the same time having to deal with their own demons and temptations.

So who can ensure that justice is served on our little planet? That is when some may desperately and pleadingly turn to God to fill the void. He is the Heavenly Father and hence very different and much more potent than the puny earthly one we are given down here. He ensures that Justice is served and whenever it seems that the opposite is the case we hold onto the belief that the wicked will be punished in the other life to come and will burn in eternal flames, while the good (like us) will have goods aplenty in the next life.

I am aware that my phrasing may make me sound like a cynic but far from it. I do believe in the ubiquitous balancing act of unseen karma. Eventually everything will be sorted out. The universe is operating on a rational and moral order; it is too structured to revert to chaos and randomness. It is the Logos or that divine and eternally vibrating and echoing Word that fills hearts and souls with the promise of Justice, served and redeemed for all.

Columbus as Brave Explorer or Grave Murderer

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 19:02:00 +0000

Christopher Columbus (or rather Cristobal Colon) is often celebrated as a hero and has been assigned his own personal day alongside truly remarkable people like Martin Luther King Jr. Columbus defied many obstacles and managed to sail halfway around the world. His bravery and determination led to one of the most significant discoveries in world history. Christopher Columbus brought us sugarcane and the land of great dreams and promises that the American continent has ensured for centuries since.

Upon reading Howard Zinn, I saw a completely different facet to this account of history. Previously, I was aware that Columbus' main motive and driving force were stacks of gold and that his discovery was sheer luck based on serious miscalculation. At the same time, he was also religious to the bone, and he was planning to bring his own message of salvation to any primitive people he might run into along the way, whom he collectively and erroneously referred to as “Indians.”

In fact, his arrogance, greed and ethnocentrism knew no bounds. When meeting native Indians, his head was filled with material gain. The Arawaks welcomed him and shared all their possessions with the newcomers, not having been exposed and contaminated by the unnatural love for money and gold. But to Columbus they seemed naive, even insane. Who in their right mind would share their possessions so freely, especially with a stranger?

So instead of enjoying and thanking them for their unbridled hospitality, he forced them to show him where the gold was hid. It did not help the cause of the Arawaks that they did not have any weapons except spears made of cane which were definitely no match to the swords and armor of the Spaniards. In fact, Columbus noted with amusement that when he produced a sword the natives were so clumsy and so ignorant that they accidentally cut themselves with its blade.

To add to his profits Columbus decided to take various Indians captive so he could sell them as slaves back in his home country for an extra bit of earning. That various of them died on the trip especially due to the harsh conditions and the cold climate must have been a blow to his income and pride, but it hardly touched his personal integrity.

Moreover, his sailors who remained behind at the fort called “Navidad” fell short of the Christmas spirit and gifts; they took absolute control over the island, forcing the natives into labor, raping their girls and women while killing those who resisted these abject and inhumane living conditions. In fact, various Arawaks saw no other way out and committed mass suicide through poisoning.

Some of the cruelty as observed by Bartolomé de Las Casas was that Indians were knifed by the sailors to test the sharpness of their blade and a particularly horrifying incident in which sailors took away the parrots of two native boys beheading the kids just for fun while keeping the parrots.

One of the unspoken and often overlooked legacies of the “Admiral of the Seas” was the decimation of large parts of the native population. Instead of peace and salvation, he mostly brought the natives violence, hatred, death and destruction. These inhabitants were driven off, regarded as subhumans and were exploited ruth- and heartlessly. Religious values, such as empathy, compassion, justice were all wiped out by the incentive for power, control and wealth.

Despite all, Columbus is still revered and is given his day in the United States. The bloodshed is buried and forgotten, perhaps even forgiven, just like a bitter aftertaste from the past that is dissolved by the sweet success of subsequent generations of settlers, all of which has led to the impressive world status and industry of this young budding nation and its annual celebration of Columbus Day.

Maya and the Physical versus the Metaphysical

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 01:34:00 +0000

Erasmus Darwin's The Temple of Nature

Maya, I have claimed elsewhere, can be approached from two different perspectives. One builds on the assumption that everything “out there” is Maya. Everything we encounter in daily life is illusion, regardless of whether it causes suffering or joy. The second approach is that everything could be real but our minds distort them and turn them into unreal images. In that sense, a cleansing of vision and mind is necessary, the same way a dirty or broken mirror cannot give off an accurate or valid reflection of objects.

Here I want to approach the phenomena of Maya from a slightly different angle. Maya is similar to the first view in that physical objects are not real. Anything that is material is impermanent, so it decays according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Our body, for example, falls into the same category. Moreover, one can claim that physical objects are not what they seem. On a subatomic level, they are merely atoms moving in space and hence their form or rather existence is illusive.

Taken to its extreme, this view would discredit science, which is based on physical phenomena and evidence. It is not to say that it is wrong, but rather that it is not infallible. Science looks at events that are part of an illusive process thus it examines that which is constantly passing away. It is trying to explain and make sense of the inexplicable in a rational manner. In other words, it disregards the “spiritual” elements that are what give each object and person their “life” and “breath.”

As a result, both our bodies and everyday objects only seem to exist as they are. What projects them into our consciousness is their spiritual essence, that which makes each object and body unique. Through the breath of life, they are transformed from an indeterminate physical object to being, and they exist in the concrete reality with space and time as reference points.

How can objects possibly come to life? Therein lies the problem of science. It not only classifies and categorizes but it also presupposes that matter is “dead,” without will and consciousness and hence predictable. This may be the reason why science has generally failed to make sense of humankind and has delegated this topic to the hybrid field of psychology.

But science may also become flawed because it is the scientist who analyzes and determines what science is, adding more speculation and relativity to this method that aims at objectivity. Unless the vision of such a person be cleansed from any framework, i. e. influences or traces of Maya in forms of distortion, illusion, cultural baggage, science will not be fully accurate.

To return to the matter of Maya, it seems that we can break it up into two parts, the physical and the metaphysical. The physical then is all that can be observed, weighed, measured and analyzed. This is mainly the focus of science and scientific pursuits. However, the metaphysical is beyond the grasp of full understanding, as it is slippery, knows and follows no definite rules or laws and elopes human prediction and comprehension, at least at the current point of our limited perspective and knowledge.

The realm of religion and spirituality might give us some hints or answers toward understanding the truth about metaphysical aspects. However, this information is ought to be taken with caution as the forces of Maya, in this case ignorance or misunderstanding, can easily overrun the profound spiritual aspects and teachings.

Similarly, a too rigid hold on science and scientific knowledge is also full of Maya as the person is deluded in thinking that the world in all its aspects can be fully grasped and reduced to a simple formula. It boils down to the fact that in order to diminish Maya, we need to render upon science what belongs to science, give religion its own independent territory, while at the same time allowing free and unbiased interchange and exchange of ideas between the two different-minded camps.

Fascist Governments and the Freedom and Self-Expression of the Arts

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:20:00 +0000

Any fascist government, regardless of ideological background has been wary or downright hostile toward the arts. Whether it is the Nazis burning books, the Communists banning and prohibiting works, or any other government or organization that actively censors works of art on the grounds of ideology, art is seen as a subversive threat to their hegemony, while the artist and intellectual are the marked and targeted enemies of such societies.

Nonetheless, such governments have used the value of art for their own sake as a tool of propaganda. They ensure tight control on materials, their hand poised over the censorship button to select what kinds of messages may be transmitted, at the same time ensuring that their own standpoint is presented in a clear and visible manner.

In other words, they take away the original and creative expression of artists and use the same method to fabricate their own brand of stifled and limited art to win over or rather to brainwash and lull the hearts of minds of their citizens. When it does not work through “positive” means, such as reinforcement and rewards, the flag of punishment is waved and those who step out of line in their behavior or thinking shall meet the iron rod of discipline.

In fact, the goal of any fascist state is uniformity. It builds on the premise of a false and strongly deluding sense of equality through identification. The trump card of fascism has always been blaming scapegoats but mainly on the basis that they are the unwanted “other,” the ones who stand out, the ones who are different, whether in appearance, lifestyle or belief system.

The strange and unknown is often perceived as a threat and these totalitarian manipulators ruthlessly exploit this fact. On the other hand, cultures that are multicultural, tolerant and accepting of other people and lifestyles are more resistant to the fascist disease.

In societies where self-expression is encouraged, it becomes easier to see the other person's point of view. This is one of the great achievements of literature and the humanities. In our ordinary consciousness we can never know what the other person is thinking and feeling. We get glimpses through their behaviors and words but we can never fully put ourselves in the other person's shoes so-to-speak.

In literature, however, the expressive and courageous writer can expose herself. It is like a cosmos that is opened up for all to see. We learn about the plights of people through fiction and biographies. We see that they, whether gays, foreigners, Jews, Muslims, are essentially human beings who want, desire and feel exactly the same things we do. Strip away the outward differences and practices and you will end up with a person exactly like us.

This is what the totalitarians cannot stand. They prefer you think in simplistic black-and-white terms. It is easier to go to war when you believe that the other side is not only wrong but downright evil. You think yourself a hero because you are under the impression you are doing a moral deed by killing the "bad guys."

The so-called enemy is then singled out and many other facts are blocked out. They are stripped of their humanity and are not sons of other people; they are not husbands and caregivers of their family, not somebody's brother or friend or loved one. They are just militants that have come to destroy your nation because they personally hate you. This kind of thinking is encouraged by both sides of the conflict and most of the populace is ignorant and bounce around empty slogans and subscribe to bankrupt ideologies.

But as long as there is freedom of self-expression, when media is allowed to show both sides of any conflict, when everyone gets a chance to speak up and ask tough and probing questions, only then do we have a chance to break through the walls of ignorance and fanaticism. Otherwise, look out your window because the next fascist group is parading just around the corner.

How Teaching is Similar to Directing

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:49:00 +0000

The Schoolmaster by Adriaen van Ostade

It has been one of my life-long dreams to become a movie director, seconded by a career in writing. In terms of directing I had my first taste when I made a short film alongside a friend of mine and the experience was wonderful and rewarding. At the same time, I got to sense some of the difficulties that may come with this line of work.

Anyhow, I ended embarking upon a teaching career. In fact, there are a few similarities between the two professions. The idea came to me when I realized that apart from every teacher having their own style, quirks and trademarks, the same lesson plan can have completely different outcomes, the same way two directors with identical scripts will not produce identical movies.

One of the decisions film-makers must make is the pace of their work. Does or should the movie follow a deliberately slow or an action-packed fast pace? Is the film able to consistently keep the interest of the viewer?

Pacing is the rhythm of the work / class. Most of it is related to instinct and experience. A seasoned director will notice that certain parts of the movie may slow it down unnecessarily or that some segments do not contribute to the main flow of the storyline. Although digressions may work in some instances by adding variety to the work, too many of them will confuse, bore or irritate the viewer.

In a classroom the lesson plan is your script. You will have time allotted to each activity, but the estimated times are only approximations. In reality, you will often have to adjust to the students' needs and their previous knowledge. Some activities may be extended while others need to be reduced or modified. The drawback of teaching is that you will not have a lot of time to reflect since, unlike a director, you cannot cut and edit a finished work in the studio; as an educator, you have to do it during the class itself.

The experienced teacher will also realize which activities work and which ones should be scrapped. Some will incite interest and participation, while others will feel like beating a dead horse. Whether you have spent sufficient time on an activity, whether you have “milked” it all the way, is what the teacher needs to decide on the spot, which makes it important to ...

Improvise

To be creative is one of the main requirements of certain professions, especially in the arts. Both teaching and directing revolve around the ability to spontaneously react to situations and challenges.

I cannot speak much about directing due to my lack of experience in the field, but there were moments where we had to solve unexpected and unforeseen problems on location. Due to the fact that the shooting days were limited, we needed to come up with a solution quickly. What may cause feelings of distress in some is a welcome challenge for others.

As a teacher you may be very well-prepared, but there are always what I call the “technical pitfalls.” For example, you bring a transparency or slide to the classroom but the projector does not work. The DVD or CD you brought skips and stops without warning. As a rule, I always have a Plan B (and sometimes even “C”) when I come to class because I enter with the expectation that something “will go wrong.” But even though I abide by Murphy's Law, I am still caught off guard every now and then.

So I improvise. I quickly grab hold of the situation by coming up with something that will not only fill the allotted time but that is educational and intellectually satisfying and stimulating for the students. Yet this does not only apply to “emergencies” or “unforeseen circumstances.” Since we as educators are purveying and gauging the mood of our students, we often need to change our plan on the spot to achieve a better outcome.

A director too has to be on his toes at all times. A line that may have looked great in writing does not always translate or ring true from the mouths of the actors. Then you need to change it, improvise. Also, it would be a good idea to give your actors / students a certain amount of autonomy and control. Get them involved in the decision process but be sure that they do not take over. That's why it is important to remember that you are the one who is ...

Calling the Shots

Let's face it: Ultimately you are in charge. Whether your film or class is successful depends mostly on you. As teachers we tend to blame the students, their lack of interest, knowledge, motivation, participation, but all in all, we are responsible for providing an interesting and stimulating class to them. That is our job.

A director cannot distance himself from his work either and excuses will get him only so far out of his responsibilities. The class in retrospect, just like the movie, is a finished product. And when they are falling apart, you are the one who needs to take control and guide the whole thing in the desired direction.

Obviously, digressions are a welcome relief from a fixed structure, but keep in mind your main goals and objectives. Have my students accomplished what we set out to do? If there is disturbance, say an unruly student, you need to ensure that it does not throw off the direction of the class. Those are moments when the teacher-director is called upon to be strict and to demonstrate who is running the show.

That does not mean that the actor-students are left out of the creative process. Quite to the contrary, they actually enrich it all. It is their ideas that add salt to the class environment. Without students or actors, our line of profession would not only suffer but be, in fact, impossible.

Christianity, Karma and the Culture of Prosperity

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 01:31:00 +0000

Jacob Riis, Children sleeping in Mulberry Street (1890)

In medieval times, the knight considered himself a holy warrior fighting in the name of God. He would justify not only the means of violence and brutal slayings of the so-called infidels, he also strongly believed that God was on his side. Such belief systems that God will be on the side of the victor and punish the opponent was widely held in those times.

When there was a duel or battle between knights, it was said that the one favored would gain victory by divine will and right. The outcome would often be a form of justice and restoration of order ordained by God. Constantine, for example, attributed his victory to the divine aid and interference of the Christian God and, as a result, embraced and promoted Christianity for his kingdom.

Nowadays, many people tend to judge result and outcome on similar criteria. It is based on the simplified karmic belief that if you do good, you will have positive results but those who do bad, will get their deserved punishment.

Yet when we look at the order of things in the world, we sometimes come to doubt this philosophy. It often seems that evil is triumphing since dictators and charlatans are gaining important positions everywhere. In these cases, religion steps in to create a balance by claiming that no matter what happens in the world, in the end, there will be justice and the good will gain entry into paradise, while the evil will burn in hell for all eternity.

So far so good. I believe in the importance of doing good regardless of personal benefits. At the same time, I embrace the belief that good people tend to get rewarded in life though it is not always as clear-cut as that. Those who commit evil acts I think live in ignorance or have a completely erroneous perception of what life is all about and why values and humanitarian concern are of utmost importance. In other words, they confuse material wealth and power with spiritual advancement.

Nonetheless, the karmic system is often turned on its head in most of Christianity, especially when it comes to its fundamental or radical offshoots. These ideas have their roots in Calvinist doctrines of the “culture of prosperity.” In fact, Luther's idea of following your vocation is transformed into using your talents to make money.

So people who have managed to become successful -- and the focus is on financial success -- are seen as favored by God. People strive to amass wealth because God is said to reward the faithful by giving them access to luxury. If you are rich according to this pseudo-ideology, consider yourself blessed.

If the rich are favored by God, then that would mean that the poor are in such a state because of either a lack of effort, of faith or perhaps even both. This reliance on full personal responsibility completely avoids looking at any socioeconomic or political reasons for poverty. The fact that the “blessed” rich have exploited people driving them deeper and deeper into the abyss of poverty while at the same time increasing their own profits is conveniently overlooked in this way of thinking.

However, the problem is even more complex than that. We live in and are surrounded by a culture of prosperity. The media presents us the lives of the rich and we are like hungry folks craving a slice of the delicious cherry pie. We are the majority of the people in this world; we are the peasants standing outside of the gorgeous palace not unlike the beginnings of the French Revolution; we are gazing with incredulous eyes and drooping mouths at the glamorous excess and beautiful lavish lifestyle of the rich and famous.

But the ones in power are smarter than before; they have learned their lessons. They envelop us skillfully in intricate webs of rhetoric and logical inconsistencies, absurdities and make believe. One day, this could be you if you only work hard but mostly if you give yourself completely to the power of our power-hungry god. If you accept our conditions unconditionally and do exactly as we tell you then even you can dine with us inside.

The fact that the American dream has come up empty and has ended up as a sham for most people has led many of the powerful elite to use the language of religion. They manage to distort the values and commendable religious teachings to serve their own needs while playing on our desires and insecurities. No, money is not the root of evil; it is considered a blessing in this religion of prosperity.

Why is it Difficult to Give Peace a Chance

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 16:42:00 +0000

Although most of us know both consciously and instinctively that peace is the best and most commendable of states and outcomes, we often do the opposite at the micro and macro level. In everyday life there are problems that can be solved in a peaceful manner, yet we frequently resort to conflict-ridden solutions. In politics, diplomacy is often fraught with limitations and difficulties, even equated with weakness, while force and war are chosen as the more “effective” resolution.

There may be two reasons for such a preference or proclivity. Both are based on human nature but different aspects of it. The first one is an issue of gender and gender-related actions. Society portrays and enforces the stereotype of the strong testosterone-driven masculine force, whereas the caring, intuitive and peaceful attitude is attributed to the meek and soft image of the female. This has repercussions on various actions of society and in most cases, religion has been used as a means to propagate such messages in implicit and explicit manners.

The second reason is linked to the realities and facts of human nature. There are some tendencies that reveal our angelic side, while others show that we have demonic capacities as well. It seems to me that war and aggression are more natural responses since it costs us much more effort to preserve and make peace. It is easier to hate and hold a grudge than to forgive and forget.

This general human tendency may be attributed to the dark forces within each of us that Freud called the id, a reservoir in which all our frustrations are stored and hid. It is like the basement that fills up and is cluttered with litter and unwanted junk and that we tend to avoid and sidestep for the very same reason.

Naturally, there is also the element of society and upbringing. Violence is unacceptable and frowned upon. Tantrums may be a natural outburst and release of anger or boredom, but they are heavily criticized. Violent acts in school are not tolerated and censured and other aggressive acts are met with strict disciplinary action. It is our conundrum where we attempt to still and counteract violence with even more violence.

Freud states that it may be of little use to look the other way, to pretend all is well and quiet on the Western front and to ignore the mounds of junk building up in our cellar. Violent impulses if not given expression, through catharsis at least, will go underground and lurk and fester there unbeknownst to us. We might surprise others and ourselves with sudden outbursts that may seem untypical, out of place and out of character for us.

In such a society where peace is on one hand held up as an ideal but is in reality enforced on various levels through efforts that do not preclude aggression, peace becomes an inverse form of violence. Peacekeeping forces waving their guns and bringing about peace through violent means make the achieved end of peace doubtful. Lasting peace cannot be created through the power of force.

On the other side of the spectrum, peace activists who oppose war through violence run themselves into a web of ideological contradictions. Religions that use bellicose language to achieve peace or paradise are doing nothing but fan the waves of violence and hatred. And all those who hate nothing but hatred still demonstrate lingering sparks of hatred.

What can be done then? The first thing we can do is accept that violence is a part of us; it is around us as it is within us. It can be stifled for a while but it cannot be extinguished. There are different ways of venting violence and we would have to find those that cause the least amount of damage to ourselves and others, such as sports or self-expression through the arts.

Moreover, we need to practice peace on a daily basis. It should not be an empty word or promise nor wishful thinking. It needs to be much more than an attitude. We would have to practice peace at any possible moment. We need to find peace of mind within ourselves. And more importantly, we need to be at peace with the violence that is smouldering within.

Different Selves and the Phantom of Personal Unity

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Sat, 23 Jul 2011 02:07:00 +0000

One of the most difficult questions anybody could face is the following: Who are you? Most people will come up with the superficial, uninspired or lazy answer that they are so-and-so.

Imagine your name is actually John Doe. There goes any hope for individuality. But if John Doe answers that he is John Doe, what if one day he decides to legally change his name to Jack Smith? Would he be a completely different person simply because he switched names?

Names feel comforting, and they do give us a sense of continuous identity. People call us by our names, and we tend to refer to ourselves in the same manner. Sometimes nicknames are prompted but they are only a slight addition to the repertoire of names. We cling to our names because they give us stability and even John Doe will get a sense of comfort and will attach a certain relevance and gravity to his name.

But the other problem is that names are given, not chosen or selected. We are born into a certain family whose surname we will carry down the line and our parents choose a given name for us. By the time we are old enough to think and decide for ourselves this name has been ingrained deeply within our consciousness so that we take it for granted; we consider it one with the personal identity we have developed over the years.

So who are we then? Some will say that the essence of the person is their personal soul. Often this essence will have the same name as the name-bearer. It is that which is immortal and will continue in the next life. It is that which will appear after John Doe has traveled on and left the plane of this existence and when he is called upon to reveal himself on the Ouija board. However, what a soul is and how it is manifested is too difficult and complex a question to address here and certainly deserves its own post.

Others define themselves by what they do for a living. It is interesting that we ask what people do for a living, yet when they answer they respond what they are, for example, a doctor, a teacher or a writer. Jobs often mark and shape our personality since most of us spend the majority of our lifetime working in a specific field. This steady exposure obviously must have an effect on our personality.

In fact, there are certain characteristics, sometimes stereotypes that are associated with a given profession. A teacher might correct your grammatical errors even during her off hours, while a psychologist will analyze his friends and family members on the weekends. When we think of politicians, we think of misinformation and manipulation and do not expect them to keep their word or promises even in their private lives.

Related to jobs is also income and social status. In a culture of prosperity, money has a tremendous effect on personality and self-esteem. It builds upon the Puritan spirit which (erroneously) equates wealth in the material world with being favored or even chosen by the divine. So not only are people divided economically and socially into haves and have-nots, they come to see and define themselves accordingly. You are what you have; your possessions come to define who you are.

Yet even if you add up all the different aspects and all the social roles, such as father, son, brother, job, we are still far away from defining who the person really is. We get only close approximations.

The problem is a lack of consistency. Even though people are generally predictable, there is always the occasional curve-ball to throw us off. A responsible person may get caught doing irresponsible acts. A shy person might suddenly throw all caution in the air and surprise us with shocking naughtiness.

One and the same person will also undergo changes, either minor through mood or major because of life experiences or even in some cases diseases. People might undergo transformation in a spiritual manner and find or lose God in the process. These fluctuations influence also the way a person is, their core being, the continuous fluid interaction between nature and nurture, where certain genes are primed while others are neglected.

Moreover, there are the issues of culture, religion, upbringing and nationality. To a large extent, we do not have much of a say in these matters for various years. Some people, however, manage to see beyond most the limitations that these factors may impose on the individual. Yet it is like our childhood, very formative of and highly influential on the later self that we come to adopt over the years.

People are changing all the time. As we are growing up we often grow into another person. There are many facets to each being. Those who accept and understand life as a continuous process will find it easier to adapt to the ebb and flows of their own being. But those who seek or try to hold onto the phantom of unity will often feel pressure and stress because life and existence are like birds averse to being caught and locked up in a cage, no matter how beautiful or well-constructed the cage may be.

The Quaker Way: Silence, Peace and Democracy

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 18:28:00 +0000

William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania

Some of the most known distinguishing characteristics of Quakers may be their clothes, especially the wide-brimmed hats, and the supposed trembling or quaking before the power of God. Others may know them for their contribution to breakfast cereals and chocolate (Cadbury is a Quaker trademark). Still others may confuse them with some of the other more traditional Christian denominations that have consciously turned their back to society or that breed within their own confines.

As with most Christian groups, the Quakers or Friends have also had their share of disagreements over the years and there are distinct parts and parties to Quakerdom. Although they mostly share the main Quaker tenets, there are still vital differences among them. I will discuss here what seems to me the most original aspects of the Quaker belief and lifestyle of its most liberal and, in my view, most influential branch.

Quakers generally believe that everybody has a bit of God within them, a Light that shines in and through each individual, regardless of creed, sex or race. As a result, their religion has been steeped in deep promises of democracy and is filled with humanitarian concerns.

The Quakers, for example, were the first to treat native Indians with kindness and not as barbarians or uncivilized heathens; they accepted and embraced the colored population and fought against slavery; they believed that women ought to have the same rights as men, while in modern times, most liberal-minded Quakers would support equal rights and treatment for people of different sexual orientations.

It is amazing that there is a Christian religious group that would advocate those beliefs consistently and vehemently and to my knowledge, they are one of the few, maybe Unitarians excepted, that have constantly stood up both in words and deeds for equality and human rights.

Part of this reason may lie in the fact that they do not preach and that their own congregations are often marked by bouts of reflection and silence. Friends go to worship and sit in silence. Suddenly when one is moved to say something, that person stands up and shares his or her feelings and thoughts with the others.

Yet mostly their attention is focused inward and they do not merely listen to the preachings of one person or pastor. There is the opportunity for all to speak and reflect in equal measure. They believe that in such moments the Holy Spirit visits and delves among them and often makes them utter some deep contemplations about life, thus unifying them in strength, purpose and belief.

I think it is through silence and private meditation that one can really be and exist in God. If you are compelled to listen to constant talking, you do not have time nor are you given the opportunity to absorb and internalize those ideas. And through such practices Quakers tend to feel more connected not only to their own members but in fact to all members of the human race.

Some of the other influences of Quakers has been their refusal to make oaths and to carry arms. They do not make oaths as it creates a double standard. You are supposed to say the truth in everyday life so why would your word not suffice? Why was it necessary to make another oath in order to ensure you are telling the truth? The word of an honest person shall suffice and the dishonest will lie anyway, whether they are under oath or not.

That belief or practice has gotten them into a lot of trouble, especially in court proceedings as well as political office. In addition, since they see everyone as equal they would not remove their hats for others nor get up or rise for judges. According to the Quakers, these actions serve as outward appearances underscoring the difference and furthering inequality among people.

Their refusal to carry arms lies in their deep-seated belief that war is violence and always wrong. Any violence begets more violence even if it is done for the sake of later good. As such, Quakers generally avoid the draft because of conscientious reasons. During the Civil War, for example, many Quakers focused on helping slaves to escape to the North and supported them in many different ways, such as schooling and humanitarian aid.

Their conviction of nonviolence has had an impact on many important leaders. They are said to have influenced the thinking of Leo Tolstoy, who in return influenced Gandhi, who later had an impact on the beliefs of Martin Luther King Jr. Hence, Quaker thought may have shaped many of our ideas of nonviolence and resistence to war and violence. The fact that Quakers have avoided the war was not based on cowardice since in their tumultuous history they had to endure severe prosecution and in many cases deaths and executions for their strongly held, revolutionary beliefs.

In fact, I cannot but admire people and organizations who stand up for what is right regardless of public opinion. The Quakers had a hand in what is known as the Kindertransport, where the British government agreed to take in and sponsor over 10,000 Jewish children to escape prosecution from the Nazis. Quakers have consistently taken care of those who have become victims of war and often helped the supposed enemy during the Vietnam War and the Cold War.

When it comes to humanity and suffering, there are indeed no differences nor boundaries. And I am grateful that there are groups, both religious and secular that can see beyond the limits of their own zeitgeist and beliefs and reach out to embrace all of God's children.

Orthodox Dogma and the Problem of Heresy

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 01:25:00 +0000

Jan Hus at the Stake

What is heresy? In many traditions, it is that which contradicts or denies a certain religious dogma. For example, if you claim that there is no God in a society where the belief in God plays an important role in its social and political structure, then you will possibly face certain consequences for your aberrant belief.

The important point to stress here is that there are two conflicting views, one considered orthodox, the other heretical or perhaps revolutionary. In a world where the orthodox belief is that there is a God, you may suffer consequences for not believing in Him.

In either case, it is a self-protecting mechanism. Dogma is generally not bulletproof as it is mainly based on faith and it will sometimes not be able to sustain pressure or criticism. Dogma or rather orthodoxy is telling us what and how things are; they represent so-to-speak the rules of the game. You cannot make up your own rules as you go along but must embrace a given or established frame. Therefore, if the religion is monotheistic, you cannot believe in other gods as you would be “breaking” the rules.

There are some rules or rather infractions of them that may be considered minor. Is there not some leeway to adjust rules and to adapt them to changing circumstances? Yes and no.

In the Western tradition, most of us have mainly distanced ourselves from reading the Bible literally. In some cases, we even find contradictions. Should we be vengeful and follow the “eye for an eye” approach of the Old Testament or should we adhere to the meek and forgiving attitude of Jesus by turning the other cheek?

By and large, the Ten Commandments hold up even under modern scrutiny, but we do prioritize them. Is it the same to lie and to kill? Evidently there are varying degrees of actions that are followed by different consequences.

We do not imprison people for lying unless it happens in a legal setting, under oath, for instance. We do imprison people for killing unless it is under mitigating circumstances, such as a soldier in times of war or some cases of self-defense. Hence, religious authorities albeit reluctantly, have been forced to adapt to new conditions.

But looking at the Catholic Church, there has been little movement or adjustment in this conservative institution. For example, it was only recently that the Church accepted it had erred concerning Galileo. Why is religious authority so slow to react?

The problem with set dogma is that even slight adjustments and concessions may put it slightly off balance. It goes hand in hand with the assumption that the dogma is true and that any diverging information is ipso facto false.

So what is a heretic? It is those who make claims and statements contrary to dogma. There have been disagreements over the Eucharist, for example, whether it is a symbolic act or whether the bread and wine are actually transformed into the body and blood of Christ. This issue alone has created splits and rifts within both Catholic and Protestant traditions.

When faced with concessions, orthodox leaders take a hard-line stance and will not negotiate. In other words, if you do not follow the rules, you are proclaimed a heretic. The consequences have varied over time. Today we may face excommunication, but in the past, death by burning was at stake for many so-called heretics.

Deliver us from Evil Priests: On Cases of Child Abuse in the Catholic Church

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:48:00 +0000

Deliver us From Evil

When the documentary Deliver us from Evil came out, I shunned it at first for two reasons. I knew that it would affect me emotionally, so I was reluctant to go through it. Child abuse is a touchy subject and especially in a documentary you cannot pretend it did not happen or that it is a work of fiction. My second reason was that I did not want the documentary to stain the image and respect I have for the institution of the Catholic Church. Despite its various shortcomings, I could not help feeling admiration for its traditions that have managed to exist and last for about two thousand years.

Needless to say, I was in a state of shock and torpor after watching the documentary. No, I do not believe it is merely a “witch hunt” or propaganda against the Church, since those were real children affected by the horrific actions of various priests. I was mainly appalled by the statements of Father O' Grady. He took everything so lightly and did not seem to realize the gravity of his actions and its devastating effects on the lives of the children and their family who had put their whole trust in this man. How can a man of religion breach the trust of sincere believers and commit acts so shameful in the eyes of God especially since they involve the most pure and innocent of His creatures, children?

Evidently, such people are not only disturbed but mentally ill. The documentary gave a glimpse of possible reasons for such deeds. The priest himself had dealt with sexual abuse in his family. He was delusional and dissociated himself from certain events. He believed that he was showing children affection, perhaps even doing them a favor, through his sexual acts. He lacked any real sense of their feelings and devastation.

But what infuriated me much more was not only the actions of this priest. It was the cover-up of the church authorities that made me most angry. The first reaction was denial and that it was all mere fabrication or exaggeration on the part of the children. Then once there was irrefutable evidence, all the authorities did was to send this troubled priest not to counseling but to different parishes. He was moved several times as a result and hence continued committing horrendous acts with the full knowledge and support of the authorities.

This became especially clear in the statements and depositions. The church authorities in charge all either refused to comment through objections raised by their hired lawyers or they feigned dementia. They simply did not remember what had exactly occurred. The most startling statement was that they did not connect the dots between two incidents of child molestation by Father O' Grady because one involved a girl and another a boy and that usually priests abuse only one or the other gender!

Now if the Church would have acted with urgency and authority and taken this issue seriously, they would have managed to redeem themselves in my eyes. But instead they offered immunity to their own who have committed serious legal crimes. Father O' Grady could not escape fully since his crimes brought him seven years behind bars, but he was told that the authorities were still behind him and he is to my knowledge receiving generous pensions living freely in Ireland.

One of the most shocking pieces of information was that the issue of child abuse something so prevalent and so damaging to the reputation of the church -- it is estimated that about 10 % of new members or graduates commit sexual acts on children -- was not even raised during the conferences of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the person involved for overseeing such claims was no other than the current Pope Ratzinger. When faced with the possibility of legal action in the States, George W. Bush officially pardoned him, so there have been absolutely no legal proceedings against someone who is fully aware of the wrongdoings of his flock.

It is a very sad and unfortunate state of affairs. A lot of the problems may stem from the tradition of not allowing sexual activity for priests. They are human beings after all with sexual desire and often they enter priesthood at a young age. Thus, they misplace their sexual desires on those who are most unsuspecting and most innocent, the children in their grasp.

I am not a Catholic, but even if I were, I would never hand over the care of my son to church authorities. In fact, I would not want them anywhere close my child. It may be an exaggeration or even prejudice, but it is one supported by evidence and by the fact that these crimes are taken silently and go by unpunished to this day.

Living Passion and Art as a Substitute for Life

noreply@blogger.com (Arashmania) — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 02:05:00 +0000

Charles Bukowski

Charles Bukowski is hailed by some as a Bohemian poet, while others consider him merely a bum. For better or for worse, he is like a Nietzschean prophet who defies the laws of gravity and groundedness and who like many other talented artists decided to take a leap and live out his passions. Yes, he may have been driven on by his personal demons and yes he may have been self-destructive, wreaking havoc on his body and soul, yet at the same time, he was passionate about living.

Sometimes I feel that my passion for life is like second-hand smoke. I dare not lead a life of ecstasy the way Bukowski and many other artists did. For these people it is not about creating art, but actually living it to its ultimate consequences. Life becomes a work and expression of art. He was in the shadow of society, but he did not care what others thought. What mattered most was his own personal lifestyle, and very few people have the guts to live out such a gut-wrenching life of ups and downs.

To such people, joy and ecstasy are the most important motivators. Money to them is worthless in itself and is valued only to the degree that it can bring them pleasure in drink, drugs and sex. Nothing holds them back, that is why I see them as a Nietzschean prototype who verges on the border of madness but wears his heart and mind on his sleeves for all to see and touch.

Although most of us would shrug off this kind of life or might even criticize these people for being irresponsible, selfish and childish, the truth is that we have a certain secret admiration for them. Some part of us would like to live like there is no tomorrow and wake up with heads filled with memories of yesterday's scandalous, obscene and outrageous deeds.

Such a life would be devoid of sentimentality or companionship. It is not about building bridges or foundations. No family, no permanent jobs, no tangible accomplishments. Just fleeting floating life. No romance, but purely physical connections. Love as its basest form, lust, not as a void, but as a spiritual abyss.

A passion that reverberates in every fibre of your body and remains there until your final day. And when that day comes, you can look back and say, yes, I have lived a full life; I have lived out all my fantasies and although I leave behind no lasting legacy, I also, like the untamed lion-hearted Caesar, can claim for myself “veni, vidi, vici.”

But me, I have contented myself with life's mirror, Mistress Art with all her beautiful playful handmaids. Books fill me with the joy I dare not experience. Movies take me to places I would not willingly go. I watch yet in the comfort of my home, with the support of my immediate family close to me. I experience life by observing the daily accomplishments of my son.

The joy I feel is nonetheless real and lasting. I have to work for a living; I need to ensure safety and security; I am tied to the ebb and flow of money, but I grow content by taking pleasure in small things. And whenever I feel stagnant and stuck, it is art that comes to the rescue that fills my soul with images of a life lived to its ultimate consequences, the limitless passion that devours the whole being in a blazing fire.