Letters to the Editor
Ben Sen
Published Letters: 541 Editor's Choice: 98
-
Pass Me A Few Leaves, Please.
[Read the article: God and gorillas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wonderful. The point of view expressed and the interview itself provides hope.
There is, Lily Tomlin., Intelligent life in the Universe. (I just sometimes doubt whether or not it is human.)
I see it here in the sensitivity or "relation" between the two communicators--by gosh--they are like the apes themselves! It was nice the interviewer didn't ask the "God" question, and the subject made it clear she wasn't going to respond because it is PRIVATE.
That is in my mind the boundary. It separates the literalists from the symbolists. I hate entering this "political" angle, but the dialogue is so shallow normally it feels necessary. My belief in "god" is the beginning of a spirituality--and in a profound sense of "me". It is not for public consumption, or "use." So nobody can take it away because of my nature as a social being.
I do not want it corrupted by the collective, even though being part of the human community, and those "relations" are part of me. I may be no different than these "beasts" in the final analysis.
I don't wish to despoil the ideas presented with an ideal, however, but it has gotten to a point where I no longer feel safe. The literalists and dogmatists are threatening to extinguish the "real thing" with their fears and neediness--threatening the survival of the species. After all, it's far easier to pretend to have answers, than ask the questions.
I especially appreciated the lack of an agenda on Barbara King's part, and her resolution, or non-resolution of the science vs. religion conundrum--or should I say the science AND religion conundrum by going back to the deeper root--advancing it with facts rather than theory and intellectualization is like breathing fresh air blowing in from the hills to clear the mist in the savannah.
Pass me a few roots, somebody, or how about letting me munch a few rain washed palm leaves.
-
The Picture on Kant's Desk
[Read the article: Ode to joy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Jungians have been mining this territory for almost three generations.
I find it strange there is no reference to it in the article. Robert Johnson, a first generation American Jungian, best known for HE and SHE wrote a book many years ago suggesting the re-introduction of the worship of Dionysius as a way to counteract the epidemic of addiction that has swept the West particularly.
The theory being that the suppression of the Dionysian is what has led to the desperation and self-destruction of drug and behavioral obsessions. Herbert Marcuse and Norman O. Brown did a lot of work on it from the Freudian perspective over fourty years ago, and it remains a tenent of psychoanalysis, and the philosophy based upon it.
The suppression is most often traced to Augustine, who founded the monastic tradition in Christianity, and made the "flesh" the enemy of the "spirit," leading to the split that was then adopted by the larger population, and carried over into the Protestant formulation.
Dancing, after all, is an expression of the body--and that became the enemy of the "army" of the faithful. All those centuries of "passing it on," led to the almost total lack of objectivity toward the problem--and continuing efforts to ever greater repression of instinctual life. (Rousseau may have been the first philosopher in the West to address the question--over three centuries ago--and it is always worth remembering that Kant had his picture on his desk.)
This the problem of so much that is called "pop" culture. It acts as a quick fix for those suffering, but once the book is read--people mistake it for "knowledge," and while the dialogue is forwarded--it's skin deep.
Of course, it also sells books, and while I don't blame the author for wanting to do so--it's an old story and those who really seek healing should look elsewhere in my view. It may not be "what" you know that matters.
-
No More than Gorillas
[Read the article: God and gorillas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I meant what I said in my earlier post, Pass Me a Few Leaves, Please. But have thought of another way to express it.
Barbara King's findings may prove something I have long suspected. It could be that "humanity" or the idea of it, is really an illusion. I suspect her point of view drives the literalists and anti-evolutionists nuts.
We are no more than gorillas--only we fool ourselves to think otherwise because of "language," (as Wittgenstein said) "reason" as the rationalists thought, technology, as the materialists believe, or "science" as those who make science their religion believe. (And there are a lot of them in liberal America as shown by this discussion.)
But what if it's all a delusion? How different is human language from ape language? Do these qualifications make homo sapiens that much different looked at from a wider perspective? How different can we be from gorillas given the propensity for war and murder? What standard is being used? It isn't apes who have found yet another way to destroy the planet--it's humans.
Humans are unquestionably the most dangerous species on earth and yet there is this belief in a superiority not consistent with the facts. Dispute that and your really aren't paying attention. As a Buddhist, I believe it is all an illusion--not just humanity--but all the perceived "world."
I was an "agnostic" for most of my life, but it took too much work. Athiesm is even more difficult to maintain, especially it seems to me in its fundamentalist form. More often than not it is simply a psychological reaction to a condition in the believer's life that they hold onto unconsciously. If you can't "feel" it, or measure it, why not play it safe, debunk it, and call the rest fools.
One of the most brilliant men I've ever known calls himself an athiest yet goes to services every week because the community is what matters to him. How much is that like the apes signaling each other with ritual movements?
If you can't see the tree fall in the forest, why not move to the forest so maybe you can see it some day.