|
The MoA Week In Review – (Not Ukraine) OT 2022-175
Last week's posts on Moon of Alabama:
—
Other issues:
China:
Germany – China:
> [Economy Minister] Habeck promised to continue the dialogue with the business community and another meeting has been arranged for the first quarter next year, the two people said. "He has a steep learning curve, he is very open," one of them said. "The problem is that he is starting right at the bottom." <
Haiti:
Aaron Maté @aaronjmate – 0:24 UTC · Oct 16, 2022
Haiti is the first free country in this hemisphere, borne out of a slave revolt. For two centuries, it's been rewarded for that contribution to humankind with pillage, coups, destabilization, and military occupation from France, US, and their Western junior partners.
Miami Herald @MiamiHerald – Oct 15
Exclusive: U.S. will support sending ‘multinational rapid action force’ to Haiti
“Western” hostility to Haiti’s legacy of liberation is so entrenched that a French ambassador admitted that it factored in their 2004 coup of President Aristide, who dared to ask France to pay reparations for looting Haiti as the “price” of its freedom in 1804:
Keane Bhatt @KeaneBhatt - May 21
A major revelation buried deep within this excellent historical overview: France’s then-ambassador admits on the record that the U.S. and France orchestrated a coup against Haiti’s elected president in 2004
The Root of Haiti’s Misery: Reparations to Enslavers
Prosecution Futures:
Use as open (NOT Ukraine) thread …
Since this open thread is showing conversation about religion and Jews I thought I would add some quotes from my favorite Jew, Isaac Asimov in an interview with Bill Moyers
MOYERS: In 1980 you were afraid that the fundamentalists who were coming into power with President Reagan were going to turn this country even further against science, especially with their demands that biblical creationism be given an equal footing in the classroom with science. Have they made those inroads that you feared?
ASIMOV: Fortunately, the currents have been against them. But they still put pressure on school boards and parents, and it’s become a little more difficult in many parts of the nation to teach evolution.
MOYERS: The fundamentalists see you as the very incarnation of the enemy, the epitome of the secular humanist who opposes God’s plan for the universe. In 1984, the American Humanist Society gave you their Humanist of the Year Award, and you’re now president of that organization. Are you an enemy of religion?
ASIMOV: No, I’m not. What I’m against is the attempt to place a person’s belief system onto the nation or the world generally. We object to the Soviet Union trying to dominate the world, to communize the world. The United States, I hope, is trying to democratize the world. But I certainly would be very much against trying to Christianize the world or to Islamize it or to Judaize it or anything of the sort. My objection to fundamentalism is not that they are fundamentalists but that essentially they want me to be a fundamentalist, too. Now, they may say that I believe evolution is true and I want everyone to believe that evolution is true. But I don’t want everyone to believe that evolution is true, I want them to study what we say about evolution and to decide for themselves. Fundamentalists say they want to treat creationism on an equal basis. But they can’t. It’s not a science. You can teach creationism in churches and in courses on religion. They would be horrified if I were to suggest that in the churches they teach secular humanism as an alternate way of looking at the universe or evolution as an alternate way of considering how life may have started. In the church they teach only what they believe, and rightly so, I suppose. But on the other hand, in schools, in science courses, we’ve got to teach what scientists think is the way the universe works.
MOYERS: But this is what frightens many believers. They see science as uncertain, always tentative, always subject to revisionism. They see science as presenting a complex, chilling, and enormous universe ruled by chance and impersonal laws. They see science as dangerous.
ASIMOV: That is really the glory of science – that science is tentative, that it is not certain, that it is subject to change. What is really disgraceful is to have a set of beliefs that you think is absolute and has been so from the start and can’t change, where you simply won’t listen to evidence. You say, “If the evidence agrees with me, it’s not necessary, and if it doesn’t agree with me, it’s false.” This is the legendary remark of Omar when they captured Alexandria and asked him what to do with the library. He said, “If the books agree with the Koran, they are not necessary and may be burned. If they disagree with the Koran, they are pernicious and must be burned.” Well, there are still these Omar-like thinkers who think all of knowledge will fit into one book called the Bible, and who refuse to allow it is possible ever to conceive of an error there. To my way of thinking, that is much more dangerous than a system of knowledge that is tentative and uncertain.
MOYERS: Do you see any room for reconciling the religious view in which the universe is God’s drama, constantly interrupted and rewritten by divine intervention, and the view of the universe as scientists hold it?
ASIMOV: There is if people are reasonable. There are many scientists who are honestly religious. Millikan was a truly religious man. Morley of the Michelson-Morley experiment was truly religious. There were hundreds of others who did great scientific work, good scientific work, and at the same time were religious. But they did not mix their religion and science. In other words, if something they understand took place in science, they didn’t dismiss it by saying, “Well, that’s what God wants,” or “At this point a miracle took place.” No, they knew that science is strictly a construct of the human mind working according to the laws of nature, and that religion is something that lies outside and may embrace science. You know, if there were suddenly to arise scientific, confirmable evidence that God exists, then scientists would have no choice but to accept that fact. On the other hand, the fundamentalists don’t admit the possibility of evidence that would show, for example, that evolution exists. Any evidence you present they will deny if it conflicts with the word of God as they think it to be. So the chances of compromise are only on one side, and, therefore, I doubt that it will take place.
MOYERS: What frightens them is something that Dostoevski once said – if God is dead, everything is permitted.
ASIMOV: That assumes that human beings have no feeling about what is right and wrong. Is the only reason you are virtuous because virtue is your ticket to heaven? Is the only reason you don’t beat your children to death because you don’t want to go to hell? It’s insulting to imply that only a system of rewards and punishments can keep you a decent human being. Isn’t it conceivable a person wants to be a decent human being because that way he feels better?
I don’t believe that I’m ever going to heaven or hell. I think that when I die, there will be nothingness. That’s what I firmly believe. That’s not to mean that I have the impulse to go out and rob and steal and rape and everything else because I don’t fear punishment. For one thing, I fear worldly punishment. And for a second thing, I fear the punishment of my own conscience. I have a conscience. It doesn’t depend on religion. And I think that’s so with other people, too.
Even in societies in which religion is very powerful, there’s no shortage of crime and sin and misery and terrible things happening, despite heaven and hell. I imagine if you go down death row, and ask a bunch of murderers who are waiting for execution if they believe in God, they’ll tell you yes. I wouldn’t be surprised if the number of people in jail for fraud, for violent crimes, for everything, includes a smaller percentage of acknowledged atheists than we have in the general population. So I don’t know why one should think that just because you don’t want a ticket to heaven, and you don’t fear a ticket to hell, you should be a villain.
MOYERS: Is there a morality in science?
ASIMOV: Oh, absolutely. In fact, there is a morality in science that is further advanced than anywhere else. If you find a person in science who has faked his results, who has lied as far as his findings are concerned, who has tried to steal the work of another, who has done something other scientists consider unethical – well, his scientific reputation is ruined, his scientific life is over. There is no forgiveness. The morality of science is that you report the truth, you do your best to disprove your own findings, and you do not utilize someone else’s findings and report them as your own. In any other branch of human endeavor – in politics, in economics, in law, in almost anything – people can commit crimes and still be heroes. For instance, Colonel North has done terrible things, yet he’s a hero and a patriot to some people. This goes in almost every field. Only science is excepted. You make a misstep in science, and you’re through. Really through.
Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 17 2022 19:02 utc | 137
Do countries need a unifying religion to be happy? I think culture is greatly enriched when there is homogeneity.
Posted by: NemesisCalling | Oct 17 2022 3:16 utc | 92
There’s a lot flying around on this thread viz the Christian vs Buddhadharma theme. I think part of the problem with both is that even though we can use simple words like ‘Buddhism’ and ‘Christianity’ which you have done many times in a perfectly reasonable way, they seem to convey a much more precise meaning than they actually do.
Buddhism has evolved over 2600 years in many different times and cultures. It is generally decentralized and although there is a canon (in Pali) widely accepted by all schools, from there have spread out no end (like thousands) of different branches encompassing a wide variety of approaches. Even within the same school different teachers leading their own communities may end up with very different seeming communities, favored teachings and techniques which over time often become new schools. (I am part of a new school, come to think of it, indeed a ‘lineage holder therein,’ but since haven’t put any time into developing it maybe not!)
Christianity of course is very similar with hundreds of different denominations and parishes. Once you no longer have only One Church for any given polity then you have Many. Once you have Many then the State becomes the One principle and the various different factions of Christianity become part of the Many and therefore not representative nor capable of being joined with the State.
That said, both institutinalized elements of the traditions have enjoyed periods during which they were an official State religion with key roles to play in State politics, albeit mainly long ago in the days when monarchies were still in fashion for blending Church and State is much easier, indeed natural, with monarchies.
So in terms of ‘countries needing a unifying religion to be happy’ I suspect you are right but we have no unifying religions any more with the possible exception of Russian Orthodox in Russia despite their also recognizing Islam and Buddhadharma as official religions. In the West the various schisms and offshoots mean that the very word ‘Christianity’ lacks homogeneity in both meaning and praxis. It’s one word referring to all manifestations but it is not one thing – sort of like the word ‘food.’ Personally I think one large school with many different chapters would be best but the problem (I suspect) with the strong, vast, deeply established Roman Catholic Church, for example, which is still primus inter pares, is that the emphasis on institutional religion in the context of national and international power politics and property ownership has corrupted the spiritual essence, or at least the Church’s ability to be a consistent and pure vessel for that essence.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As to what Buddhism might have to offer, I think that’s a tough question. First off, I agree with the Dalai Lama (somewhat) that by and large Westerners should stick with Christianity. In an ideal world with homogeneous Christianity I would agree with him. But again, there is no such thing any more which he probably doesn’t appreciate well being a Tibetan. And even where there is (for example with the RC Church in Mexico which enjoys little or no competition), they don’t seem to enjoy widespread, concerted dedication and devotion, ie deep connection. I can see it in the culture but rarely do I feel it. Even when sitting in a church witnessing Mass. There isn’t much ‘there’ there any more (though the litle exorcism church I lived next to for a while definitely had strong vibes!).
Here’s my little story in brief: I went to Church every day from the age of 5 to 17 when I was at school growing up in England. At home the subject of church or spirituality never came up once nor did I ever even think to raise it. But I enjoyed the 15 minute morning services every morning at school. Was even a choir boy wearing a cassock. And liked once a week Scripture classes (Bible reading). Very much. But I never once thought about being a Christian. Nobody once discussed it. The thought literally never once crossed my mind. Going to church was something we did and I enjoyed but I never experienced it as a religion of any personal importance or impact. I don’t believe anyone else I was a schoolboy with did either but we never ever discussed it so have no way of knowing.
One day when I was sixteen I was at home for the Easter holidays and on the telly was an ordinary looking man called Richard Hittleman doing strange yoga postures. I had no exposure to this sort of thing in the popular culture although the Beatles had been publicly into that stuff with Maharishi Mahesh yogi. I didn’t follow such things prefering to read academic tomes in our large school library. I totally missed the sixties that way! In any case, at the end of his brief show, which I found myself watching with rapt attention, he mentioned his book was available all over London so I went to the corner store a hundred yards away where I bought my Spiderman magazines (!) and there it was on a revolving rack. I bought it and that same day on returning home with it starting doing yoga every day for the next two years. It wasn’t a secret but I never spoke to anyone about it nor did anyone ever see me doing the postures. A few years later at Cambridge I noticed a Maharishi poster, went to the talk, learned the meditation technique from an instructor soon thereafter and again did that every day for a year or two but never joined a group or talked to anyone about it after the initial instruction. Both yoga and meditation were something very personal and simple. I didn’t think about them, I just did them. I cannot tell you why. There was zero intellect involved, just instinct. Nor did I have any strong experiences with either. I just did them.
A few years later I stumbled into a serious Buddhist community in Boulder Colorada where I was at university and soon became a hard-core practitioner practicing every day for years and sometimes doing solitary mountain retreats for 1-12 weeks and later a trained, authorized teacher.
So the question in relation to yours is: why did I instantly take to Richard Hittleman’s yoga for housewives and without any prompting or question immediately start doing it?
The answer to that I suspect is in a related question: ‘and why did I not ever even once consider exploring Christianity in any sort of in-depth way even though I went to church eight months a year for over ten years and very much enjoyed being a choirboy from the age of eight to twelve singing in various splendid cathedrals in the once seriously Christian country of England? I don’t know the answer to the latter question. I do know that I have no feeling for Christianity at all. The story of Jesus – let alone Old Testament stories – though very enjoyable I cannot relate to the way I can connect to sitting meditation practice and Buddhadharma teachings. I also did very complex and arcane tantric visualization and other practices, including years later ‘the six yogas’ (albeit not strenuously enough for them to take), but simple sitting practice is the best and now the only one I do, without any technique whatsover, using a meditation text to lead into the practice which I composed myself which takes only a minute to recite – short and sweet. KISS.
Could I have had a similar spiritual journey with Christianity? Certainly I never had anything against it. But it didn’t resonate in the slightest with me as any sort of spiritual to connect with personally. I suspect I am not alone in this. And I suspect it’s because the church services were lip service and I didn’t actually grow up in a Christian culture. It was something else already, which is no doubt why so many lovely Churches in England, even back then, were closed because congregants weren’t coming any more except for weddings and funerals.
Finally, there are very important issues viz the relation of spirituality on a personal journey and institutionalized religion in the national culture/polity context. They are different facets of the same jewel but each requires considerable thought to be discussed and as with all such matters a level of detail and depth that this sort of medium is not suited for.
All best..
Posted by: Scorpion | Oct 17 2022 23:31 utc | 149
Posted by: Scorpion | Oct 18 2022 4:37 utc | 168
PS
There will always be a One or We in any given group, from small family to large nation or international cyber group in that we always have both a sense of being individual and also a sense of being part of a family or larger collective.
We are considering nations whose prime container usually is a shared language, not small families or sports groups etc.
So even if a society is fractured into shards, classes, races, sexes, faiths, politics, regions, all at odds in ways we see now in nearly all latter-day developed countries, nevertheless there is still a universally shared sense of We. If you are in America you do – even today – have a general sense of being part of of the same thing, the same overall We, no matter how dysfunctional that wider family feels these days. Mexicans all feel they are Mexicans and so on.
So the One principle – again we are talking national cultural context – is always going to be there. No religion or political movement creates it though they may, deliberately or not, be working with it.
So the issue is whether or not we can make ourselves into a good we, a happy we, a virtuous we, a wise we, an adaptive, flexible, dynamic, inventive, noble and fun We, not clumsy, deceptive, depressing, cruel, backward, problematic and wicked We. No matter what, what we do collectively each and every day fashions whatever We (or One) we mutually create and share together.
It comes down to artfulness in some sense. A culture is a living, dynamic collective art form. Royalty is an art form involving the leadership principle for example. Any leadership system is similarly artful but higher forms of art are aware that they are art forms and perform as such artfully. In our current systems most of the leaders feel its their job to be something like charismatic managers or Head Coaches, they don’t appreciate the artfulness both of the role and how they need to play their part and how to view the society within which the role plays. It also requires artfulness on the part of the citizenry.
For that to happen all have to be more or less on the same page otherwise there aren’t shared subtleties, values, jokes, outrages, red flags.
So religion ideally is a way of bringing people into a virtuous state of being, of progressing through the journey of life and in so doing also providing a social context in which this journey takes place one which all members of the society share. It is an artful way for a nation to cultivate virtue in other words. Whether or not there is an official religious quotient in any given society, there is a collective journey of virtue or vice cultivation. The question again is how artfully is the journey being experienced, developed, fine-tuned within the society.
These are societal art forms, basically, but nowadays everyone focuses on mid-level detail like what is the dogma, what is the difference between political blue and political yellow and so forth without considering the overall context. It is hard to consider that overall context when the society doesn’t have many shared rituals in which they all experience the same thing at the same time.
England just went through that with Elizabeth’s death. It was something everyone in the country experienced. Everyone has a particular relationship with her, be it distant or impassioned makes no difference. She was not a system or an ever-changing role like the 25 Prime Ministers she consulted with over the decades. She was an individual whom all could see on occasion on a balcony, cutting a ribbon, most often on television. But more simply she was an individual figure who each individual in the country could witness and relate to as such. Not an abstract philosophy or movement, a living breathing individual who at the same time is a symbol of the One principle in that society because there is only one King or Queen (or one of each as is now the case). It’s not about the particular character of the monarch but the role and context of that role in any given society as an embodiment of One, and that One is We. We the people collectively create the One because we are all part of one We.
So monarchy is an artful way of working with that One/ We principle in a manner that binds and ideally uplifts that We.
So are various art forms like the movies, the ballet, architecture and so forth, though they are not explicity about leadership.
Religion is an artful way of providing people an avenue to harmonize our binary nature in that sense that we are part of absolutes and relatives at the same time. The nature of the reality we are born into and later leave through death is always there without birth or death. Similarly the nature of mind – or experience if you prefer – is both deeply personal and individual whilst at the same time universal, constant. Virtues like courage and kindness are timeless and yet are expressed in time and space through specific, mortal agents.
We are sandwiched between mortality and eternity all the time. Religion is a society’s way of addressing this in an artful fashion so that we can lead meaningful, artful lives. Whether or not a society throws up a religion to deal with this, nevertheless it is being dealt with, just like there is always some sort of collective We whether or not it is artfully tended to with collective mindfulness, awareness, reverence, discipline and delight. And just like there is always leadership whether or not we fashion how it functions artfully with custom, procedure, ritual, costume, retinue, honorifics and so forth.
In other words, these things are all choiceless. The question is whether or not we deal with them artfully not whether or not they exist. Creating great nations or civilizations is the ultimate challenge, the ultimate collective art form, the ultimate way to help make our individual and collective journeys meaningful, deep, spiritually and otherwise fulfilling. It’s about whether or not there are beautiful flowers in our garden of life and happy families enjoying feasting together therein.
It appears that right now Russia is playing a lead role in charting a new course for these times in this very old journey, with China also very much involved in the same thing, though not overtly so much at least in Western perception, also her contribution to high culture, to the philosophy and artfulness of statecraft, is less obvious since she seems more involved with infrastructure, growth, logistics, expansion, but nevertheless offering a new way forward in the modern era.
Multipolarity seems to be suggesting that we can have many different, but mutually supportive, We’s rather than trying to make on universal global We with one universal global government.
Sounds good. But each We will need to be virtuous and uplifted for there to be harmony. So each collective will have its own ways of doing that hopefully whilst also learning from other collectives, some of which in this multipolar world will clearly be doing a better job than others, and some of whom will be outright hot messes (like the West it seems for the next generation or two). I am suggesting, I guess, that those collectives/societies/nations that are artful in how they craft and maintain homegenous vibrant polities will fare better than those who are merely utilitarian or managerial, who are not artful. Without artfulness things will tend to trend downwards rapidly since only with artfulness will there be flexibility, creativity, upliftedness, nobility, compassion and wisdom.
Also there is a universal rule in such matters: you are either going forward, improving, developing more virtue or you are backsliding, degrading, developing less virtue and more vice. There is no neutral resting place or status, no comfortable stasis.
Our current western polities lack all semblance of artfulness. It has been systematically stripped away from our leadership classes, our arts, our religions, even our family lives. This is a Dark Age indeed….
Posted by: Scorpion | Oct 18 2022 5:30 utc | 170
|
