Current Interests

1. learn how to be an organic farmer of:
a. produce
b. chickens/ eggs
c. herbs/flowers to produce into oils and related products
d. goats and cows for milk and cheese
by doing:
a. WWOOF
b. apprenticeship
c. home experiements

2. go on mission trip(s)
a. india
b. anywhere in US hit by storm
c. anywhere/any length of time

3. be a cultural anthropologist studying:
a. american christianity

4. be a religious studies researcher/professor

5. have about 5 kids and run a farm and homeschool them

6. Be a travel writer. Even if it's not professional.

7. Stylist and/or fashion writer and/or fashion merchandiser


What I want to be when I grow up never existed, I want to be who I want to be now, and what I want to do, maybe I will have to wait for, but I can build towards it. To choose one is to draw closer to experience, is to draw further away from another experience, until I go so far that as I run gravity bends my course to find the original spot again, closer in circle to my beginning, but never the same, and further still upon the creation of new ideas with each choice in each day. Whether I am a bunny following a carrot on a string, or a bunny about to find a real carrot, it doesn't really matter. Just be the best bunny you can be. And be open to finding more carrots.

india ideals

Reflecting on my pro's and con's list, I realized that no where do I mention anything about India itself, or the people I would be with, what I would be doing. Essentially, I would be teaching english, helping out with things here and there, sitting with untouchables, and (hopefully) carrying a presence of love.

I don't know if it's bad that I didn't consider the "service" or "mission" I would be doing as a "pro", or if it's worrisome that I didn't consider living in and amongst poverty I have never seen before as a "con". As for the latter, I didn't consider living in poverty a "con" because that is kind of the whole point: find light, joy, goodness, satisfaction despite poverty, realize through poverty all the richness that is, see "how good I've got it", minimize my own silly worries in light of the serious problems of poverty, and enlarge my heart for those who live in poverty everyday. Sure it might be "sucky" at first (just the word "sucky" exudes my unrecognized wealth), but to let go of all my things and realize who I am without them-- a practice in letting go of accumulating material wealth and instead "storing up treasures in heaven" so to speak-- that is part of the spiritual goal.

But speaking of "my spiritual goals" brings me back to my former query... I'm not sure if it's "bad" or if it's okay that in my initial listing of all the pro's of doing a year long mission trip in India I never once included the pro of other people being helped. People finding needs newly met through my service. The benefit of someone helping teach english, or the benefit of someone being a loving presence, or all other random services I might provide while there. I find this unconscious omission interesting.

On one hand, it shows my selfishness and inherent self-centeredness. To be quite honest, my primary reason for wanting to take this journey is for my own benefit. I want to find spiritual nourishment, I want to feel good about myself, I want to have an adventure, I want the trip to look good on a resume, I want to have experience teaching English, I want it to be a way to strengthen my relationship with my husband. I, I, I, want want want. Frankly, It's all about me. This isn't something I feel great about... as in, I would like to be a self-less person, altruistic and "in it" for the outcasts and untouchables who cannot advocate for themselves. I am very interested in helping in this way, but when I think about the opportunity, I see it generally in terms of my own success. I have a feeling that this is somewhat normal... isn't it like, part of the human condition that we are all selfish? If not, why would a message like Jesus' really be needed? The golden rule says to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, because it typically works out that one would wish to have good things be done unto them. I don't want to celebrate my selfishness, but I don't see the point of condemning myself either. The more energy I spend agonizing over my own predicament of self-centeredness, the more centered on myself i become. If I could take an approach of honesty, in which I allow myself to state it's purpose without judgement, the more clearly I can see my intentions and discern if this is the "right" thing to do. ("right" is in quotes because I don't think life decisions like this can be considered right or wrong. They just are. Sure, we can make "bad choices", but what's a bad choice is dependent on the goal. If the goal is to live a meaningful life, there are many ways to do so, going to India for a year being one of them. However, with the goal of living a meaningful life, shooting up with heroin everyday would, I say with a good amount of certainty, be a "bad choice", as it strips one's life of years (therefore cancels out the goal of living) and one's meaning is greatly limited to the effects of one potent chemical only... the meaning that a drug can provide seems relatively flat, like a "one trick pony").

So, it's established that I want great, deep, meaningful life for myself. Perhaps it is technically "self-centered", but I don't think it is intrinsically wrong. In just as much honesty, I also want these things for others. I like being nice because I want people to feel good about themselves. I do want anyone who wants to learn english get to learn it. I do want a destitute woman to feel supported. I want a random little kid to have fun. I want someone with a sickness to have a cure. Perhaps I want these things to bring myself comfort, or perhaps I want to do good so I feel more important. I don't think the reason why really matters. If showing love for another brings love onto yourself, and that love in yourself breeds love onto another, then the original intentions regarding selfishness really lose importance, because something greater has occured.

In any case, I also think I may not have thought much about the pro's of "helping others" because I dont really know who much I can help others. I can go, and do what's asked of me, and hope it helps others. But I don't see myself as an american saint, giving up my good life of "stability" and cars and jobs and air conditioning and other illusions to go save the lives of destitute Indians. I dont' see that as the point of this program. If I decide to go, and if I am raising money, I will not be asking for money so I can go help these people. If someone's day is brightened by me, if someone's English is improved by me, if something good happens by me, it isn't really BY me. It's through me. I can hope hope hope good things come through me, but I don't know that they are coming FROM me. Because I'm not sitting here generating my own goodness, I am getting my joy and light from something else. I am going to "give to" others because in that giving I recieve.

The prayer of St. Francis of Assisi says "Lord make me an instrument of thy peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love, where there is injury, pardon... where there is despair, let me sow hope... ect ect... O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand, grant that I may not so much seek to be loved, but to love. For it is in giving that we receive, it is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life." This prayer is probably one of my favorite "by-products" of Christianity. What it tells me is that we are in a predicament of selfishness. That is why we must ask to be the instrument of peace. It says grant that I might not seek to be loved as much as I seek to love, because it is a common thing to wish to be loved. I don't think the prayer says "it's wrong to want to be loved", but it says that in order to truly experience this love, you've got to go outside of yourself, and find a way to give it to someone else. In doing so we too will find the love we seek. Could this be a greater theme of "mission" in general? To go somewhere with the itinerary of taking on another's poverty, doing services asked of you, giving a gift you have (english speaking skills, house building skills, the gift of love, whatever), giving yourself in the form of your time for a year, that is how you will find yourself. That is how you will be blessed. This is the style of everyday living that I want to do. I know I don't need a fandangled trip to do it, but I want the intense experience of it to help teach me. It's my own wretchedness that leads to this idea. And my faith in the "system" described in St. Francis' prayer. My head says "this is how I want to live my life" but my head knows it needs a prayer from my heart to attempt it.

I didn't intend to go on and on about the notion of selfishness. But why one wants what one wants is intruiging. Why should I logically want to go on this trip to India when it means potentially setting myself and husband behind in terms of career growth, money, stability, direction, and other goals? I guess it's that those goals feel less important in an "ultimate" sense. It's a battle inside me. I am terrified to give up the scrap of direction and financial stability I think I've established. I'm not sure if I'm courageous enough to do so. I'm not sure if it even would be "courageous" to do so, or just plain stupid. My idealistic gut is bursting with hope about situations I am not in. My cloud of dissatisfaction rains on the everyday. No doubt this cloud may follow me wherever I go. No place or situation can eradicate that internal issue. Though no decision or change would solve all my problems, it would give me the variety of having new ones. Or the wisdom to see through them to the eternal ones. And then, perhaps, the greater wisdom to discover the ongoing surrendering of them to something Greater.

Pros and Cons

Living in India for a year: Pros and Cons

cons:
-difficulty in configuration (where do our cats go, where does our stuff go, what about our car?)
-"starting over" when we return (getting jobs again.)
-putting off having babies
-intense homesickness, missing family, friends, feeling lonely
-fears (what if i get sick? what if I feel anxious? what if there is a terrorist attack?)
-guilt about moving "again", quitting job "again"
-possibly considered irresponsible in terms of building stability, savings, ect
-may upset loved ones

pros:
-thrilling adventure that satisfies my wanderlust and desire for something bigger and deeper than trying to establish and maintain a status-quo
-opportunity to purposely explore faith and spirituality in community
-chance to overcome fears
-experience that may lead me to a more preferred living when I return (better platform for further study/grad school, or job relating to my interests)
-living life to the terrifyingly fullest
-Saris
-finding the riches in poverty, increased contentedness with my relative material wealth
-form deep bonds with people in the same fox hole, grow closer to husband
-experience teaching english
-it's a trip with a designated time frame (I have the comfort of knowing an end will come in difficult times)
-travel and retreat programmed into each month
-more to give and more to share with others from the experience
-the craziness and spontenaity of it make me laugh
-learn a new language
-fulfill lifelong dream of missionary experience abroad for significant period of time
-stretch my strength and soul further than a chinese gymnast.

http://www.yavindia.net/

http://gamc.pcusa.org/ministries/yav/yavexperience/

Home on the Range

Www.domesticdivaontherange.blogspot.com

That's my blog don't wear it out!

why do we wonder, or, thoughts after 1st book of Peter

Thinking, wondering, daydreaming, nightdreaming, doubting, declaring... it's our special human power of cognition. It is in there churning away, and although we can develop techniques to cultivate it just so (pruning out the bad thoughts, pacifying the anger, assuring the fears, and fueling the positives) it still keeps firing off. I watched a lecture on Nebraska's awesome public access station about the brain last night, and though my understanding of it was limited, I did take a few facts away... apparently our brains consume like, a ton of energy. These things are like big SUV's of the body, guzzling up 70% of our blood sugar just to lollygag about in revery. Our thoughts make us hungry! Feed me feed me they say, I am a factory of cognition and I want not to be slowed. If oxygen fails to be sent to the brain for even just a minute or two, extreme damage can be done... A woman who had suffered an arterial blockage in the back of her brain lost the capacity to walk, and once the brain was repaired "physically" she had to relearn the skill like a little baby all over again, because the brain lost its nutrients briefly, and therefore started pruning itself away. Brains freak me out.

I also watched a documentary about the "science of babies"... really just about how their brains work. Apparently, other mammals come out of the womb ready to walk within hours... all preprogrammed for life and raring to go. Human fetuses emerge less developed, though, as they still need about a year of development to begin to attempt walking. This is because 1. we are bi-pedal, so walking is just that much harder due to the balancing of our giant heads over our tiny feet, though it's that much smarter as it is more energy efficient than quadrapedalism. 2. If our brains were developed enough to handle the difficult walking gig, they would be too big to fit through the pelvic bones. So it is actually quite important that babies are born exactly when they are-- a fetus outside the womb, a helpless animal relying completely on the care of its mother and father for life and security. Too soon, though, and what results is the precarious touch and go health of a preemie. Buffalo give birth on the wild plains all alone. Humans need other humans to complete this delivery in any effective way. Other interesting fact: at three months, a baby can distinguish between the faces of different humans as well as different monkeys... they can tell that one human and one monkey are different from the other human and other monkey. Surprisingly, at six months, a baby can no longer distinguish between different types of monkeys, only different types of humans. That is because, through experience, the brain learns that the different faces of humans are much more important to recognize than those of monkeys, and so due to the brian's pruning power, selected by experience, the ability to distinguish monkey one from monkey two is lost. At least we can still recognize when a monkey is a monkey. That knowledge remains relevant. Though experience shapes what information the brain will pay attention to, it is not just "experience" that takes a brain from helpless baby to capable adult. Evidence shows that the brain is in a sense pre-programmed or wired with all sorts of information.

Like Math! So some scientists did an experiement... babies pay more attention to things they do not understand, and babies lose interest when bored with old information... so given that knowledge a baby was shown a "puppet show" where one puppet came on the stage. then a second came on the stage. A board was put up blocking the stage, and when the board came down, only one puppet remained. The baby was staring in riveting confusion... indicating an innate ability to understand the laws of addition and subtraction. This was counterbalanced by the fact that when a. both puppets were remaining on the stage post-board, and b. when the baby saw one puppet leaving the stage and acknowledged the subtraction of puppets, the baby's interest was minimal, and it's eye contact shifted away from the stage. Cool.

So as you may have read, I want to have children. As it feels like that biological clock is going off trying to be like "the oven is preheated!", I also feel other biological urges, such as the one to make a nest. I feel that a human nest is different from other mammals. There is the physical home-nest component... Finding shelter, a constant supply of food/resources, being safe, protected, but also well decorated and making it smell nice... there is also a cognitive nest making which I don't suppose other animals experience to this extent. In order to consciously teach, it feels like one needs an understanding of what one will teach. Perhaps there are biological mechanisms that ensure that the essentials of what must be taught are taught... when a baby cries, it is our instinct to pick it up and hold it. Babies need this nurturing and touch, so alas, one need not consciously think "i believe i should now hold the baby to satisfy it's need for touch"... we just do it. We can now through science try to understand why we do things, but if they are effective we have already been doing them without knowing why or even that we do... We mimic faces with babies without realizing it... and in turn this teaches babies to recognize facial cues relaying important information. When someone makes a face, we don't think "because her nostrils are slightly flared and her lips are turned down by 5 degrees and her eyelids are pulled back and the lines on her chin are deepening it must mean she is experiencing anger"... we just think, "dude she's angry". There is so much information that we don't know we know yet. But along with these "innate" skills we teach our offspring, there is a whole set of concious ones, too. Like, "how will we raise our kids"... will they go to time out if they disobey? will they get spanked? Will they be required to eat five bites of veggies to guarantee dessert? will we allow them sugar? Will we try to make them into ballerinas? Will we make them be vegans? Will we teach them a certain religion? Which questions one asks depends on which subjects are the most valuable to you. And the answer to them depends really on the desires and discoveries within yourself. Some parents choose to actively teach their children about all world religions and encourage the child to "choose" or follow the one that most speaks to them personally. Doing so is just as much a decision about "what will I teach my child" as one who un-conciously teaches their child about Islam without ever making a choice against anything else to do so. I'm not sure what I'm getting at except that the idea of relaying love and information and skills to offspring conjures up a desire in me to actively understand what I value. It feels like a biological nesting of the mind, this urge to understand what I believe, value, desire, and strive for, so as to "always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence." I want to be ready with a response I have confidence in when a child asks me what happens to dead people, for example. In fact, I actually think it may be my own inner child asking all these questions, which occurs with or without offspring. The hope that is in me, what will I say about it? To what account will I say it is from? Those are the questions I feel urged to investigate in order to answer them with integrity and sincerity.

The same place that above verse came from also said "Rid yourselves, therefore, of all malice, and all guile, insincerity, envy, and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation-- if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good."

I find that so interesting, particularly the last little tidbit... "if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good." It's so real. So so so so many people have tasted that "the Lord" is bad. A way to exploit others, a way to dominate and supress women, a way to judge and condemn anybody that makes one uncomfortable, a wrathful, angry diety, an imposer of plagues, floods, disease, a son-killer, a buzz-killer, an opiate of the masses. To me, the author known as "peter" seems to be hinting at the fact that this good Lord ain't so sweet to everyone. I like it because it means he isn't saying to everyone who passes this scripture "you better do this and do that and not this and not that"... why should they? why would they? Why would someone listen to the commands of a person declaring themself a disciple of the Lord... this same Lord that seems to inspire wars? Peter makes his audience clear with that statement, and with it the whole lot makes more sense. If one has tasted that the Lord is good and sweet, one would naturally want more of the "pure spiritual milk" which causes one to "grow into" salvation. Salvation here to me means less "going to a place called heaven when you die" and more "going to a place called heaven and/or kingdom of God here and now in this life"... a place without malice, a place of personal sincerity, a place without envy in one's heart... all those destructive forces that can make life the description of a hell. So one rids oneself of that, and seeks pure spiritual milk as an alternative, and from this good things grow. Make yourself like a baby and feel the basic yearning for love and nurturing.

If one hasn't tasted that the Lord is good, then one will most likely have malice and perhaps slander against this Lord. But if one has not come to this conclusion, if one feels that perhaps "the Lord" is good, then there is no longer a place for these feelings, because a greater good has restored them. In a way, I feel these things such as malice, envy, insincerity, and slander have an important place in the world. They can be guides pointing to some deep wound that needs caring for. If i'm constantly malice-ing, then im probably angry, butif i just condemn myself for my anger, I will only grow more angry with myself. But if I can listen to it, allow it to be, accept it as a reality, and ask it where it is coming from, then I can find its source and make things right, hopefully. That is why I think Peter says to ride oneself of these things if one has tasted that the Lord is good. Perhaps following these negative emotions to the source may show someone why they tasted that the Lord is not good, and could lead to a reconciliation with that entity "lord". But for those who find the Lord tasting good, and thereby seek pure spiritual milk which thereby grows into salvation, the salvation acts to heal the wound pouring out with malice and envy and such, hence, no longer needed?

jumble of junk.

One thing you may not know about me is that I'm semi-obsessed with and love the Duggars. That giant 21-person sized family with the long hair and long skirts? They fascinate me and are delightful. So I've watched past seasons of their show, read their first book, and I'm currently reading their second book "A love that multiplies". Early on in their marriage, Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar used oral contraceptives and planned on having between 1 and 3 kids. They had their first child, and decided to wait a few years and use oral contraceptives before going for another one. Apparently, during this time Michelle got pregnant, and due to the use of birth control pills, she incidentally miscarried. This devastated the couple, and prompted their decision to leave family planning up to God. They decided to let contraception go and leave it to God whether they would become pregnant or not. 20 or so years later, they have 19 children. What's amazing about this isn't the sheer size of the family. Michelle, Jim-Bob, and the little people they have created exude happiness, self-assurance, brightness, intelligence, and well-mannered good ole' fashioned wholesomness. A beautiful testament and feat in this world for any size family. Despite the size of the family, they are the most optimistic, positive, genuine people in the media today. The children are well-fed, bright, well mannered, happy, funny, playful, and seemingly well adjusted. They are all talented musically, and all have their own sense of aspiration and ambition for the future. They aren't unthinkably rich, but they are provided for and do not want. They manage money wisely. Despite the untraditional size and extremely conservative values, there doesn't seem to be any funny business, any weird creepy cultish scary dark undertones to this family. Compare the Duggars to other untraditional families in the media: Jon and Kate plus 8? divorce, trauma, tabloids. The Sister Wives? They had to move their brood of half-brothers and half-sisters to a new state to avoid being incarcerated, and the children seem deeply distressed. The Duggars attribute all their success to God.

I'm a fairly liberal person when it comes to religion. I tend to have feelings of suspicion, discomfort, and bitterness towards extremely conservative or "fundamentalist" points of view. There is a history of pain and injustice there. (Which can be said for any religious tradtion). This is an instinct I am actually working on overcoming so as to be an open-minded person in all aspects. But, based on appearances, one might assume I would be put-off by some of the Duggar's life choices and convictions: they take the Bible very literally, and therefore the women do not cut their hair, they only wear long skirts, they wear "wholesome" bathing suits that cover the body from the knees to the elbows, they have conviction against birth control, they do not date or kiss until "I Do", they adamattly do not acknowledge evolutionary sciences, they don't dance, they don't drink, and they are constantly dishing out Bible verses for every occasion. A scene like this would typically make me raise my eyebrows.

But these people are so cool. They have an unending source of optimism, hope, peace, strength, endurance, and enthusiasm. When faced with challenges and adversity, they are creative and perservere. They are incredibly kind and warm hearted. Despite the severe extremes of their personal convictions, they don't ever seem judgemental or preachy towards anyone with differing points of view. They don't write "God says birth control is evil and therefore thou shalt not use it!", they say, "for our family, we came to the conclusion that all children are a blessing, and so we felt that meant to leave it up to God"... they speak from their own experience and point of view, rather than imposing their experiences, choices, and points of views on others as a universal truth. And yet, they never shy away from expressing their convictions and Christian status. They focus their attention on helping others, making mission trips as a family each year to El Salvador, as well as countless other altrusitic daily activities. Perhaps it is what Christianity is meant to be... (not neccessarily the skirts and no dancing) but the focus on helping other people and being warm and kind and trying to do what they percieve as right-- meditating on what what is right. Even though I find some of their practices a little kooky, they are genuine and authentic. I find myself wanting to be like them. I honestly think their family is a ministry of sorts, even if they aren't trying to make it so.

One reason I desire "starting a family" is from the Duggars' tele-influence in my life! It sounds silly that a reality TV show would cause me to think so much about "deep life". But Oh Well! Michelle never raises her voice, she thinks creatively to come up with positive ways to raise her kids and instill sound values in them, and it looks like a blast. The Duggars' homeschool, and if I were ever to actually do that it would require loads more research, but it does look fun! The more I contemplate the reality of having children, the more I want to raise them in a "Christian home"... going to church and such. I write on this blog all my doubts, my wonderings, my uncertainties and my issues with the long-lived-long-loved-overloaded look at "Religion/Spirituality/Christianity/ECT", but to exist without honesty and without room to express these things would be suffocating. I believe it can all co-exist. And if a faith full of certainty is ever the goal, it won't be achieved by just faking it. In any case, my experience being raised Christian was completely positive. It imbedded in me a compass of goodness, stability, and altruism. Plus it was fun. Even if I'm not being good, feeling unstable, and being selfish, I can at some point come to recognize that and seek to change because I've seen and heard and learned of opposite. Even though not all religious people act morally, Religion, or, as I must try to speak from my own experience, Christianity, seeks to instill Morality. Whether or not it gets properly installed, or whether it's in working order in one's own life is a whole other story. I would want the deep messages of Christianity for my kids. Even though "christianity" fails some people, and unspeakable acts of evil are conducted in its name, unspeakable acts of evil can also be conducted in other names, and I don't think "Christianity" itself is the cause of the unspeakable acts of evil. Christopher Hitchens, RIP, was a great and passionate thinker, but this is one fundamental point where we completely disagree.

In any case, in order to raise a family I have to be in good working condition. To be able to answer hard questions, instill a faith, lead a child, and relieve another's anxiety, I've got to have my ducks in a row. Perhaps that's what all this existentialism is all about. It's my biological, emotional, and intellectual response of the growing reality of soon having children. I've been trying to get my body to a place to deliver children, which means for me being sans-medication, and the past few days that goal has been extremely challenging, violently so. For whatever reason, I want to have kids. So I want to be ready to "leave it up to God" as the Duggars say. I hear from most people that you can "never be truly ready". That makes me feel better. It's good to hear no one else is perfect, and that no one else has ducks perfectly in a row. Then I don't feel so hopeless! The Duggars seem like an "imperfectly perfect" freaky family, but they're all just humans doing the good fight.

The Duggars, and how I want to adopt some of their ways: I simply can't be completely like them. It wouldn't be genuine of me to grow my hair out and stop dancing and wear a long skirt and disregard the theory of evolution. I can't just imitate it and, voila, I'm a transformed mortal. But the Duggars seem to earnestly search for purpose, meaning, truth, light, love, and peace. I am glad for them that they find these ideals in the Bible, in Christianity, and through their lifestyle choices.

I do think, though, that the earnest searching of my own might reveal different interpretations of not only how to live life and wear my hair, but what I hear through the Bible. Could one be wrong and one be right?

I personally don't quite think so. I can't honestly say I believe that there is "One" essential "Truth". Except that maybe the "one essential Truth" is the search for Truth itself. If "One Essential Truth" does "exist", it's got to be a bigger notion than the one implied on the giant billboard off the side of a Missouri highway in the Bible belt, glaring down at passerby's with condemnation and judgement. A search for truth must involve, I suppose, clarification on what the word truth means. I find this word Truth to be misleading because for me it conjures up images of "right and wrong", sin and blessing, heaven and hell, in or out-- a tool for segregation, separation, and division. Truth can be attributed to the "correct" interpretation of a verse, a bible, a religion. I think this type of truth is a diversion from what the idea can actually embody. I feel that Truth might mean something more like the word "authenticity". A mix of emotional honesty, bravery, searching, and peace. If Truth can't mean this, than maybe Truth just isn't that important. If "Truth" doesn't come hand in hand with Peace and Love, than what good does it do? If I must "accept" or "believe" a certain event in history as a factual occurence, or declare a line from a book as the one set of words that can eternally determine the state of one's soul, then accepting or believing it won't do me any good if I'm not at peace with that conviction, and if there is no meaning found in how that line or how that event can actually change my life here and now for the greater good.

I would rather not give a hoot about what happens after death, as I might spend all my time looking past all the wonders of the present world for something that could just as well be complete nothingness. However, just as humankind has deliberated throughout all of its species history on the mystery of death, I too am not immune to that aspect of the human condition. It seems unavoidable that part of life involves the imagination about and at times, fear of, death. And since there is no way I can "know" what comes post death anymore than anyone else can in any quantifiable way, I do see I have a choice in the matter as to what I prefer to imagine. I think humans are fairly lucky and it is a trait of survival to believe death can possibly lead to eternal heaven, peace, nirvana, moksha, whatever. Perhaps there is a more mysterious, God-given reason as to why humans have perceived a metaphysical reality inside and outside the realm of "this" life. I personally do think so. I wonder if conciously choosing to imagine heaven after death or "believing in" heaven are terribly different? I think there's some cross-over there, as what we choose to believe can shape our attitudes and become a deeper part of us. If I'm upset, but choose to not yell and instead calmly express my emotion, that calm may wash over the upsettness and chemically change it to a sense of understanding. In the same way, if I choose to address the mystery of death with a vision of peace in heaven, perhaps that deep contentedness will infiltrate my being and be more than the answer to a multiple choice question. Whether one comes to this conclusion through conscious choice or through a sense of deep conviction or by God communicating it to them personally... does it matter? Maybe. I'm not sure.

reflections, certainties, doubts

"to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe" -Carl Sagan

From the onset of this blog, I intended to use it as a way to practice academic writing and organize my thoughts on things I was studying. While that is still something I hope to do with it, I find myself more and more wishing to write from the heart, voicing personal reflections, wonderings, certainties, and doubts-- all which occupy my mind on a deeper level. Not just that the axial age was a time when multiple independent civilizations changed in fundamental ways regarding self-consciousness, but why, and why that is worth thinking about and uncovering now, and what it might mean for me or human kind. I find myself wanting not to report, but to reflect. So why not allow it to be? In my "welcome back" blog post, I said something about not wanting to "trap down" my "beliefs" but rather explore the questions. I have been thinking about this statement, and trying to figure out if it is true. I am a natural explorer. My search for meaning is ongoing, and feels insatiable. I've wondered, then, if that means I am constantly trying to define my worldview. What I think is: yes and no. Yes, I feel that we are all constantly defining our worldview (whether we try to or not, whether we are conscious of it or not). We encounter information and experiences, and reflect on what it means to us, and how we understand it. The No part is reacting to my words "trapping down". I am constantly changing, as is the world around me. To trap down a "belief system" into a box of untouchable certainty does not feel as important or real for me as the curiosity and questions that lead us to our next journey, and temporary destinations. I percieve that there are core values and tendencies in myself, and those are revealed to me time and again. The smaller, detail oriented curiosities are a novel bunch to consider and pontificate, but in a way, each situation requires a whole new evaluation of the universe. In a split second I am confronted with life and concoct a response based on innate values, my education thus far, my experience, my biology even. And in that second I am unaware of any of this. It is a rush of wordless whispers to my brain, my limbs, my lips, and small constant decisions and evaluations. This seems to be the nature of life's activity: a process. So I don't wish to come to set conclusions about all the mysteries of the universe. That seems a silly goal. And yet, it is what I ponder most. What might I believe, and what then is belief? Conviction? Certainty? Doubt? They are all beautiful and terrifying.

Ozymandias Reflection

Ozymandias
by Percy Bysshe Shelley

I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in a desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands strech far away.

I love this poem for it's "wonders of the world" archeologist feeling and imagery. It reminds me how all people and places of great power fall, and reveal that power is really nothing at all but a building and building of perceptions, which can vanish in the sand. All that remains are crumbling stern faces of command, which to the future onlooker, are comical and sad in the irony of hindsight. It reminds me that there is not much value in treasure and power-- they carry a weak legacy. I find it interesting how overtly past rulers asserted dominance. A giant sculpture of an kings face, walls of frilly castles lined with portraits (employing the 'airbrushing' techniques of the day), and tall town stelaes outlining every imposing rule and code. Power nowadays seems more covert. Or maybe it's not... maybe the form of our self-promotion has just shifted from imposing statues to manipulative commercials. Maybe we're less ruled upon and more brainwashed within.

great big gig in the sky

I assume many Christians would take offense with the way I interpret the religion. I know many Christians would not consider me to be one. I am sure the nature of my beliefs and convictions at the least make many people squirm. I am sure of this because some convictions of others indeed make me squirm myself. It is an ongoing debate, Theological Correctness. One Great Collossal Truth we might all share is that we make each other uncomfortable. Lots of Jesus' fellow Jews jived with what he tried to say, and lots of them were quite incensed by it to the point of wishing and requesting him dead. And on it goes with every society and their respective Great Prophets. There is nothing so human as conflict, and it seems to me one source of peace can be agreeing to disagree. In my opinion to say something as fantastical as eternal life is at stake, and the fulcrum point between tipping up to a heaven or tipping down to a hell is by the profession of agreement with one point or another is quite a human notion.

I was considering the passion of the Christ, or in other words, the suffering of the Christ, and what it means to me now in this moment. Although I may have ideas or inclinations or opinions on the subject of "literalism" in the bible, I feel these opinions are fairly irrelevant to what the story written in the bible may mean. By mean, I don't mean "what it truly implies. Could it ever be just one thing or two? But in what may have been a routine crucifiction by cross for Romans really seemed special to a few Jews. It's special-ness continues to take on significance for all sorts of people all throughout time. At a time when waking from the dead was not completely unheard of, some folks did seem to think it was a very different and significant grave abandonment this time around with Jesus involved. I know this because so many people discussed their perceptions about it, and eventually those perceptions were written down.

But what I perceive in this moment is that a force called God offers a comfort so supreme that it's painful to even think about, and therefore quite difficult to accept. I don't think the physical "suffering" of death by cross is really as bad as an almost-magical "taking on" of all the psychological pain and discomfort and sadness of all people all across the world or maybe even universe throughout all time as we know it. In Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ movie, I loved how bloody and gory the trip to death was displayed. I cringed at the thought of having those gashes made across my back and along my side. Ow. But I can barely stand to cringe and think about the deep pain I know I've felt at times, multiplied by all infinity. This pain all being not just accepted and heard by another, but taken on to a point past empathy that I'll never see. The gaping wounds in all our hearts and all the embarrassment, self-loathing, evil, conniving, manipulating, barking, depressed, worried, desolate darkness lurking in every moment of isolation-- i imagine it all being accepted by God. God sits with it, quietly, calmly, dead ahead eye to eye and not just allows it to be, but accepts it and in a freaky way maybe loves it. I imagine this through the story of Jesus' death and ressurection. I see it as a story about a hero sucking up all the sadness and by acknowledging it and letting it exist, it loses the fundamental power to destroy, and instead the magical love-force grace-ness fills in the gaps with what makes life so worth living that we all procreate so damn much to the point of overpopulation. It's an unbelievable feat, rising again each morning after the terror of a nightmare.

I see in my memory the face of my grandpa as he was walked down the center church aisle, with his sons on each arm, and his metal cane, a leg for the left one he didn't have working. His mouth was paralyzed in place, a jaw hinged open, as if to attempt inhaling the moment and reality physically as it can barely be accepted or comprehended by mind alone. It was a white face surrounding the hole of his mouth, a dark abyss. He was walking into the funeral of his wife. Whatever pain was inside him, taking over his face and freezing his mouth so as ingest or escape, I can barely stand to conjure up in memory. I think about the recent sudden death of a healthy, happy mid-life man, and the sweet family left to endless stages of grief. I think about my sister's life-long friend who suffered so intensely with an illness that caused her to starve herself to death. It's disgusting to even write my memories of these atrocities down, but they just flash through my head-- an instant of pain or perhaps just a pinch of it or the fear of it-- a flash. And then I picture this Thing called God, if it's all knowing, having not just the facts of tragedy but the voices of it's aftermath calling out in screaching pain, and the Thing is strong enough to withstand it all and sprinkle enough goodness in that we all laugh at some time. The death and suffering and psychosis doesn't really destroy. I mean, it does destroy. But it co-exists with other things like laughing. I don't know what the f*k the pain means and why the hell the tragedies must go on. But I'm picturing something sitting with them all. Like a big perfect therapist in an immortal sky nodding neutrally to the dark subconscious of Man, unbiased and non-judgemental to the sins and sadnesses that may be. This I find comforting and maybe even transforming. And it's an idea I got from the whole "Jesus-story".

another good quote

"Whatever its explicit message, Occupy Wall Street has made a powerful statement with its very mode of existence. Newcomers don't face an ideological litmus test; their protest signs aren't edited. People of diverse backgrounds share food; nurses share their skills; everyone has an equal voice. In other words, the group is making a democratic witness by its behavior, even if its message isn't always unified. This approach might be foreign to political operatives and political reporters, but Christians should find it quite familiar."
-The Christian Century, Nov. 1, 2011

Thanksgiving

Each week I am going to post a few notable quotes from things I'm reading.


"Here 'the Frankincense country, mountainous and forbidding, wrapped in thick clouds and fog, yields frankincense from the trees,' and Arab camelmen waited under the dust of their camps as they do now, and in their bales, together with the incense of Arabia and Africa, tied pearls and muslins from Ceylon and silks from China, Malacca tortoiseshell and spikenard from the Ganges, Himalayan cinnamon leaves, called Malabathrum,... And from India, diamonds and sapphires, ivory and cotton, indigo, lapis lazuli, and cinnamon and pepper above all. And dates and wine, gold and slaves from the Persian Gulf; and from the eastern coast of Africa, long subject to Arabian traders, frankincense, gold, and myrrh, ivory and ostrich feathers and oil."
-Jane Fletcher Geniesse from the introduction to The Southern Gates of Arabia: A Journey in the Hadhramaut, by Freya Stark in 1936

"We, on this our first day, having left the region of Cana, travelled eastward still tossing violently, and looked out through the afternoon on the volcanic fringes of teh Sachalitic bay.... No grimmer coast can be imagined. The mountains are sharp--naked apparently as when they hissed in black coils from the darkness of earth, lonely and hard as death, and with a derelict and twisted beauty. Their cliff faces press one behind the other towards the sea, whose luminous moving waves seemed to repeat in gentler and more living form he chaos of thier desolate chasms and ridges."
-Freya Stark, The Southern Gates of Arabia: A Journey in the Hadhramaut

These quotes capture a pure sense of bounty, awe, and terror from a journey during a time when images of the east were unseen unless travelled to-- months sick at sea by compass and setting sun. In this time, bountiful treasures specific to exotic regions were untasted, unsmelled, untouched unless by arduous travel or trade conducted by the worn hoof of a camel and the sweat under a turban under the sun through the desert. The Incense Road-- the trade routes explored in this book-- involves months away from families and tribes to share the unique treasures of one's land and receive the legendary bounty from another. Geniesse, in her list of goods traded from their mother land, evokes the preciousness of these products.

In my culture and time, cinnamon, oils, dates, wine, pepper, frankincense, and myrrh line a shelf within a few feet of each other, a five minute drive from my house. These treasures, through the fast-paced commoditization of our economy and technology, are lost on me daily as I whiz past them looking for a specific brand of wheat flour. I expect to find anything I can imagine within a 20 mile radius of my home. I expect to afford it without much sacrifice of time or resources. I don't think about where it came from, how cinnamon is harvested, what myrrh really is.

In her travel essay, Freya Stark retraces the steps of a historical trade route: "But no one knows how long before them (Hippalus, a Greek who led Mediterranean commerce across the Indian Ocean in 45 CE), in what morning light of history this trade began, nor when Dravidian boats first set their single sail, and with high carved stern and rudder at their quarter, and sun and wind behind them in the favourable season, first crossed the Indian Ocean and dumped their cargoes on its Arabian shore" (Geniesse, 5). She encounter the "incensed" Hadhramaut (present day Yemen) in 1936 (just 75 years ago). Her delicious descriptions are full of revelry, awe, wonder, and enlightenment. I appreciate how a place may seem so fully new, terrifying, and exotic to someone. I am able to feast my eyes upon images of Arabia, China, the rainforest, the Arctic, at any time from the Internet. I see without care or want the images of those who have gone before me. As I travel, I must seek to extract the present uniqueness of a place from its cultural architecture like the "arabs tap their trees with small incisions cut into the bark..." (Stark 11). I soak in Starks entranced account of meeting a wholly new culture and place.

In just 75 years "Westernization" has seemingly eroded the sharp contrasts of place to place, culture to culture, creating a world more familiar than foreign. Or perhaps technologies like the Internet have allowed intimate communication between separate peoples, which now illuminates the shared human experience and commonalities rather than assimilating all peoples to one identity. Whatever the cause and effects of time and technology and economy, what we share with the foreign comforts me, and how we differ enchants me.

Geniesse captures the bounty and beauty of precious commodities and allows me to see these goods as the ancient traders may have-- a means to live, the pride of one's country, a mysterious gift from the gods. Starks description of landing along the Arabic coastline is exhilarating in its sense of newness and mystery.

I think even today, with the whole world one flight away, this sense of wonder can be achieved. Perhaps it takes retracing the ancient trade routes-- the incense road-- and imagining a world where coming upon a group of people with different skin, different language, different values and customs was wholly new and completely foreign. Perhaps it takes valuing the small jar of cinnamon for its miracle of being harvested from the bark of a tree, and appreciating its ability to enhance our sense of taste and smell and all its benefits therein. With this book, I discover the value of reading a primary source recounting terrific travels to "new" lands as they were. History comes alive in the present and exists just as terrifying as if it was now, and now as if it was.

welcome back!

I'm going to continue this blog again! hooray!

Since my last post, I returned from New Zealand to my hometown of St. Louis, Missouri. There I worked at a great buy-sell-trade store called Avalon Exchange. It was an invigorating environment full of creative opportunities: visual merchandising, management, fashion research and buying vintage/trendy/one-of-a-kind clothes for our store! I learned how much I thrive on working creatively: in the windows-making displays, creating new training materials, and in assessing thousands of garments a day! I also discovered that training and teaching give me a rush of feel-good-- I love it! From sharing technical information with a new employee on how to tag a shoe to writing about an author's account of the historicity of Christianity on this blog, I love conveying information and ideas. At times, the fast pace of informal conversation can overwhelm me-- I often prefer to listen. Having a more methodical format to discuss issues at a slower pace allows me to think through my ideas and references more carefully.

So after St. Louis came Lincoln, Nebraska. My husband got a promotion that took us here. I'm fresh on the job market and interview circut, which means more time for "me". I think this blog will make a positive, productive use of that time. It has also been great to focus on the activities of a traditional "housewife". I'm not darning socks or churning butter yet, but I've cooked some and cleaned more... it's seriously satisfying to actually dedicate oneself to running a household. These are new skills I am developing. But you know what they say... you can put an apron on Ashley, but it's still Ashley... just with an apron on... (?)

When it comes to religion(s), I'm curiously obsessed. The "meaning of life" simultaneously fascinates and frightens me. Perhaps this is why I love studying how various individuals and cultures throughout time have explored these deep, elusive, metaphysical issues, and what conclusions they've come to. Through this study I learn more about my personal convictions with every visceral reaction I have to historical and current accounts of religiosity, spirituality, philosophy, ethics, art, literature, ritual, ect. Though it is in the fabric of my being to explore my personal convictions, I do not limit my study and exposure to these. I highly value tolerance, celebrate diversity, and "interfaith" pursuits. For me, learning about different worldviews feels more important than trapping down my own. I am often reticent to share my own opinion in an effort to not isolate others and learn more. On the other hand, it is all one can do to compare personal experience and perspective with all those that surround it. I tend to remain neutral and academic, but not without passions, opinions, and convictions.

Being a human is weird. But also the only "normal" thing, as it is the only thing I've been. Perhaps "being" itself is the strange thing, yet, without being, there would be no strange?

Cooking

To occupy my time and mind, to keep it from its downward spiral, to create a sense of importance and purpose where there is none, I decided to cook one thing a day. I don't really wish to imply that it takes a feeling of destitution to get me to cook because cooking is invaluable. To me, cooking is a great and noble sort of alchemy... a pure balance between science and art, an elusive, mysterious playtime with the dangerous and necessary forces of fire, matter, and the ether. I guess all this time to myself in a destitute state has finally gotten me inclined to face the ether... to fire the oven and stove-top, and dance with the fire. I also don't wish to imply that something like cooking can't lend one a sense of purpose. Most of commerce and business relies on the notion of value, on the suspended belief in a concept of money, rather than a currency of material resources. So it often is with a different sense of wealth and value... I attach value to having high profile jobs, or jobs with a selfless altruism, or jobs towards a noble goal, or jobs in the arts, or jobs that primarily utilize a stock of personal intelligence and indicate "i'm smart". And this whole idea of jobs really revolves around doing something that makes money. I am challenging this paradigm within myself, though, because as it stands I have no job, and therefore, considered myself without value. What gives my life purpose and importance without doing something that makes money? What gives my life purpose without even doing something? For instance, I see being a stay-at-home-mom as one of the most noble, altruistic, intelligence-requiring, challenging "jobs" there is, and that doesn't really corral the cash. Can I have this sense of purpose intrinsically? Regardless of what job I do, what activity I participate in, what money I make, what functions fill my day? What I think I must find the answer "yes" to is Am I valuable without activities, jobs, titles, roles, ect, ect? What gives someone a sense of value and purpose? How do you find it? Do you create it? Do you just believe it's true and then it becomes true?

Maybe tonight's coconut curry vegetable stir fry brought me a frying pan and finger burn closer to the answer... or did it just provoke the question? In any case, next time I am going to add the coconut curry sauce to the stir-fry sooner, as to retain the vegetable's color and crunch better. I will also add the bean sprouts and carrots after the sauce, for an even briefer cook time. The rice turned out alright. Following the directions worked. All in all, the taste was pleasant. The next round in this meal might be to do the coconut curry sauce myself, instead of from a free sample packet. I want to make meals that are as alive as possible... that are from fresh sources... that are of "whole" foods... bascially the least amount of steps and ingredients between the earth and my mouth as tastefully possible. This will take time, but I get one step closer each day. Tomorrow I will try cookies from scratch again... with new measuring cups I will perfect the ratio of flour to sugars and so forth, with dark chocolate chips I will sophisticate the flavor and avoid sweetness saturation, with accurate timer setting, I will better judge their done-ness, and with this being my second shot, I will approach the task much more prepared, as an experienced baker.

Comments

Unfortunately, I am unsure at the moment how to make leaving comments easier. Sorry about that. I'll look into this.

Goddess of the Month: Vicious March

In light of recent events, ("I regret to inform you that we were not able to offer you admission into our Master's program") the featured goddess this month is Kali, the Hindu goddess of destruction. Kali embodies the principle of darkness, often referred to as "Terrible Kali". Kali is often pictured with glowing blue skin, a protruding red tongue, a necklace of skulls, and a skirt of severed arms.

The goddess Kali is understood as an emanation of Shakti-- the Mother Goddess. In essence, Kali is a manifestation of Shakti's destructive aspect. This explains why those who follow Kali are considered "shaktas", or followers of Shakti. In many Hindu homes, one god or goddess is focused on in worship. This is a form of Bhakti Yoga, or discipline of devotion... one of the few main disciplines employed to achieve Moksha, or an eradication of suffering and ending one's personal cycle of death and rebirth... basically Nirvana. By choosing one god or goddess-- an individual aspect of the divine--to focus on, one transversely worships and confronts Brahman: the eternal, unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality. All existence emanates from Brahman. The pantheon of Hindu gods and goddess are a manifestation of this existence, and practicing bhakti yoga helps one to better understand and access that reality. So a family that worships Shakti exclusively also understands Shakti as an individual form of a larger, more comprehensive ultimate reality.

Although Kali is the essence of darkness and destruction, the goddess' primary purpose is to seek out and eradicate all evil with a fierce ruthlessness. Reflecting on life, I am comforted by this Hindu goddess. She represents only one aspect of Shakti-- fierce destruction and death (like, the death of a certain young woman's dream to go to grad school)-- but Shakti, being the sacred female she is, also embodies life-potential, rebirth, renewal... fertility. And so in Hindu fashion, I envision that, though this specific dream of mine has been destroyed, it's death is inevitably followed by a reincarnation. Let's hope I've got good Karma!

Discussion Question: Can We Envy Ethically?

The tenth commandment states that thou shall not covet (your neighbor's house, wife, man or maid servent, ox, donkey, ect). Envy is considered one of the seven deadly sins. Many may agree envy and jealousy are destructive forces to one's moral fiber. The ten commandments provide a sound philosophy with which to live a morally rich and happy life, and the seven deadly sins are well-worn warnings, but they are intrinsically religious tenants addressing morality.

To what extent are envy and jealousy unethical? In a secular ethical framework, are envy and jealousy relevant? If so, in what way?

Let's Discuss!

Democracy/Capitalism: Discussion Question

I came across this thought on page 175 in Chris Hedges' book When Atheism Becomes Religion:

"Community centers, village squares and town meetings, the public spaces that made democratic participation possible, have been replaced by privatized space, by shopping malls, where we are permitted to enter (only) as consumers....And while we sit mesmerized (by spectacle/entertainment/advertising), corporations steadily dismantle the democratic state."

Adam made the comment that while public space and forum are less frequented, we as Americans now use our dollar as our primary democratic voice. We, hopefully, invest our money into our personal consumer choices, which in turn shapes the state.

To what extent do you see our "democracy" better defined as a "capitalistic society"? Do you agree that public space is being replaced by the private corporate sphere? Are we no longer citizens, but consumers?

What are your thoughts?

Spicy Book Summary

When Atheism Becomes Religion: America's New Fundamentalists, Chris Hedges passionate discourse about the face, function, and feuling of fundamentalism in American culture, is a fiesty read! I highly recommend this book to all atheist, agnostic, and religious people: orthodox or liberal, moderate or extremist, as well as anyone interested in politics, art, literature, and the human condition. In this book Hedges seeks to dissect the worldview of "new atheists", a self-defined group of contemporary writers (such as Christopher Hitchens or Stephen Harris) and propose this mentality as dangerous, disfunctional, and fundamentalist.

Basically, the "new atheists" blame religion as a central cause to disfunction and destruction on an individual and societal level. Instead, these contemporary thinkers invoke the realism of science, rationality, and reason to guide one's life and search for meaning alongside a fight towards the obliteration of religion. While the author remains fairly neutral towards both religion and secularism, he questions the rhetoric, logic, tactics, and beliefs of the "new atheists" arguments, describing them as fundamentalist and utopian. Hedges shows how both Christian fundamentalists (among other religious extremists) and the "new atheists" profess a belief that humanity can progress morally and rationally only through their own respective and specific truths. Hedges explains this belief as a dangerous one, as it creates a binary world of "truth" and "non-truth" (which becomes characterized as evil). These high ideals cause a celebration only of those within the truth, and allows a lethal hostility towards the "other" to develop, which sets loose in each group the dark recesses of human depravity. Furthermore, Hedges argues that humanity is flawed and fractured, that we are all irrational animals with the ability to sometimes choose the rational and to justify. Even our mere concept of self is just that-- a concept-- but the reality of our being is illusive. The belief that humanity can progress morally and rationally is unfounded. He claims that to use either the "cult of science" and rationalism or the dogmatic proclamations of religion to define the Ultamite Truth indulges one in the delusion of human perfectability, and the intoxicating power of "rightness". This conviction has lead to some of the most atrocious crimes throughout history. The author argues against contemporary voices like Hitchens that it is not religion that creates conflict, antagonism, and violence, nor is it sacred texts proposing these cruelties, but the utopian dreams of fundamentalist people. This utopian idealism is built collectively from politics, culture, circumstance, economics, and so on, while groups of identity (such as Christianity) become a banner fitted to a deeper belief and feeling of threat. Chris Hedges views the "truth" of existence as complex, impossible to understand, abstract, mysterious, and paradoxical. He implies that religion (without fundamentalism) seeks to express the glimpses of the sacred and transcendence, and that science flourishes as a way to quantifiably define and technically explore the material world, in all its elusive evanescent glory.

To further give you a taste, here are some interesting quotes:

"The shudder of awe is humanity's highest faculty,
Even though this world is forever altering values..." (Goethe, Faust, page 9)

"The question is not whether God exists. It is whether we contemplate or are utterly indifferent to the transcendent, that which cannot be measured or quantified, that which lies beyond the reach of rational deduction. We all encounter this aspect of existence, in love, beauty, alienation, loneliness, suffering, good, evil, and the reality of death. These powerful, non rational, super-real forces in human life are the domain of religion. All cultures have struggled to give words to these mysteries and moments of transcendence. God--and different cultures have given God many names and many attributes--is that which works upon us and through us to find meaning and relevance in a morally neutral universe. Religion is our finite, flawed, and imperfect expression of the infinite. The experience of transcendence-- the struggle to acknowledge the infinite--need not be attributed to an external being called God." (Hedges, page 15)

"... this need for the sacred, propels human beings to create myths and stories that explain who they are, where they come from, and their place in the cosmos. Myth is not a primitive scientific theory that can be discarded in an industrialized age. We all stoke and feed the fires of symbolic mythic narratives, about our nation, our times and ourselves, to give meaning, coherence, and purpose to our lives." (Hedges, p. 16)

"Any form of knowledge that claims to be absolute ceases to be knowledge. It becomes a form of faith." (Hedges, p. 20)

"The dangerous myth that confuses moral progress with material progress permits us to believe we have discovered a way out of the human predicament." (Hedges, p. 21)

"Atheists... have often been a beneficial force in the history of human thought and religion. They have forced societies to examine empty religious platitudes and hollow religious concepts. They have courageously challenged the moral hypocrisy of religious institutions. The humanistic values of the Enlightenment were a response to the abuses by organized religion, including the attempt by religious authorities to stifle intellectual and scientific freedom. Religious authorities, bought off by the elite, championed a dogmatism that sanctified the privileges and power of the ruling class." (Hedges p. 25)

"Since scientific knowledge is cumulative, it lends itself to the illusion that human history and human morality are cumulative. A belief in the limitless possibilities of science, and the belief that science will save us from ourselves, has replaced, for many, faith in God." (Hedges p. 47)

"The extinction of our species, though tragic, would not mean the extinction of life. The human race is not at the center of creation. We are bound to the fragile ecosystems that make life possible." (Hedges p.56)

"If we can determine a particle's position, we cannot determine its momentum. We can measure momentum, but in this measurement we lose the particle's exact position. We can know a particle's momentum or its position, but we cannot know both with definitive accuracy." (Hedges p. 63, on Werner Heisenberg's 'uncertainty principle' relating to quantum physics)

"Where rigid, formal obedience to law allows the adherent to avoid ethical choice, the truly moral life grapples with the inscrutable call to do what is right, to reach out to those who are reviled, labeled outcasts or enemies, and to practice compassion and tolerance, even at the cost of self-annihilation. And all ethical action begins with an acknowledgment of our own sin and moral ambiguity." (Hedges 92)

"The story of Christ's death is a reminder that what is sacred in life always appears to us in flesh and blood. It is not found in abstract ideas or utopian schemes for human perfectibility." (Hedges 95)

"The expression of the sacred, part of the human desire to preserve and honor that which cannot be tallied and quantified, is what makes the ritual and the liturgy of religious life powerful and real, despite the corruption of the institutions behind them." (Hedges 162)

"It is culture, history, circumstance, tradition, economics, and the deep self-interest of the tribe or the nation that more powerfully inform belief systems than the contradictory and often impenetrable pages of the Bible, the Koran, or any other sacred text." (Hedges 174)

"God was an experience. God came in the profound flashes of insight that cut through the darkness, in the hope that permitted human beings to cope with inevitable despair and suffering. God came in the healing solidarity of love and self-sacrafice." (Hedges 177 on God's answer to Moses' request for revelation, as influenced by Paul Tillich)

Goddess of the Month Club-- Valentine's Day Special

Hine-Pukohu-Rangi, this month's highlighted goddess, appears to us in the mythology of the Maori. This story contains themes of lust, love, heartbreak, and redemption-- perfect Valentine's day drama! The term "goddess", in this circumstance, I use loosely. A more accurate word for the "sacred status" of Hine-Pukohu-Rangi would be an "atua",or "mariekura", meaning departmental god, and female spirit respectively. You may observe this distinction within the myth I will soon tell, and I will later discuss how a figure like Hine-Pukohu-Rangi fits into the traditional Maori cosmology. But without further ado, I present to you the legend of "Uenuku and the Mist Girl", summarized from A. W. Reed's anthology of Maori Myths and Legendary Tales, pages 86-90.

Our scene begins where the forest meets the lake. Uenuku, walking between the trees, sees and unusual formation of mist, rising over the lake in a column instead of lying low to the water. Transfixed, his curiosity leads him closer and he sees the cloud of mist is, like a silver veil, wrapping around two beautiful bathing women. Kneeling before them, Uenuku introduces himself, and asks the name of such a vision. Hine-pukohu-Rangi responds, calling herself the Daughter of the Sky, Girl of the Mist. She introduces her sister, Hine-wai, the Misty Rain Girl.

Uenuku, astounded by her beauty, professes his adoration to Hine-Pukohu-Rangi, asking her to "come and live with me in this world of light... I am strong and will take care of you." Hine-Pukohu-Rangi declines, as she cannot leave her home. Uenuku describes her home as cold and empty, and this (earthly) world as warm, with "the summer sun shining through the leaves of the trees and in winter the glowing fire of the hearth. There are birds and their songs, men and women and their laughter."

Tempted at such a poetic plee, Hine-Pukohu-Rangi steps toward Uenuku... but draws back replying that he would not be happy with her. Uenuku, steadfast, professes "but I would always love you". Hine-Pukohu-Rangi, the Girl of the Mist, explains that she comes from "the outer space" and she may spend the night with him, but would have to return to the heavens when the morning sky turns light. Smitten, stubborn, Uenuku still wants her, despite his possible lonliness during the days. "Please come and live with me" he continues...

This time, smiling, the Mist Girl accepts.

Uenuku and his bride slip unnoticed into the night. He takes her to his house, where no one hears their sounds of love. The following morning, before the sunrise, the Girl of the Mist meets her sister, and the two drift into the sky like clouds.

This continued each day into the summer months when the days were long. Women began mocking Uenuku for the bride he claims that they've never seen. They ask him to prove this beautiful woman exists. Uenuku got to thinking about how much he missed his bride during the days-- her laughter, her song. He couldn't take it anymore. He covered the windows with mats, and pushed moss into the crevices of the house. The Mist Girl entered unsuspecting that evening, though the house was as dark as a moonless night.

When the sun rose, Hine-wai (Rain Girl), Mist Girl's sister, called for her to come along into the sky. Hine-pukohu-Rangi began to gather her things. Uenuku stopped her, explaining that it couldn't be morning, as it was completely dark. He told her Hine-wai must be mistaken. Hine-pukohu-Rangi stayed, and Hine-wai's voice became fainter as she eventually left. Upon hearing the forest birds singing, Hine-pukohu-Rangi still felt that something was off. She thing heard voices of the village people, and rushed out of bed. She ran out of the house without her cloak, and the sun filled the house. The village people gasped-- she was more beautiful than anyone they had ever seen-- she did not look like she belonged to the earth. Uenuku was happy that others envied him for his wife. Hine-pukohu-Rangi jumped onto the roof though, and covered her body with her hair. She began to sing a sad song of pain, longing, and love. A cloud descended from the sky and wrapped around her until she could no longer be seen-- only the sound of her song. She ceased singing, and the cloud drifted upwards until dissolving in the sunlight.

Heartbroken, Uenuku waited each night for his love to return. She never did. Finally, he left home in search of Mist girl. Adventuring and traveling brought him to many places, but never to Hine-pukohu-rangi. He died, old, toothless, bend, and lonely, in a distant country. The gods thought Uenuku had paid for his thoughtlessness and pride, and so pitied him. They turned his body into a multi-colored rainbow in the sky for everyone to see. Now, as hine-pukohu-rangi rises from the damp earth in the warm sunlight, Uenuku, the rainbow, encircles his wife with a band of glowing color. (the end)


Hine-pukohu-Rangi is of what james irwin, in his book An introduction to Maori religion refers to as part of the realm of ultamite reality. Within this cosmological framework, you first find Io, considered the supreme being, from which all things have eminated. Io is much more of a force than an anthropomorphic character. (A quick note--Some question whether the entity Io existed in the Maori cosmology before the arrival of the Pakeha. Much of the Maori worldview regarding the sacred and divine, along with subsequent myths and rituals, have changed through time particuarly since the 18th Century. The Pakeha's introduction of Christianity, along with many other new ideas, inevitably shifted the culture. While today Maori spirituality certainly retains it's traditional collection of myths, rituals, and beliefs, these are widely assimilated into Christiantiy... creating a unique hybrid of each culture's traditions. For the purposes of this blog, though, I am mainly discussing the pre-18th Century traditional worldview).

From a mythical standpoint, Rangi (the sky-male) and Papa (the earth-female) created all things in the realm of the human. These two main, or high, gods mated, and produced numerous offspring. The offspring, though, were stuck between Rangi and Papa as they embraced. Working together, the gods seperated their parents, sending Rangi to the sky and Papa to the earth. I have heard it is believed that the rain are Rangi's tears for Papa, and the fog is Papa's tears for Rangi. Anywho. These offspring are considered "departmental gods", presiding over and resembling the elemental aspects of the earth they embody. These gods are morally ambiguous-- sometimes tricksters and manipulative-- and fill the earth with mana, or spiritual power. Less powerful or stable within this heirarchy, there are considered to be spirits, monsters, guardians, and the much revered ancestors. All mana, which makes things tapu, comes from the realm of ultamite reality. These gods, though, do not remain static within this cosmology. As we see in the myth of the Mist Girl, the earth possess beings that are not of the earthly realm, and the gods can make a mortal into something elemental, of the ultamite reality, like Uenuku's transformation to the rainbow. Also interpenetrating with the realm of the human is the realm of the dead. From here the god of evil and disease comes forth, as well as a concept of an 'underworld', or life after death but before joining the ancestors.

As you have surely deduced, the Maori worldview was polytheistic. Many gods and goddesses exist in a richly varied hierarchy. Note here my usage of the word "worldview" instead of "religion". When regarding the traditional cosmology of the Maori, the word religion seems much too modern... it almost assumes a compartmentalization of the aspects of one's life or the life of the community into "religious" and "otherwise" or "secular". For the Maori, the gods and godesses, the myths, the rituals, the concept of what is sacred (tapu) and what is common (noa) is entirely infused in each aspect of the lifestyle and state of being-- from cooking to cleaning to property management methods to hunting to greetings. These "religious" notions inhabit the core of one's innate perspective of the world.

A few words about "myth"...
My stance on and concept of the nature of mythology is still developing. Many post-Englightenment philosophers suggest that Myth existed as a way to explain natural phenomena (so, rainbows form because of the penance paid by Uenuku as the natural gods decided). In this framework, science can how replace myth, as it serves the same purpose more accurately. Despite technology and modern science, though, mythology remains, serving an important purpose for societies. I am still learning about the function of mythology, but I partly see it as a way to bring definition and identity to a group of people... it allows for a needed cohesion in what could be a collective social chaos. I also believe it to convey, or encode important information to the culture generations down the line. in this sense, the emergence of a rainbow is, through myth, illustrated as sacred, related to love, passion, redemption. How one should regard rainbows or mist has been culturally encoded through myth. Mist is understood as an elusive element-- at times unreliable, and not of this earth. Due to its mystery, it is, in effect, dangerous. It has great tapu, as it can wrap one up and cause dissapearance. This emphasis remains regardless of a technical understanding of each element's natural occurance.

And fewer words on this myth...
While I chose to showcase this story for the Goddess of the Month club, it is as much about Hine-pukohu-Rangi as it is about Uenuku. Uenuku is regarded as an important war god in the Maori worldview, and this myth very well explains his emergence as an elemental force.

That's all for now! YOU GO, GIRLS AND GODESSES!!

Cultural Evolution in New Zealand: Maori vs. Pakeha: An Amateur Ethnography

The Maori people, Maori being a pan-tribal term (as those who are Maori may refer to themselves by their particular tribe), are thought to have established themselves in New Zealand sometime between 1000 and 1500 CE. A steady flow of migration occurred until this time, when the general Pacific region seemed to settle in place. These people originate from a larger Polynesian migration, and are considered Polynesian in origin (as this region stretches from Hawaii in the north to New Zealand in the south, and Easter Islands to the east. The ancestral and genetic origins of these Polynesians at large is considered Indian or Indonesian. This is still studied and disputed. It is also disputed that there may have been a group of native people inhabiting New Zealand before the Maori's arrival... The Moaori (spelling not accurate). These people, to whatever extent they existed, were oppressed and cannibalized by the Maori, who established themselves as the dominant culture. (And hey, if they were cannibalized, it would make sense why evidence is hard to come by... no bodies buried!)

The arrival of the first Maori's to Aotearoa (New Zealand, Land of the Long White Cloud) is an honored event in the culture's rich mythology. This first ancestor is held in deity status, and the method of his arrival, the Waka, or canoe, is an important detail. As an aside, the waka is considered a very sacred object. This is presumably due to its legendary status and pivitol purpose both in the mythology of the Maori and also in their daily life. Making and using the waka is a ritual process because of the spiritual power, or Mana, it possess. Mana is an essential word conveying a sense of great power, force, and transcendent nature. Though Mana is a neutral force, its power can mean great danger for humans who possess or encounter Mana. Therefore, Tapu is established around objects and people with mana as a form of ritualized protection. Tapu is ritual restriction neccessary to ensure the safety- both physical and spiritual- of the individual and community. A helpful way to understand the concept of "tapu" is to think of the common English word "taboo". Our English word taboo has it's origins in the Polynesian word and concept of "tapu", sometimes spelled "tabu".

Now, Back to cultural evolution! The 16th Century marks the commencement of European exploration, which grew through time into colonization, and imperialism. In the 1700 and 1800's, the British stretched their sea-legs quite a bit, extending their limbs across the globe, eventually landing themselves in Aotearoa in the late 18th Century. The first notable contact is attributed to a man with an immortal name, Captain James Cook. The collision of two wholly separate cultures is rarely smooth, particularly given the British track record on exploration... This scenario is a familiar one, in which "white man" finds not only new land, but a new version of the human race. Whether the first to the island or not, in this case, the Maori are considered New Zealand's indigenous people. These others invading were referred to by the Maori as "Pakeha" (or white man, other, basically non-Maori). The Pakeha, the British, brought with them disease and weapons, causing a state of unrest between peoples, and general culture clash, as one could imagine.

I do feel, however, that because this occurred in a relatively later period (the 1800's) in comparison to, say, the British colonization of the US (1600's), time was and is on the Maori's side in terms of preserving culture, as a native peoples. To me, it could have been worse (like the oppression and, what you might cringe calling slow ethnic genocide, of the Native Americans). For example, the 1830's was a time of immense migration of Europeans to New Zealand, and this was perhaps the height of the cultural clash. On February 6th, 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi was signed by both the British government and over 40 Maori chiefs. This treaty, in brief essence, gave the British official sovereinty of the land (allowing them to buy and sell it as they like), and political control, but also provided the Maori with rights as British subjects. It is still considered part of the common law here. The Maori were, in a sense, politically announcing a general assimilation to the Crown, and allowing the English a place of political (and cultural) dominance. This is a very safe and blood-free alternative to what tragedy may have ensued without the treaty.

While the English culture remains dominant (the Maori minority represent 20% of Kiwis, and is generally in the lowest economic class) there has recently been a conscious investment (with government cooperation) in restoring and raising awareness of native traditions, roots, language, and general Maori-ness. For example, there is a public television station, "Maori Television", all in Maori language providing cultural programs, language lessons, and minority-centric entertainment. Museums certainly display treasures, artifacts, and interactive information on Maori culture, but this can also be observed as a living entity. One can visit the villages in which tribes still live. Recently, a new Marae, or meeting house, was built near the Taupo region, as well as a newly built drum of historical design. The fact that new meeting houses are continually being established exemplifies that the Maori practice a living tradition, extending through centuries and generations.

As an aside, the Marae is an important part of the community. It is the meeting house where tribes meet to formally discuss issues, make decisions, and perform rituals. The buildings themselves are considered very sacred places. Each one follows the same architectural format, because the form of the structures is very symbolic, as well as the decor and carvings within. I can discuss this in more detail in a later post.

Language is another important part of the survival and vitality of the Maori culture. Many public signs are written in both English and Maori, children are raised bi-lingual, and many words are assimilated directly into the English dialect here in New Zealand. For example, most place names are of Maori origin, such as "whitianga", "taupo", or "rotorua". Plants and animals possess maori names, like the "pahutakawa" and "punga" trees, or the "pukekoe" bird. There are also a portion of words all Kiwis use and understand in place of English ones, such as "whenau" (family), "Kia Ora" (welcome-- used each night on the evening news), "Pakeha" is a term still used without taboo, and the name "Aotearoa" itself. The survival of native languages is very important to the survival of a culture itself. Because of the assimilatiom of Maori into English, I feel Maori language has a great chance of survival in the upcoming century, when it is predicted that 90% of all native languages will die out! (given the advent of technology and fast, global communication). There is something important and sacred about preserving a language, as it carries so much of the pulse and life-force of a culture itself. Much of the rich symbolism and meaning in a culture is given life through language.

And that, my friends, are my words so far on Cultural Evolution in New Zealand, concerning the Maori and Pakeha!

Join me next time as I explore topics such as cannibalism, death rituals, deity heirarchy, architecture, artifacts, and so much more!

PS: DID YOU KNOW!?!?!?!
Did you know that BATS are the only endemic mammal to New Zealand!?!?! No wonder they practiced cannibalism... probably got tired of all that fish! hehehe. Bats!