I have, as of late, avoided posts of a personal nature. In part, I think that’s because I’ve tended to have a less public venue for my personal outpourings and in part it’s just damn embarrassing. Both for me and for my readers because honestly, who wants to read someone’s innermost struggles online? I know I do, but then I’m all about figuring out how people work.
At any rate, as I sit here looking about this apartment on a Wednesday night I’m struck by the need to be doing something. I don’t mean walking about by myself in Zionsville in the dark taking night photos. I don’t mean sitting reading a book. I’ve found as time goes on that I need people. People are really important to me and yet in some bizarre way I have the damnedest time relating to them. I am, if we must be utterly honest, terrified of people. Well, amend that slightly. I’m terrified of people that I don’t have some sort of handle on. People at work are a snap because I have an “in” with them. I can talk about work! What could be more natural than that? Unfortunately, that seems to be just about ALL I can talk about at work.
For example, one of my coworkers is leaving our company soon and it was announced today. I sent him a short missive that said, in a nutshell, how much I appreciated the work he had done and that one of the things that I really admired about him was the fact that he managed to really get things done but also forged personal bonds with people. He’s just an amazingly nice guy and people can sense that and appreciate it. Meanwhile, I’m off in the corner just sort of working away and I suspect that people think of me as “Rob, that guy that does the work” but it ends at that. My coworker is real. He’s human. People like him and relate to him. I feel most days like I’m just a drone. I come in, I’m good at what I do and then after the work day ends I vanish (unless there’s an emergency support call). For the most part people don’t know how to really relate to me. It’s clearly not their fault, but I can’t help but feel that there’s some part of me that’s missing. That they try to connect and all there is in response is empty air.
Anyway, my personality dysfunctions aside, I was reflecting tonight on my situation and realized that my feelings of isolation, as they always are, are self-induced or at the least a function of my anthropophobic tendencies. It is not that life does not throw ample opportunity at me for social interaction but much more that I simply fail to grasp it. For example, let’s just look at the calendar for the next several days. Tomorrow the Center for Inquiry has an event going on that sounds pretty interesting: “The Dark side of the Sacred.” If that doesn’t scream, “Rob Slaven come see this!!” I don’t know what the hell does. Friday through Sunday morning I have my girls over so that’s certainly accounted for. Sunday afternoon I have an Ultimate Frisby (whatever the hell THAT means) invite that I should not ignore. Monday I have photography class where I will sit quietly in the corner and fearfully not really participate. (Yes, I realize that anyone reading this from my workplace will be totally agog at the idea of me sitting quietly anywhere.) Tuesday I can go to a classic movies discussion. (assuming I can find and see the subject movie by that time). Wednesday I can…. Well. Hrm. Not much going on Wednesday. Perhaps I’ll relax that day… anyway, point is that there’s SO much crap going on. There is absolutely NO excuse to be sitting here on my own. The whole world teems with ideas and activity for those willing to partake of them…
It really is funny, in an odd sort of way, that someone who seeks so vehemently the company and friendship of others is so incapable (scratch that, not incapable, but inherently unskilled in) of taking advantage of all that the vast society around him has to offer. In times of more assiduous reflection, it seems clear that society would welcome my contributions if only I were more readily capable of producing them and making them clear to those around me. Sadly, this tiny and ill-heard forum is insufficient to bridge that gap. One voice crying out in the forest is far from sufficient. The voice will have to take to its legs and go forth unto the people. And once there, proclaim itself to be appreciated…
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
Book Notes: St. Thomas Aquinas on Politics and Ethics
Below,
find my observations as I read Norton's selection of St. Thomas Aquinas
on Politics and Ethics. The topics discussed are entirely outside the
realm of my current expertise and so I reserve the right to falter, fail
and downright err in my attempts to assimilate and summarize the text.
You'll also no doubt note that my writing style is faulty and at times
illegible due to the complete lack of familiarity with the topic.
Parties wishing to correct my interpretation, grammar or content are
welcome to do so. Parties wishing to argue about the nuances of Thomist
theology should find a more worthy opponent with whom to test their
expertise.
St. Thomas Aquinas on Politics and Ethics
Norton Critical Editions
Life of St. Thomas - Timeline
1225 - Born near Naples
1244
- Joins to Dominican order but is imprisoned for a year by his family
as they are disappointed in his choice. They preferred he become a
Benedictine.
1259 - 1264 - Writes 'Summa Contra Gentiles'; an aid to help missionaries in their work to convert Muslims and Jews in Spain and North Africa.
1265 - Writes 'On Kingship' for the youthful new king of Cyprus
1266 - 1272 - Writes 'Summa Theologiae', an introduction to the Dominican theology for novice members
1274 - Died after striking his head on an overhanging tree branch
1323 - Canonized
Introduction
Saint
Thomas' primary contribution to history was to integrate the newly
discovered and seemingly contradictory teachings of Aristotle into the
theological teachings of his day. Because Aristotle's teachings ran
contrary to long-standing church teachings they were banned in 1215.
The ban was re-affirmed in 1231 but a few short years later the logic of
Aristotle's arguments was irresistible and by 1255 he had become
required reading.
Thomas'
use of the scholastic approach allowed complex philosophical problems
to be broken down via rational debate. Where previously issues of
governance and morals were resolved by attempts to extract answers
directly from interpretation of Biblical texts, with Thomas we see the
evolution of the use of natural law or reason as an extension of
Biblical teachings. The belief that man's natural reason is all part of
God's plan for the world is key to Thomas' work. "Grace does not
destroy nature, but completes it." he writes. The grace of God and the
knowledge of Jesus' sacrifice does not contradict our observations of
the world around us but instead caps it nicely by wrapping up the lose
ends that human reason is too feeble to resolve. Man can know some part
of God's divine plan by use of his intellect but can never know God
completely. Where knowledge ends faith must begin. For Thomas, reason
was simply another path to God, not one of self-deception as St.
Augustine argued.
Summa Contra Gentiles
In
Summa Contra Gentiles Thomas argues about the fundamental properties of
God and the universe. God, he argues, cannot be entirely understood by
application of human reason. Using the human senses to know God is
like knowing an object merely by the shape of it's shadow. One can
demonstrate logically that God exists, that God is one and eternal but
the deeper mysteries of God, such as the fact that he is simultaneously 1
and yet also 3, are impenetrable to logic. Though it is possible to
know something of God by argument alone, few men do so. Most are
distracted by earthly concerns, not mentally capable of the pursuit or
merely too lazy. But the knowledge is there for anyone who seeks it;
reasoning and logic, derived as they are from God himself, will never
contradict faith and truth. It cannot be emphasized enough, however,
that no matter how diligently we may seek or reason, the final step to
knowing God must be an act of faith. Reason alone will not give us all
the answers.
Thomas
goes on to compare humans' relationship with the divine to an oyster's
relationship to a plant. The oyster represents the very lowest of the
animal forms and as such is only slightly separated from a plant. In
the same way, humans, supreme among the animals, are only slightly
separated from the angels above them in the great 'Chain of Being.'
Man, as ruler of the animals has only his soul to separate him from his
baser counterparts. While all animals outstrip man in some manner (some
are faster, stronger, better hunters) man dominates them all in that he
has a soul and can partake of the ultimate happiness, the contemplation
of God. While communion with God is the greatest joy possible to
mankind this is never without an accompaniment of sorrow or
distraction. No man is without suffering until he reaches his ultimate
reward. The soul needs the human flesh to help it derive knowledge from
the substance of the world around it but this flesh comes with a price,
constant suffering while man lives on Earth. Only the divine light of
God can teach the soul directly without the need for a human form.
All
the acts of man, no matter how base-seeming, come about as the
fulfillment of natural appetite. Since nature tends always towards the
good and optimal all acts are good though that good may be of a strictly
local nature. If a man should kill another man, it would be for the
benefit of himself. Whether this should benefit society in general is
another argument altogether but in the context of murderer alone the act
is a good one. Similarly, all intellectual acts bring us closer to
God. No matter what we seek the only truth in the universe is God
himself and when we approach truth by any path we approach God. If we
should derive pleasure from any act we commit it should be noted that
this is merely a byproduct and not the goal to be achieved. Pleasure is
never an end in and of itself but instead merely a sensation that
signals that we have completed some more important goal.
On Kingship
On Kingship
illuminates Thomas' views on the best manner of government. This text
was started for the King of Cyprus in 1265 but Thomas did not, in fact,
ever finish this work as the young King was killed not long after it was
started. Another writer completed the text afterwards. Thomas argues
emphatically that the best form of government is a Monarchy. A single
ruler, he says, is not burdened with differing viewpoints. A benevolent
monarch can move quickly to serve the needs of his people without the
need to consult anyone else. While private concerns of the citizens
work to divide the community the king's role is to guide the people to
focus on the public goals that bind them together. It is this act of
uniting his people in peace that is the ruler's first and most important
responsibility. Because this is the first goal, it can obviously be
done most efficiently by only one man. No appearance of dissent is
possible if all the decisions stem from a single individual. Nature
also demonstrates to the superiority of a single leader. Thomas points
out that the body is ruled by a single organ, the brain. The universe
is ruled by a single God and even bees are guided by a single 'king' bee
as he refers to it. Lastly, a government ruled by many, no matter how
seemingly benevolent, is more likely to devolve into tyranny. If a
group rules then it becomes increasingly likely that at least one of
them is corrupt and thirsts for more power and may overthrow the
others.
While
a king is the best form of government a tyrant is the worst. As the
king works for the benefit of the ruled the tyrant works only for the
benefit of himself. A tyrannical monarch is worse than any form of
government in which many rule since he works in the interest of only
himself while a oligarchy at least works for the benefit of a select
handful of people. A tyrant also drives the virtuous from his kingdom.
Any who excel in a society ruled by tyranny represent a threat to the
status quo and are quickly forced to either leave or act against the
king. Men will still labor to support a just king but a tyrant brings
out the best in no one around him.
A
relatively benign tyrant can be better than a particularly oppressive
oligarchy, Thomas concludes. A tyrant only steals for his own benefit
but an oligarchy may go so far as to spur a war or in the best case
steal for the needs of many more individuals. Once established, a
tyrant should not be removed except by the united rebellion of those he
rules. It is thought by many that simply assassinating the despot will
resolve the government's problems but often is it found that another
even worse tyrant simply replaces the first. Since this new ruler is
keenly aware of the delicate position he holds his reign will be even
more oppressive. If the ruled cannot unite strongly enough to depose
their ruler then their only valid course is to appeal to God himself.
It is better to suffer an unjust ruler than to act unjustly in deposing
him as God sometimes uses such rulers to punish the sinful.
A
king who wishes to be just should model his rule after that of God over
the universe. Rulers should consider their subjects like parts of
their own body and treat them with the same respect. The ultimate goal
of the government is to support the people in their own goals: to live
virtuous lives and enjoy the divine knowledge of God. The government
should recognize the supremacy of the church in all matters since it is
the Church which is the best guide of virtue and Godliness.
Summa Theologiae Part 1
In
the Summa Theologiae, Thomas takes on some of the stickier theological
questions of his day. The format for these answers takes the form of a
debate in which the question is posed, objections are raised and then
Thomas puts forth his proof. I will boil down these proofs to their key
points below.
Does God Exist?
Objections:
God cannot exist because a true God would not allow evil to exist in
the world. Besides, everything that takes place in nature can as easily
be explained without God.
God's existence can be proven in 5 days:
- Objects on the Earth and outside it move from the stars to the wind. In order for these things to move there must be someone to move them. This is most assuredly the work of God.
- The universe operates on the principle of cause and effect. Everything we see around us has some cause but there is no effect without a cause. This first cause which is required for anything to exist is God.
- Objects in the world either exist or they do not. Objects come into being because of other preexisting objects therefore there must be some initial object to have created all others. Again, this first object is God.
- To all properties in the universe there is a greatest superlative example. God exist to represent the greatest possible example of 'goodness' and benevolence in the universe.
- Nature operates in the optimal way possible for the survival of animals and plants. Just as for the arrow in flight there must be an archer to guide it, so also in order for nature to behave in a rational manner there must be some God to dictate this behavior.
Responds
to Objections: God is so utterly powerful that he allows evil to exist
so that he may turn it to good. Further, all the acts of God seem
rational and explained by other means exactly because God dictates that
they behave in a reasonable fashion.
Can we know God in this lifetime by use of reason alone and is it better to know God by reason or by Grace?
Man
can learn to know God by the use of his reason but the results will be
hollow when compared with that gained by God's grace. The pursuit of
God by logic is prone to error since man's reason is subject to the
frailty of his senses while God's grace instructs the soul directly.
Does God love all things?
God
does love all things and everything is good in God's eyes. God's very
love for things makes them good while man's love is contingent on the
belief that they are good.
Is the soul a material object? Is the human soul corruptible?
The soul is incorporeal and as such is not corruptible
Should woman have been made in the Original Creation?
Objections:
A woman is basically just a defective man so she shouldn't have been
made in the first place. This is obvious because she is subject to the
rule of the man and this is an indication that she has sinned and is
being punished for it.
Woman
was made as a "helpmate" to man. Not for helping in the fields but as
an aid to procreation. Animals in nature reproduce in the same way and
while the woman is concentrating on bringing new life into the world the
man can be focused on the first goal of mankind: communion with God.
Responses
to Objections: Woman is somewhat defective in her nature but that's
what God made her to be. Her duty is to create children and this was as
God intended therefore it is good. Also, woman is subject to the rule
of man but that's only because man is more endowed with intelligence
than woman so it's for her own good that this is so.
If the 'Fall' had never happened, would we still need Kings to lord over us? Would we still have sex?
Man
is a social animal so regardless of the circumstances he will require
the company of others. Whenever men congregate there will be some who
are more intelligent or stronger than others so even if man had never
fallen from grace, we would still need leaders to direct the actions of
the community. As to sex, male and female were made before the fall so
sexual intercourse would still exist. It would be different however in
that it would not be tainted by lust. This is not to say that it would
be less pleasant however. A moderate man who eats only what he needs
enjoys his meal no less than a glutton.
Are there different orders within the hierarchy of angels?
Yes, angels are broken into orders by their function and into three levels: highest, middle, and lowest.
Summa Theologiae Part 2a
In
part 2 of the Summa St Thomas pursues a few more questions but for
brevity I will reduce the findings to a more comopact form and dispense
with the Question and Answer format.
The
only happiness that can be found in this life is merely transitory.
Man is never truly happy as long as there is more to do and more to find
out about and in this life we cannot possibly hope to exclude all
suffering and evil. It is only by achieving his primary goal, to know
God, that man can achieve happiness. God in his wisdom and mercy gives
us tools added to our natural intellect to help us attain this final
happiness, they are the theological virtues: faith, hope and charity.
It is by exercising these virtues that man can eventually become truly
happy.
Just
as you would not blame the hand alone for a murder it carried out, so
too can one man alone not be blamed for his sins. The body of mankind
as a whole is tainted and this is the nature of original sin.
Law
is the rule or measure of action or restraint in a man and the first
law of all is that of human reason. A law is said to be good if it is
oriented towards the common good. To be effective a law requires
consensus among the ruled and must be widely known. Effective law also
requires that the ruler has the power of compulsion in cases where the
law is disobeyed. Unjust law is contrary to divine goodness and should
be considered no law at all. There are four types of law:
Eternal
law is the law by which God governs the universe, the divine wisdom by
which all things are ultimately ruled. Eternal law is a constituent in
all other laws.
Natural
Law represents the manner in which man behaves according to the Eternal
Law. These laws are the same for all men but are unknown or unfollowed
by some. They are also prone to exceptions since they can be changed
or exceptions made depending on the situation or the will of God.
Natural Laws fall into three basic categories: those laws which preserve
life (prohibitions on murder, suicide), that knowledge shared in common
with the animals (sex, education of children), knowledge of how we can
become closer to God.
Divine
Law is the word of God given to us in the form of Scripture. Divine
law serves four purposes. First, to aid man to reach beyond the Natural
law towards his own salvation. Secondly, to correct human laws where
they may err. Third, to judge those things which cannot be judged by
man's sense of the world around him. Lastly, to tie up any loose ends
that are unenforceable in the course of a normal human lifetime (such as
punishing suicides who would otherwise be beyond the reach of civil
authority).
Finally,
Human law is constructed by man and derived from Natural Laws as an aid
to the young and the weak who might not otherwise observe those laws.
The purpose of human laws is not to suppress all human vice, this would
be impossible to enforce. Rather, those infractions which would
diminish the social order are focused on. Even those who are outside
the enforceable realm of human law are subject to it as God will sit in
judgment of even Kings who violate it. Over time, Human Law evolves and
exceptions are made but changes should only happen with the support of
the ruled and in cases when the risk of changing a long-held belief is
small compared to the benefit derived from the change. In many cases,
local custom has the force of law even when it is not formally
codified. The best way to administer Human Law is through a single
ruler and a council of elders much like Moses and the council of 72
elders. Human Laws fall into two basic categories. Firstly, those laws
which are common to all nations and from which there is no
dispensation. These laws are derived directly from the Natural Laws.
Secondly, laws which are derived less directly from the Natural Laws
merely for the convenience of the of the community.
Most
importantly, it should be noted that no system of laws, no matter how
constructed or how closely adhered to can make a man truly good. Only
the Grace of God can bring man to the level of true goodness.
Summa Theologiae Part 2b
Those
who never believed in the salvation offered by Jesus Christ (primarily
the Jews and the Muslims) should should not be physically compelled to
believe since this would not actually do any good anyway. Heretics,
apostates, and any others who stand in the way of the faith can be
removed by any means necessary as these threaten the viability of the
faith. The faithful should also not associate with unbelievers,
especially those weak in faith. Others may associate with them only if
there is hope of conversion and the rituals of unbelievers are not to be
tolerated unless that tolerance directly serves to advance the cause of
conversion. Further, the children of unbelievers are not to be
baptized against the will of the parents until such time as they reach
the age of reason. In extreme cases, heretics may be killed but only
after being given the chance to renounce their heretical views.
War
is not in and of itself a sin. If waged for a just cause and in a just
manner war is an acceptable means of advancing the cause of the faith
or removing an tyrannical ruler. In all cases of violence, however, the
benefit must be weighed against the costs of the disruption to the
common peace. Similarly, it is just to murder a criminal if that murder
benefits the public good but this must be undertaken by the ruler of a
community and not by its private citizens. Killing in self defense is
not considered murder as long as it is proportionate to the risk of
doing nothing. In such cases, the intent of the killer is paramount.
If the intent was to murder then so should the action be adjudged. In
the same way accidental killing is not considered murder except in the
case where gross negligence caused the death. In that case, regardless
of intent, the ruling shall be that of murder. Finally, in the case of
the death of an infant before it's birth, it shall be considered murder
if the pregnancy is more than 40 days old (in the case of a male) or 80
days old (in the case of a female).
Suicide
is a mortal sin for three reasons. Firstly, the act of suicide is
contrary to the natural law of self preservation. Secondly, the
destruction of a member of a community is harmful to that community so
the act is also one against the common good. Lastly, suicide is an
infringement on the sole jurisdiction of life and death that belongs to
God.
It
is within man's natural rights to own objects as his own private
property. In this way he is best able to care for those objects as he
has a sense of ownership and pride. However, with that ownership comes
the responsibility to share that objects in a time of need. A man may
rightly steal if he is in dire need so the right of ownership is
secondary to that of necessity. A man may also sell his objects for a
profit without fear of committing a sin but it is a sin against nature
to charge interest on the use of money itself since nothing is bought or
sold in the transaction.
It
is natural that inferiors obey their superiors in life but a slave may
never be commanded in contradiction to orders given by a greater
superior (ie, God). A superior can also not command outside the realm
of his dominion. Specifically, a master may command the body but the
mind is beyond his reach. It should also be noted that faith in Christ
does not release us from our duty to secular authority.
In
no case is lying acceptable even in cases where a another sin may be
averted by use of a falsehood. Instead, it is recommend that one simply
avoid giving a direct response.
The
act of drinking is not a mortal sin unless the intention is to actually
become drunk. Drinking to drunkenness deprives man of his natural
reason which directs him to act virtuously.
Virginity,
although contrary to the natural law of procreation, is not a sin if it
is done so as to free one for more time to contemplate the divine. The
opposite extreme, that of promiscuity, however, is a mortal sin as it
works against the proper rearing of children. The mere act of kissing
and embracing is merely a venial sin but those of masturbation,
bestiality, sodomy and 'sex using the wrong organs' is against nature
and constitute mortal sins.
Summa Theologiae Part 3
Christ is the head of all mankind though in differing degrees:
1. Christ is head of those united to him in heaven
2. Christ is head of those united to him in love (those not currently in a state of mortal sin)
3. Christ is head of those united to him in faith
4. Christ is head of those who have not yet united with him but who are predestined to before their deaths.
5. Christ is head of those who will never be united with him and who will separate from him utterly upon their deaths.
Did you find this post interesting? If so, 'Like' the Tattered Thread on Facebook and replace some of that inane babble from your old High School classmates with out slightly less inane babble.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Books: How to Work a Room
I started reading a book in the vicinity of this day. It's completely out of character as it's called, "How to work a Room." Yeah, yeah. Get back on your chair. After 50 pages I'd gleaned a couple of useful facts. By 100 pages I was just about ready to tear the book in half just to guarantee that one copy of this bullshit out of the millions available would not poison another impressionable mind. Anyway, let's start with the good and useful things I was told. Yes, I know, they're obvious but I'm not sure anyone had told me these things specifically:
* If you go to a party and you're uncomfortable, then other people are too. When I mentioned this to my wife she reminded me of the July 4th party I 'ruined' about 13 months ago. It went something like this. We went to some distant friend's house where we were in company of several other people who were good friends with the hostess. They all sat about drinking heavily, talking about nothing and I sat quietly and waited for the party to end. This, apparently, was enough to ruin the party and it certainly ruined my attitude for the rest of the day. The lesson learned here is a simple one I think. If you're not enjoying yourself then just leave so you don't screw it up for everyone else. Fair enough.
* 93% of people in the world consider themselves shy. I think most of the time that I consider myself shy but really I'm not. If you wander into a topic that I know something about, I will talk incessantly and I'm always blabbering on about my innermost thoughts on here so I'm certainly not shy about talking when I have something to say. The important bit here though is that the hard part for most people is approaching others. So, if you approach them then you've done 90% of the work and you can go about the conversation. Amusingly, evidence for this was right at hand. I often talk to people at random in stores or whatever and people almost always react positively to what I have to say so people want to talk to you. People are, in general, ready to have a conversation. The key is getting over that initial hurdle and breaking down the initial barrier between people. Now that, I think I can try to do more effectively. At this point, I can't imagine people will think me any MORE of an ass no matter what I say so I have that going for me. The down side here is that I typically just DON'T have anything to say on most of the common topics of conversation. You want to talk about the science or mathematics or literature or computing or religion then I'm your man. Let's set a date. You want to talk about what diet Cher's on or what happened on American Idol last night.... um, no, not so much.
* People can sense what your real intentions are so you can't schmooze just to get something. Now this, I thought, was a damn interesting little tidbit and hopefully true. The author tells bits about how she's gotten all sorts of random perquisites from her smoozing. Tickets to shows, free crap, discounts, etc because of some incident she had in an elevator. That's all well and good and a nice thing to look forward to I suppose but really just random gravy. What I guess pisses me off most is that there are people out there who have to be told, "just don't do this to take advantage of people" while I sit here on my own with absolutely nothing going on. It's damn frustrating to try to put yourself out there for people and get blank stares in return. I take cookies across the street to the old couple at Christmas but I'm not even sure they eat them. I'd be happy to help the neighbors get their yard in order so maybe they could sell their house but they won't even acknowledge my greetings. We're just such isolationists in this country. Either that or I'm just too damn scary. Whatever the case it's annoying. It's not that I WANT to get a call at 4 a.m. from some friend who has a major problem but it would at least be nice if that were a possibility.
So the first 50 pages went about like that. I was relatively upbeat on the whole process but it was clear that the book was geared for sales types which I most definitely am NOT a sales type. Then we start getting into the 'how' phase. How to make contacts and break the ice and get the free flow of information going. Sounds good doesn't it?
* The book recommends practicing a self-introduction. OK. Here's the best one I could think of:
**** Hi! I'm Rob! Now, I'm only here as part of a court-order. 'Socialization re-adjustment phase' of my parole they call it. Anyway, when we gone done talking there are some forms the judge would like you to fill out if you could.... Ma'am? Where are you...
* Practice your smalltalk. Look through the news and find 2 or 3 interesting stories and read them so you'll be prepared. Read People magazine so you can be aware of all the latest goings on.
It was at this point, that I measured the book to see if it could fit down the toilet. So basically, the key to successful smalltalk is to go read something you wouldn't ordinarily so that perhaps you'll have something to say that people might find interesting. Well I'm sorry but that's just a bunch of horse shit. If the idea of socializing with other people requires me to read fvcking People magazine then I'll just sit quietly and leave when I think it's no longer rude to do so. What the hell kind of lasting relationship is based on that sort of? Am I going to have to read People magazine every week/month/whatever for the rest of my life to sustain such a relationship? I'm looking for people to be friends with, to have interesting conversations with. Not sell them stool softener and rubber cane tips.
The first person to express a desire for this book gets it. Assuming, of course, that they can catch it as I hurl it at them.
* Books: Lost Languages: The Enigma of the World's Undeciphered Scripts
Introduction
Writing evolved about 4000 B.C. due to the need to store accounting information. Farmer A had to know how many things Farmer B had given him so he wrote some symbols that looked like cows and some lines representing numbers and from there writing evolved into what we have today. Even thousands of years later, most of the texts found boil down to basic accounting.
As writing systems evolved, they became less pictographic and more symbolic. Rather than draw a picture of a cow a farmer might draw a rebus that represents the sounds in the verbal word for cow. Then even the rebus symbols became abstracted until a proper alphabet was developed.
Ferdinand de Saussure - "Thought is one side of the sheet and sound the reverse side. Just as it is impossible to take a pair of scissors and cut out one side of the paper without at the same time cutting the other, so it is impossible to isolate sound from thought or thought from sound."
Egyptian Hieroglyphics
Deciphered in 1823 by Jean-Francois Champollion. For centuries even the Greeks had been mistranslating Egyptian Hieroglyphics (Greek for "Sacred Writings") assuming they were pictographs as did more modern translators. Champollion finally cracked the real meaning using the Rosetta stone, a 3/4 ton slab of rock found in 1799 by Napolean's army. The stone which describes an agreement between priests and Ptolemy V Epiphanes, a thirteen-yeary-old newly-crowned Pharaoh in which they'll offer their support for the new ruler for certain unspecified privileges. Good to know some things never change. The stone was written in Greek, Egyptian Hieroglyphics and Demotic (the language of common Egyptians.) As it turns out, Hieroglyphics are both pictographic and phonetic (each symbol can represent an idea or perhaps a sound.)
Linear B
The first examples of Linear B were discovered in Crete in 1900 by Arthur Evans. It was written around 1450 B.C. in clay tablets and comprised mostly of inventory lists. Evans kept the finds to himself for the most part in hopes that he could decipher them. It was not until after his death that they were published and translated by Michael Ventris. Evans believed the tablets to encode a lost Minoan language but as it turns out they represented ancient Greek.
Mayan Glyphs
Only four books (bark paper with jaguar skin covers) survived the Spanish conquistadors who burned Mayan artifacts as works of Satan. The longest is the Dresden Codex which folds out to 12 feet in length. Until the 1970s, Mayan Glyphs weren’t even considered writing. When they eventually were decoded they bespoke of a warlike people who were overly obsessed with hallucinogenic enemas and astronomy. Their calendar was complex sporting 18 named months of 20 days plus a single month of only 5 days. The workings of their calendar are well understood and allow the exact dating of several Mayan artifacts. The Mayan calendar begins on August 13th 3114 B.C. and ends on December 23rd 2012 leading some to believe this date represents the end of the world. The script would have been indecipherable except that in 1547 Fray Diego de Landa wrote down a partial rendering of their alphabet with pronunciations. That in combination with existing Mayan spoken languages has allowed interpretation of existing manuscripts.
Meroitic Script
The Meroitic civilization thrived along the Nile where Sudan is today. In 712 B.C. they conquered Egypt to become the 25th Dynasty. The Egyptians later repelled the invaders and subsequent Pharaohs carefully removed evidence of the outside rulers. By the first century A.D. the Meroitic civilization had evaporated leaving behind its undecipherable writings. Only 26 written words have been translated despite the discovery of some loosely translated documents written both in Egyptian and Meroitic.
The Etruscan Alphabet
Located in what is now Tuscany, the Etruscans are credited with bringing the Greek alphabet to the attention of Rome. The spoken Etruscan language is extinct and apparently bore no resemblance to any modern tongue. The Etruscans were highly literate and borrowed their alphabet from 8th century B.C. Greece. About 13,000 examples of Etruscan are known with 4,000 of those being graffiti or fragments of inscriptions. Of those, only about 250 words have been deciphered, mostly numbers and terms used later by Latin authors.
Most abundant among the artifacts are about 3,000 bronze mirrors bearing engraved pictures and brief Etruscan inscriptions. The Zagreb Mummy was wrapped in an older Etruscan linen religious text of about 1,200 words. The Tabula Cartonensis was found in 1992 and bears 200 Etruscan words. The artifact appears to be a contract for the sale or lease of land.
Linear A
Linear A was used in Crete between 1750 and 1450 B.C. and was believed for some years to be the ancestor of Linear B. As it turns out, it was used before Linear B and in many of the same areas but is not related. Only about 1,500 examples exist totaling about 7,500 characters. Linear A has been found throughout Greece and as far away as Israel. Emmett Bennett Jr. worked out the numerical system of Linear A in 1950 but the bulk of the written language is still undeciphered.
The Proto-Elamite Script
Used between 3050 and 2900 B.C. in what is now Western Iran, Proto-Elamite is the oldest known undeciphered writing system. Despite the fact that 1,500 examples have been found containing over 100,000 characters, only the numeric system has been translated. The primary difficulty in decoding the writings stems from the relative lack of variety. The vast majority of items are simple accounting records. Like other languages, the numbering system has been worked out along with a few simple words and it seems that counting was done in base 10 when counting people or workers but base 6 was used for counting grain products.
Rongo-Rongo
Rongo-Rongo is the only written language of Polynesia and was used solely by the inhabitants of the isolated Easter Island. Rongo-Rongo is written in reverse-boustrophedon, meaning the writing proceeds from left to write on the object, and then the object is turned 180 degrees and writing proceeds again from left to right on the opposite end. Writing continues until the two lines of text converge in the middle of the piece. Only 25 wood carvings survive from the island carrying a total of 14,000-17,000 characters.
The island was discovered in 1722 and later claimed by the Spanish in 1770. At that time, the local chiefs were asked to sign a treaty with the Spanish and they did so using pictograms but did NOT use the Rongo-Rongo language. When Captain Cook arrived in 1774 he reported no signs of a written language whatsoever; for this reason and others some speculate that the language developed only after contact with the west. In 1864 when Peru raided the island for slaves the written language seemed to be dying. By the time missionaries arrived in 1869, their attempts to save the language by asking the islanders to read the markings aloud were unsuccessful. Subsequent attempts similarly failed but it is believed by some that the language may not be in fact a complete writing system but instead a system of mnemonics to aid local leaders in remembering oral histories and genealogies.
The Zapotec & Isthmian Scripts
Zapotec is the oldest known script of the new world, used from 600 B.C. to 800 A.D. About 1200 inscribed objects survive but only 570 are indisputably writing. No apparent relationship with Mayan scripts from the same area but it is clear that the Zapotec originated the calendar system used by the Mayans though the Mayans improved upon it significantly.
Isthmian script is scarcer with only about 600 total characters discovered so far. The artifacts themselves are unusual:
* In 1902 a jade statuette was discovered in a field in Olmec. It depicts a man dressed as a duck and includes about 70 written characters. Included is a date of 162 A.D.
* In 1986 a 4-ton basalt stone was found a La Mojarra. The stone was 8x5 ft and contained a stunning carving of a prince and 400-500 written characters. This item was dated 143 and 156 A.D. Several decipherments of this item have been published but all are highly suspect.
The Indus Script
At it’s height between 2500 and 1900 B.C. the Indus Valley Civilization covered much of Pakistan and N.W. India. It had maritime trading as far away as the Persian Gulf and Mesopotamia and was larger than either it’s Egyptian or Mesopotamian rivals. Over 1500 sites have been found, 5 of them major cities. Yet when Alexander the Great traveled in the area in 326 B.C. all he found were abandoned villages.
3,700 inscribed items have been found with 60% being seal stones containing very brief inscriptions. The longest inscription found is 26 characters with most less than 4. Since so little is known about the people or culture of the area at the time, all that can be said with certainty is that the reading order is right to left and the language seems to be made up of 400-450 distinct signs.
The Phaistos Disc
The enigmatic Phaistos Disc is unique. No other written example of this language exists and therefore it’s thought by many to be a fake. Discovered in Crete in 1908 in the Palace Ruins at Phaistos, this 6.5 inch diameter disc dates from 1850 to 1600 B.C. It contains 242 characters demarcated into 61 groups. The text is written along the outside edge and spirals inward and rather than being marked in the clay with a stylus the signs are actually stamped into the clay making it the first ‘printed’ document. The disc includes several scribal ‘corrections’ which many believe lends credence to its authenticity. Its uniqueness seems to lend credence to the theory that it is not of Cretan origin but has also acted to bring out all manner of crackpots who believe it to be an extraterrestrial artifact of some sort.
Did you find this post interesting? If so, 'Like' the Tattered Thread on Facebook and replace some of that inane babble from your old High School classmates with out slightly less inane babble.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Islam: The Straight Path – John L. Esposito [1998] – Chapter 3: Religious Life – Belief and Practice (Pt 3)
Links to related posts: (Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3 [Part 1][Part 2][Part 3])
Muslim Family Law
Before the introduction of Islam, Arabic family customs regarded women largely as property. One male head ruled over one or more wives with any married sons and their families. Divorce was as simple as stating the desire to be divorced and the woman had no rights or say in the matter.
Islamic law has as its cornerstone a respect for the role of marriage and family and a deep seated concern for the welfare of the wife. Marriages, often arranged by the families far in advance, were considered contracts not only between two individuals but agreements between the families themselves. Quranic law also gave women the right to arrange their own marriage contracts and to keep her dower for herself rather than giving it up to her husband. Most importantly women gained the right to inherit property, an innovation that only firmly established itself in the west in the early 20th century. Men were admonished to take up to four wives but only if they could demonstrate that they could care for them all equitably and provide them separate housing in accordance with the family’s means. This typically meant a room of their own or more rarely an entire house.
However even with Quranic admonitions, women were still not considered equals. Early Muslim society still suffered from centuries of traditional behaviors which took some time for the populous to unlearn. Further, since the roles of man and woman were very strictly defined with the man taking care of outside affairs while the woman focused on the home, some inequities still exist such as the fact that the eyewitness accounts of two women count only as much as one male account of identical quality.
Divorce also became more difficult under Islam and according to the Quran, divorce is the most reprehensible act that is not strictly forbidden. Traditionally, the man could divorce the woman with just a word while the woman must go to court and prove her grounds to be granted her request. Traditional Muslim divorce took three very similar forms, each actionable by the husband:
- A single pronouncement of the phrase, “I divorce you” was sufficient to divorce a wife though there was a requisite three month waiting period before the act was final. The delay was intended to assure that the wife wasn’t with child before the dissolution.
- Similarly, three pronouncements of the phrase in three consecutive months would actuate a legal separation. Once the final month had passed the act was final and the couple could not remarry unless the wife married someone else first and consummated that relationship.
- Lastly, and most problematically, the husband can merely declare three times in immediate succession and the divorce is final and immediate. This is seen as antithetical to the Quran which admonishes husbands to wait three months for the reasons stated in method one above.
The other Muslim tradition most familiar to Westerners is the hijub, or chader, the wearing of burqa and veils to hide all but the eyes and hands of women. While not strictly prescribed by Islam, this tradition acquired from conquered Persian and Byzantine lands does fulfill the Quranic requirement to “speak from behind a screen and be modest.” Unfortunately, this tradition combined with the purdah, or seclusion of women, has had a vast and deleterious impact on women themselves. This separation from the outside world has in some cases left them ignorant even of their duties to God.
Popular Religion
Islam has in its history also enjoyed a wide variety of variation in practice. As we’ve seen in earlier sections, Muslim adherence ranges extremely literal to much more relaxed. At the end of Chapter 3 our author introduces us to the Sufi. The Sufi are Muslim mystics much like traditional western monks. They lived isolated ascetic lifestyles in an attempt to connect directly with God. By blocking out all worldly distractions they hope to be directly and personally inspired. In 1058, Abu Hamid al-Ghazuli was born and he was to become to great unifier of the Sufi religion with mainstream Islam. Al-Ghazuli was a successful lecturer until one day he was mysteriously struck mute. In personal anguish at his loss, he retreated into the wilderness and there became a Sufi and thereafter their greatest spokesperson (at least in writing.)
After al-Ghazuli, Sufi practices started to see widespread acceptance. In pursuit of a connection with God, the Sufi practiced four basic methods of self-purification:
- Self-denial – poverty, fasting, silence. It was believed that only by stripping away earthly desires and distractions could one come to truly know God.
- Repetition of a Mantra – often the Sufi would repeat the names of God hundreds of thousands of times in a sitting
- Song and Dance – it was believed that through music one could become intoxicated by the presence of God. The most famous of the Sufi dances is that of the Whirling Dervishes which reenacts the motion of the celestial bodies around the sun(? Would they have had a Heliocentric view of the universe at this time? We’re talking about 1100 AD.)
- Veneration of Muhammad and the Sufi saints – it was believed that the saints provided a link between God and mankind
Unfortunately for the Sufi, their methods of worship gradually came to be their undoing. Much of their practices came to be considered heretical and by the 17th century they had become a repressed minority.
Similarly, the Shii also venerate special humans as god-like in the person of the Imams. While the Sunni reject any such notion vehemently, the Shii recognize 14 pure or perfect ones: The prophet and his immediate family along with the 9 Imams. The Imams have their birthdays and death anniversaries celebrated yearly by the Shii faithful.
Another central figure of Shii faith is Prince Husayn who was martyred in the year 680. The town of Kafa called to the Prince to save them from a tyrant. The Prince left Mecca with a procession of only 77 followers but upon his arrival he is greeted by an army of Syrians in the tens of thousands. His small band is quickly overwhelmed but not before the Prince’s brother Hasan killed 3,000 Syrian soldiers single-handedly. As the Prince is making one final charge to the attack he is suddenly called back to his camp where his women await him. While on his way he is attacked by a group of cowardly archers who riddle him with hundreds of arrows. Husayn along with his mother Fatima are held up as elite examples of proper Muslim behavior.
Textual Note: Items in this post are noted in the order they appear in the book. Oddly, this is resulted in a somewhat fragmented presentation of the material. At a later date this will be revised into one longer volume with arranges the information presented in a more topically logical manner.
Now that you've read this far, come "like" us on Facebook.
Islam: The Straight Path – John L. Esposito [1998] – Chapter 3: Religious Life – Belief and Practice (Pt 2)
Links to related posts: (Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3 [Part 1][Part 2][Part 3])
During Muslim history there existed many regional schools of law but by the 19th century these had been reduced to four to represent the Sunni faith: the Hanafi, the Hanbali, the Maliki and the Shafi. These four schools have as their jurisdiction large geographic areas. Due to previously mentioned doctrinal differences, the Shii have pursued their own schools of law, the Jafari being foremost among them. Both schools of thought accept the Quran and the Sunna of the prophet but the Shii reject the establishment of law by consensus and by analogy. Instead the balance of the law is derived from the sunna and judgment of the infallible Imam, or failing that, the decision of his religious representatives.
To enforce the laws set forth by the schools, a system of courts was established. Muslim courts differ from western ones in a few key ways:
- Judges act only to interpret the law, not set precedent for future cases
- Two male witnesses are required for any crime. If this is not available then the crime must be sworn to “in front of God”(?) Note: The text is not terribly clear on this point and I’m further unsure how much this applies to modern courts versus traditional ones.
- No circumstantial evidence is allowed
- No witness cross examination is allowed
- Decisions are final with no appeal, though all decisions are reviewed by the Caliph. Note: Again, I’m not sure how much this applies to the modern day, though these courts only deal with matters of religious law rather than smaller civil matters which we’ll get into a bit further along.
The courts enforced the laws with the help of the muhtasib, a religious police force which still exists in some countries (Saudia Arabia, Kuwait and presumably others) and has recently seen a resurgence in others (Pakistan and Iran).
In addition to the Muslim courts, the Grievance Courts were set up to deal with matters of a more civil nature. The only real restriction on the laws for the Grievance Courts is that they must not directly conflict with Sharia. Generally, these courts deal with such matters as taxation, criminal law and business regulation.
The underlying premise of the law in general is that God is the leader and sole legislator of all human action. Islamic law is intended to be absolutely egalitarian without regard to race, creed or social stature. The actions which the law governs fall into two basic categories:
- Duties to God – prayer, almsgiving, fasting, etc
- Duties to Others – penal, commercial and family law
The Duties to God are represented by what is referred to as the Five Pillars of Islam:
- Profession of faith – simply speaking, one must acknowledge that there is one God and that Muhammad is his prophet. The only unforgiveable sin is that of associating God with some other entity (such as Jesus) as this is viewed as polytheistic.
- Prayer – Five times a day (dawn, noon, mid-afternoon, dusk and evening), the muezzin, or call to prayer sounds from a mosque and Muslims must face Mecca and pray. Each time of day has a set ritual that includes 2-4 positions and specific prayers which must be recited. On Fridays, all gather for prayers in a central Mosque. Men are required to attend but women are optional. If women do attend they stand at the back (often behind a curtain) to preserve their modesty during the proceedings. Friday is not traditionally a day of rest but in some countries has begun to replace the Christian Sunday tradition.
- Almsgiving – Every Muslim is required to give 2.5% of his accumulated wealth to the poor each year. Note that this differs from income but is instead a percentage of whatever you have on hand. It’s unclear to me if the assessment of wealth includes only ready cash or also personal property. Traditionally this was collected in an official manner but lately it has been left to the individual to manage on their own though Pakistan, the Sudan and Libya have recently formalized this in the form of a tax.
- Fast of Ramadan – In the month of Ramadan, Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset if their health permits. Neither food, nor drink nor sexual activity is permitted. The intent is to spend time during the month reflecting not only on the mercy of God but to contemplate the plight of those who are poor and hungry. At dusk a light meal is prepared (referred to as breakfast) and in the evening families visit and congregate for what is no doubt a larger than usual dinner. The mood seems exceptionally festive with special foods served only at Ramadan and prayers at Mosque. The month ends with a feast that is somewhat reminiscent of western Christmas.
- Pilgrimage: The Hajj – After the month of Ramadan the month of Dhu al-Hijja signals the start of pilgrimage season. Once in their lifetimes Muslims must travel to Mecca to see the Kaba. The Kaba is a square house built around a sacred black stone. The Kaba is said to have been built by Ibrahim (Abraham) and Ismail around the stone given to them by the angel Gabriel representing God’s covenant with the Muslim people. The traditions of the Hajj are many:
- circle the Kaba seven times (It’s not clear to me what this is symbolic of, if anything)
- running between Safa and Marwa, two neighboring mounts, seven times symbolizing Hagar’s frantic search for water for her son Ismail. Most fascinatingly, if you do a quick image search for Safa and Marwa, you will find that an enclosed walkway has been built between them so pilgrims can walk without fear of the weather.
- "stoning the devil" with the devil represented by three stone pillars
- a visit to the plain of Arafat in which pilgrims stand from noon to dusk seeking forgiveness not only for themselves but for all Muslims
- visiting the “Mount of Mercy” where the prophet made his last speech
- the month of pilgrimage ends with a Feast of Sacrifice in which hundreds of animals are sacrificed and their meat given up to the poor
- Lastly, the pilgrimage is a source of great pride among Muslims and some go so far as to prefix their names with ‘Hajji’ upon their return
- The Struggle (jihad) – Unofficially, the sixth pillar of Islam is the jihad, or the struggle to realize God’s will on Earth. Most typically this takes the form of extending the Muslim community by education and preaching and leading by example by living a virtuous life. In the case of extremist groups, this has been taken to the extent of actual warfare against non-believers but that is not officially sanctioned by the Muslim community at large.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)