Reading chapters 1-33 of the Kebra Negast, I was struck by how it relates many of the same stories as the Old Testament of the Bible and, in doing so, how it often references the Bible. Ultimately, the meat of this book- the detailed explanation of the Tabernacle, the description of the Solomonic line of kings and the conversion of Ethiopia to Orthodox Christianity is unique to the Kebra Negast.
Even after the discussion of these chapters in class, I have a (slightly more tempered, but still) negative view of Solomon. I can accept his polygamy, because that generally accepted in his culture, but his blatant manipulation of the Queen of Sheba into sleeping with him is still difficult to justify. If Solomon was not supposed to be an all-good, just and fair spiritual leader to his people, his unfair tactics could be shrugged off as human weakness. In all other facets of life he is hardly equated to your average human, so why in this does he display a flaw? Perhaps it could be argued that it is not weakness, but his strength and cunning that enables his trickery in the first place. I do not see that. It was either basic human lust or the desire for a perfect male heir via the Queen that tempted him to act deceitfully.
Moving beyond what exactly King Solomon’s actions were, perhaps in relating his manipulation of the Queen of Sheba in such a way gave people faith that men still held sway over women. Their culture could continue unimpeded by a strong-willed seemingly indomitable queen.
It could be argued, however, that it was strongly implied in the Kebra Negast that the queen did actually want to sleep with Solomon (considering she was so enamored by him), and the deceit was only on the surface, beneath that there was complete consent from both parties. In that case, the Queen of Sheba’s indomitability would not be in question and no sex (male/female) issues need be raised.
The fact that the King of Solomon desires a male heir with the Queen of Sheba could be considered perfectly natural and appropriate a desire for him to possess. Maybe this in no way undermines his kingliness.
As I have established no real conclusion, perhaps I shouldn’t end here, but this could be argued ceaselessly without conclusion, it is so fascinating.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Monday, May 7, 2007
Chickadee-y Allegory
I am opting not to comment on the Harris reading, as my post would most likely digress into an angry rant, of sorts. Instead, I'm going to discuss "A Different Kind of Courage", or at least what the brief New York Times review had to say about it. While rereading the review of "A Different Kind of Courage" (after having read “Conceptual Blending” and the Zohar), I was struck by how easily Plenty Coups' actions can be related to conceptual blending or allegory.
When Plenty Coups and the rest of his Crow tribe were relocated to reservations, he took initiative by using traditional practices and blending them into the Crows’ new, foreign situation. He used the ancestral custom of going into nature to seek revelation through dreams to convey to his people what they needed to do. Plenty Coups' "dream" told of the end of the old Crow way of life, but also promised a sort of survival, provided they could listen "like the chickadee". The chickadee "had an established position in traditional Crow life", so the blending of this traditional symbol and practice (of seeking revelation through dreams) with the message to cooperate enabled other Crow to accept Plenty Coups’ proposal without a lot of difficulty.
Plenty Coups found courage as a "mean between cowardice and rashness", in how he coped with the situation. He proposed a policy of "wary and vigilant cooperation" with the U.S., rather than complete non-cooperation, which is what Sitting Bull sanctioned. Courage is another example of an allegory that, when translated into their new life situation, helped the Crow adapt to their new culture. “Courage had a very definite sense in the traditional culture, but this is now inapplicable, and so it is no longer clear what courage involves”. There needed to be a complete redefinition of the term, and in his actions, Plenty Coups exemplified this new definition. One could adapt the Crow’s specific definition of courage from “the military virtue of facing clearly identified danger steadfastly and without irresponsible rashness” to “courage, one might say, of lucid action, rather than indulging various kinds of consoling illusion or succumbing to blind but powerful emotional responses”. This revamped definition now applies to all cultural situations, rather than a specific few.
There were many other terms that needed redefining for their new cultural situation, but through Plenty Coups' use of conceptual blending and allegory, the Crow were able to pull some sort of a life back together. The human ability for this complex process of transferring well-known practices to completely foreign situations is essential in a situation like that which the Crow were thrown into. Without it, “nothing” might have continued to happen for them.
When Plenty Coups and the rest of his Crow tribe were relocated to reservations, he took initiative by using traditional practices and blending them into the Crows’ new, foreign situation. He used the ancestral custom of going into nature to seek revelation through dreams to convey to his people what they needed to do. Plenty Coups' "dream" told of the end of the old Crow way of life, but also promised a sort of survival, provided they could listen "like the chickadee". The chickadee "had an established position in traditional Crow life", so the blending of this traditional symbol and practice (of seeking revelation through dreams) with the message to cooperate enabled other Crow to accept Plenty Coups’ proposal without a lot of difficulty.
Plenty Coups found courage as a "mean between cowardice and rashness", in how he coped with the situation. He proposed a policy of "wary and vigilant cooperation" with the U.S., rather than complete non-cooperation, which is what Sitting Bull sanctioned. Courage is another example of an allegory that, when translated into their new life situation, helped the Crow adapt to their new culture. “Courage had a very definite sense in the traditional culture, but this is now inapplicable, and so it is no longer clear what courage involves”. There needed to be a complete redefinition of the term, and in his actions, Plenty Coups exemplified this new definition. One could adapt the Crow’s specific definition of courage from “the military virtue of facing clearly identified danger steadfastly and without irresponsible rashness” to “courage, one might say, of lucid action, rather than indulging various kinds of consoling illusion or succumbing to blind but powerful emotional responses”. This revamped definition now applies to all cultural situations, rather than a specific few.
There were many other terms that needed redefining for their new cultural situation, but through Plenty Coups' use of conceptual blending and allegory, the Crow were able to pull some sort of a life back together. The human ability for this complex process of transferring well-known practices to completely foreign situations is essential in a situation like that which the Crow were thrown into. Without it, “nothing” might have continued to happen for them.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Reconciliation of Science and Religion
This is somewhat of a response to Carissa's "Blending and Religious Beliefs" post and Daniel's "Empiricism, A Religious Experience" reply to her post.
I agree with Carissa that "Conceptual Blending and Analogy" by Gilles Fauconnier was a fascinating chapter. We never think about how many "easy" actions we perform daily are actually incredibly complex conceptual blends. The computer mouse example really struck me, as it is something I use every day without devoting any conscious thought to it. Obviously, at one point in my life I had to consciously learn the coordination to manipulate a mouse about a computer screen, but by now that action has become so natural that essentially no conscious thought is needed to do it.
This reading highlights the "remarkable human capacity for building novel conceptual/physical domains"(Fauconnier 278). This is the essential trait for creating religious beliefs, and as we discussed earlier in the term, something the Neanderthals were lacking. Without this quintessential human ability, it would be impossible to link definite real-life events to abstract descriptions of them. Therefore, all abstract religious belief would be nonexistent and so would any other abstract scientific descriptions of nature (taking off of Daniel's post) like quantum mechanics or relativity. Basically, any way that people attempt to describe observable physical effects with non-observable causes (Dan mentioned electric field) would be impossible for humans without this conceptual blending capacity that Fauconnier describes.
Carissa clarified her position by countering Dan's post with, "when religion looks for explanations of phenomena, the explanations are very broad as opposed to restricted to certain situations like an electric field". I would argue that although the electric field is one specific case, if you combine that explanation with all other scientific explanations for other observable phenomena, there is a generally excepted scientific "religion". This "religion" is constantly evolving as more applicable theories are introduced to replace obsolete ones, similar to how religions are evolving to better explain human nature. (Which Dan mentions as well).
Carissa also mentions in her reply, "the scientific theory [of evolution] only deals with the evolution of animal species while the God 'theory' deals with the creation of the entire universe". I completely disagree that evolution "only deals with the evolution animal species" because, basically, it doesn't just deal with the evolution of animals. The theory of evolution encompasses all living things, not just animals. So, that theory along with other physical theories can describe the physical world in the same way that religion describes human nature and dynamics. However, it seems like religion also attempts to describe the physical world, so I'm not sure how to connect that with my argument. I suppose that I use physical laws and theories as sufficient explanation for the world around me, and in the same way many use religion as sufficient explanation for otherwise incomprehensible phenomena.
The striking connection between religion and empiricism definitely makes me want to delve into this subject a bit more.
I agree with Carissa that "Conceptual Blending and Analogy" by Gilles Fauconnier was a fascinating chapter. We never think about how many "easy" actions we perform daily are actually incredibly complex conceptual blends. The computer mouse example really struck me, as it is something I use every day without devoting any conscious thought to it. Obviously, at one point in my life I had to consciously learn the coordination to manipulate a mouse about a computer screen, but by now that action has become so natural that essentially no conscious thought is needed to do it.
This reading highlights the "remarkable human capacity for building novel conceptual/physical domains"(Fauconnier 278). This is the essential trait for creating religious beliefs, and as we discussed earlier in the term, something the Neanderthals were lacking. Without this quintessential human ability, it would be impossible to link definite real-life events to abstract descriptions of them. Therefore, all abstract religious belief would be nonexistent and so would any other abstract scientific descriptions of nature (taking off of Daniel's post) like quantum mechanics or relativity. Basically, any way that people attempt to describe observable physical effects with non-observable causes (Dan mentioned electric field) would be impossible for humans without this conceptual blending capacity that Fauconnier describes.
Carissa clarified her position by countering Dan's post with, "when religion looks for explanations of phenomena, the explanations are very broad as opposed to restricted to certain situations like an electric field". I would argue that although the electric field is one specific case, if you combine that explanation with all other scientific explanations for other observable phenomena, there is a generally excepted scientific "religion". This "religion" is constantly evolving as more applicable theories are introduced to replace obsolete ones, similar to how religions are evolving to better explain human nature. (Which Dan mentions as well).
Carissa also mentions in her reply, "the scientific theory [of evolution] only deals with the evolution of animal species while the God 'theory' deals with the creation of the entire universe". I completely disagree that evolution "only deals with the evolution animal species" because, basically, it doesn't just deal with the evolution of animals. The theory of evolution encompasses all living things, not just animals. So, that theory along with other physical theories can describe the physical world in the same way that religion describes human nature and dynamics. However, it seems like religion also attempts to describe the physical world, so I'm not sure how to connect that with my argument. I suppose that I use physical laws and theories as sufficient explanation for the world around me, and in the same way many use religion as sufficient explanation for otherwise incomprehensible phenomena.
The striking connection between religion and empiricism definitely makes me want to delve into this subject a bit more.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Woe to the Wicked
The Zohar presents a less formal approach to religion that provides much more room for personal interpretation than, say, the Bible or Torah. The entire first chapter we read was titled, "How to Look at Torah" which advises the reader to look for a deeper meaning behind the stories presented in the Torah, and specifically to not take them literally.
Woe to the wicked
who say that Torah is merely a story!
They look at this garment and no further.
Happy are the righteous
who look at Torah properly!
The Zohar emphasizes how stories in the Torah are not merely stories, but allegories with much deeper meaning than the superficial. There are four levels of increasingly secretive interpretations of Biblical text (known as PaRDeS) presented in the Zohar, which closely analyze biblical text without imposing outside ideology onto them. In my opinion, the Zohar seems to be an archetype religious text. It strongly encourages personal interpretation, while presenting its own interpretations in a conversational way, interacting with the reader, not monologuing to the reader.
The controversy behind the authenticity of the work is pretty interesting, and the fact that many rabbis censured it because of its mystical nature (though many others held it in high acclaim directly because it opposed religious formalism). If I were to possess religious views of any sort, I would much appreciate a text like the Zohar to guide me through my interpretations, at least initially. If only I were a 40 year old Jewish man... (Though that has probably changed by now, hopefully)
Woe to the wicked
who say that Torah is merely a story!
They look at this garment and no further.
Happy are the righteous
who look at Torah properly!
The Zohar emphasizes how stories in the Torah are not merely stories, but allegories with much deeper meaning than the superficial. There are four levels of increasingly secretive interpretations of Biblical text (known as PaRDeS) presented in the Zohar, which closely analyze biblical text without imposing outside ideology onto them. In my opinion, the Zohar seems to be an archetype religious text. It strongly encourages personal interpretation, while presenting its own interpretations in a conversational way, interacting with the reader, not monologuing to the reader.
The controversy behind the authenticity of the work is pretty interesting, and the fact that many rabbis censured it because of its mystical nature (though many others held it in high acclaim directly because it opposed religious formalism). If I were to possess religious views of any sort, I would much appreciate a text like the Zohar to guide me through my interpretations, at least initially. If only I were a 40 year old Jewish man... (Though that has probably changed by now, hopefully)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)