An Illusion Rant

Well Sexson told us it was a good idea to brainstorm our ideas on the blog, so here goes. (This will most likely not make sense to you, and probably not myself either at this time, but oh well!)

Illusion.

It has often been repeated, after I spoke, to someone near me, "What did he say?" As if I was speaking gibberish. And no one has listed these words more often than my mother.

I've often thought that between two people there is always two conversations going on; the one you are having, say about a book, and the other side of the conversation which could be about anything whatsoever your conversation partner wishes to be speaking about, perhaps rocks. You Both speak, you both hear what you wanted to here, and then you go about your day, not noticing that the discussion that took place happened in two very different understandings.

I've thought this since I was a child. I've often spoke to it with friends and heard "What did he say?"

But you do see this don't you? on lesser levels. You see this with adaptation of books into films where a moviegoer and a reader will discuss the same thing until the understanding arrives that you had neither the same message, nor near the same story.

You see this through the loss of translation, especially when a book has multiple translations. Something new here in this text, something different or deleted in the next. It is always different.

And this is how gossip starts, and spreads! It is very much like a game of telephone. And if you've never played the game I highly advise it.

Gossip has always been my favorite type of story. And mind you I abhor Gossip! I loathe it as much as perhaps the most of anything. But it is here and there and it will never die. But gossip is the average persons time to tell a story, and fabricate it. It is especially emotion heightening (of all types) to see the spread of Gossip in Social Circles, to watch the mayhem swell as the majestic fall into place over the illusion of what actually happened.

The timid minds. The over-sensitive. The analytical. The Synthetical. The hypocritical. The flirtatious oh and the Anti-Flirt! The ostentatious. The Narcissistic! The Neurotic! The emotional. The heartfelt! the Theologian! The Atheist. The Asshole. The Bitch. The addict. The Sloth. The Looser. The cooler(?)

They all put their life experience into the retelling of the tale!

People bicker, fight, find love, find jealousy, stifle sniffles, spill tears, spring traps, and it as all because of an illusion!

"All I know is what the words know and the dead things!"

Let us take another direction.

If everyone believes something does that not make it so?

It is four O'clock. Everyone knew that. And everyone runs off of it. If I'm to be to work at four and I do not go because I know that the clock has absolutely no control other than what we give it I will still be fired. Yet if everyone decided the clocks meant nothing and ignored them, their would not be time?!

If your clock says 3:15 and your neighbors 3:10 what time is it?

"Check your phone idiot, that's the right time."

It is mad to try and understand it! The logical choice is simply to ignore it.

Yet how many people say they don't live their life by dreams?

We Are Not Horses

Hey class! This is a paper I wrote for Ben Leubner's Early American Writing Class. I'm putting it on this blog because the themes in our class. mainly the world as myth and dream (mainly myth) have infected my mind and completely changed the way I look at everything. This paper is in comparison of Scientists and philosophers comparison of religion to myth and my own comparison of their logic to myth. Enjoy!

WE ARE NOT HORSES

The Religious Debate: Past and Present

“What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires—desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. –Bertrand Russell.

The root words of Mythology are Mythos and Logos; Logos meaning logic, or truth, and Mythos being stories. With the enlightened understanding that the culmination of a man’s knowledge in use is his logic, and the fact that logic itself is an illusion, we will be taking a look at the ideas of men from our past that have formed today’s leading Theologians and Scientist in the ongoing religious discussion, as well as our own perception of reality.

“It is curious to observe how the theory of what is called the Christian Church sprung out of the tail of heathen mythology,” beings Thomas Paine in his heavily reserved endeavor to espouse the Pagan Origins in The Roman Catholic Church . Dated, 1794, in his next words Paine proclaims that God’s only begotten Son is a perjury of the then present heathen mythology (Krimnick, 177). He states this without taking into consideration the prophecies from the Old Testament of the Bible. Whether or not he does this out of ignorance, that he believes the origins/handling source unreputable, or that he thinks that these prophecies are being addressed is unknown. My belief, and my reasoning, suggest though heathen mythology by definition is everything except Jeaudism, Christianity, and Islam, that dues to his link between myth and Christianity, he believed the Old Testament prophecies to be accounted for in and as a heathen mythology.

Paine continues on with his degradation of Christian Lore by comparing the Trinity as “no other that a reduction of the former plurality,” adding smugly, “Which is about twenty or thirty thousand [gods]” (Kramnick, 177). He compares The Virgin Mary to a replacement of Diana of Ephesus, and “[t]he deification of heroes changed into the canonization of saints,” as well as providing a connection between the values and morals held by mythological gods switching onto the saints. Surmising these points Paine says, “The Christian theory is little else than the idolatry of the ancient mythologists, accommodated to the purposes of power and revenue; and it yet remains to reason and philosophy to abolish the amphibious fraud” (Kramnick,178).

Stephen Weinberg, a present day physicist and devout believer in a moralistic order free of “superstitions”, seems a direct descendant of Paine’s reasoning and philosophy (Frankenberry, 317). Weinberg expounds on Paine’s views of “Christian Theory” as a myth by maintaining that religion and mythology are, and should thus be viewed unanimously with, and as one another. Weinberg believes “[t]he Scholar of religion does not need to believe in God, but she does need to believe that religious folk believe in Superhuman beings (frankenberry, 319).Weinberg continues on with his bout proclaiming “[h]ow else can we identify anything as specifically religious, unless in connection with beliefs having to do with superhuman gods, goddesses, ancestors, ghosts, water spirits, and others powers. These beliefs may be judged false, but their truth value is irrelevant in identifying the proper object of the study of religion, and that involves the distinguishing characteristic belief in superhuman beings” (Frankenberry, 319).

According to Weinberg the “belief in superhuman beings”, being the equivalence of religion as myth, unveils the amphibious material and allows it to be viewed on its moral merits, “the proper object of the study”. Both Weinberg’s and Paine’s reasoning and philosophy depend upon the logical conclusion that religion is myth, and Weinberg avows that religious scholars must as well, “otherwise, the object of study becomes so expansive that it should be handed over to the desk of philosopher or the scientist” (frankenberry, 319).

Presently, while Paine’s argument that Christianity is ancient mythology revisioned by a Tyrannical Merchant, and Weinberg’s summative theory that religion need be studied only on a mythical level may seem logical, but with Bertrand Russell’s explanation of the origins of myths we understand that the simplicity of Paine’s evidence, which is only connections, is easily accepted even though he provides no present corollary between the Tyrannical Merchant and his need for a revisioned ancient mythology. In fact, Paine’s assumption proclaims that because of the ancient mythology there exists a Tyrannical Merchant, yet he does not provide any reasonable connections here.

This theory of Weinberg’s is also flawed by his faith in a “Theory of Everything” that comes from his unfailing faith in Physics. His faith is in physics as an absolute truth flaws his logic in vouching that “miracles” are not possible by humans, and thus Christians must believe in superhumans. The lack of theological study is evident: as well as the understanding for the possibility of a human being used as a vessel of power is not prevalent, nor possible in Weinberg’s logic. We will be taking a look at the fallibility of this thinking in the next section, Christians. To do this we need to look at the illusive crutch in the scientific theory that has been so well solidified since Galileo’s time.

The Christians

“I do not find that a Trinitarian and incarnational theology needs to be abandoned in favor of a tuned-down theology of a Cosmic Mind and an Inspired Teacher, alleged to be more accessible to the modern mind (Frankenberry, 340). John Polkinghorne stands for what he means, and has the background to supply his reasoning. Once a leading scientist in Quantum Physics, Polkinghorne left his post to become a Theology Scholar. Polkinghorne, as a fresh theology scholar, argues “The question of design is a metaphysical question, a question that goes ‘beyond’ (meta) physics, and metaphysical questions must receive metaphysical answers, given for metaphysical reasons” (Frankenberry, 343).

In the upcoming remark from Stephen Weinberg we will be looking at a metaphysical remark that is explained away by a physics answer. Through correcting Weinberg’s analysis we will be able to see the flaw in science which does not allow it to answer the question of Design, and why it must be left to metaphysics.

“It would be evidence for a benevolent designer if life were better than could be expected on the other grounds. To judge this, we should keep in mind that a certain capacity for pleasure would readily have evolved through natural selection, as an incentive to animals who need to eat and breed in order to pass on their genes.” (Frankenberry, 329)

“Polkinghorne points out the error in Weinberg’s statements saying, “Although we are rightly impressed by the many things that science can account for satisfactorily, we should also recognize that this great success has been purchased by a degree of modesty of ambition. Science limits itself to considering only certain kinds of experience. Broadly speaking its concern is with the impersonal dimension of reality. Galileo had the brilliant idea, followed so strictly by successive generations of physicists, of confining attention to the primary quantities of matter and motion, and to set aside what he called secondary characteristics of human perception such as color. This neglect of what the philosophers call qualia (that is to say feelings such as seeing red or judging someone to be trustworthy) was an immensely successful technique of investigation” (Frankenberry, 344).

From Polkinghorne’s synopsis, as well as the understanding that Weinberg’s pleasure falls under qualia, we see that Darwin’s theory of natural selection does not provide an evolution for the capacity of pleasure because the scientific theory in which it is tested does not allow, and in fact the theory works because and not in spite of this ignorance. This little known, little questioned, understanding of science only becomes apparent once it is espoused to the modern man; and then still it must undergo extreme scrutiny before the overwhelming truth is understood; that since science doesn’t answer everything. This understanding allows for the shifting of Creation as a physics question to that of a metaphysical nature.

The question of Design, Polkinghorne believes, is one of scope (Frankenberry, 343). Our perceptions shape the question of Design so that it can no longer remain a physical question. Edwards believes that the nature of causality serves as a proof of God’s creation, and Polkinghorne asserts that by thinking about the nature of causality we will be able to better grip the theory of Design in a metaphysical scope.

In discussing the beginning of all things Edwards writes, “That God does, by his immediate power, uphold every created substance in being, will be manifest, if we consider, that their present existence is a dependent existence, and therefore is an effect, and must have some cause; and the cause must be one of the two: either the antecedent existence of the same substance, or else the power of the Creator” (Smith,239).

Edward continues his argument declaring that it cannot be antecedent existence because things would have to be present to cause an effect. He is saying that an effect can not be the beginning, and that a cause must already be present to in act an effect. IF all of the earth is dependent, is an effect that came out of a cause, than we cannot say the past is a cause for the present effect, especially when the past object is completely passive. Edwards further backs up his explanation saying, “no cause can produce effects in a time and place on which itself is not” (Smith, 240). Through Edwards explanation we can see the claws that science digs into its conception, time. Without time, or before it, scientific theory has no grounds or footing to provide a thorough explanation.

After this illumination Polkinghorne would ask, “In a Theory of Everything is the realm of the personal as important to take into account as that of the impersonal?” (Frankenberyy 341) Yes. It is. Though science separates the two, personal and impersonal, it restricts itself to the physical world. It does not exist on the same structural foundation of thought as that of religion and thus cannot be used as a key or tool for its destruction. That is, logically. But of course, modern man will continue with his new god, his new myth, that which conquers all; knowledge.

So what? Am I saying that knowledge is useless? Am I saying that we should do away with logic, with reasoning? Certainly not. I believe they have become very successful tools, but I do not believe that reasoning is an answer in and of itself. A confused Tomas Paine asks, “It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God. Take away that reason and he would be incapable of understanding anything; and, in this case, it would be just as consistent to read even the book called the Bible to a horse as to a man. How then is it that those people pretend to reject reason? (Krimnick, 180)

As a man from the age of reason Thomas Paine believes that through reason, logic, (and from this knowledge) you can obtain absolute truth. Knowledge has become his God, his answer, and this is very common amongst today’s science culture. Just look at Stephen Weinberg. What Paine and Weinberg cannot grasp is the possibility of their perception, their scope, having any flaws in it. They cannot see, nor do they believe that there is any myth, any illusions in their reasoning. “Those people” he speaks of understand that man is flawed, that he cannot know everything for certain. Thus “those people” place their faith in the Man who says “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 4:16).

For the ignorant that place all their faith in science, for those who believe religious lies fall at its feet, I ask, what myth do you believe? John Polkinghorne would tell you that you are “historically ignorant to suppose, as the modern myth does, that Darwin was opposed by solid ranks of obscurantist clergyman when “The Origin of Species” was published in 1859” (Frankenberry, 351).

Works Cited

Frankenberry, Nancy. The Faith of Scientists In Their Own Words. 1st. New Jersey: Princeton Univ Pr, 2008.Pages 317-65.

Smith, John. Edwards, Jonathan. “The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended (1758).” The Jonathan Edwards Reader. Yale Univ Pr, 2003. Pages 223-43.

Kramnick, Isaac. Paine, Thomas. "The Age of Reason." Enlightenment Reader. Portable ed. New York: Penguin Group, 1995.

Ign rantces.

I've been obsessed with the idea of Illusion for the past few weeks. Wait. That's incorrect. I've been in rapture since childhood; I've collected them in my pension, recollecting upon them in all their glorious enchantment- until age, until a reunderstanding forces them into the claws of the reality- forcing me to give them up.



Disenchanted. I'm a romance of chemicals exchanging this and that excitement until I no longer see the allusive behavior that captured me in the beginning. Sure. Eliot would say that my inability to see the rapture is the end reflecting upon the past-bringing me to the beginning once again- but enlightened, able to understand!



but isn't it all really a trick of the card? the tongue of discussion masking itself in words that one will understand and another not?



Isn't that the beauty of Illusion?



We've been speaking of Dolce Domum- of Coming to understand through the adventure we suffered to begin with- but I don't really want to move on to this topic.



Sure it applies to Illusions.



The only way to see an illusion is to see it's disillusion- to see it from the beginning from a different understanding.



But my problem is with the "process too complicated to explain". We say it's too complicated to explain- but If I'm to be a writer, to be a major writer, mustn't I understand the complications that I am to bring forth? How Am I to enchant?



I've torn through Dr. Faustus.

Torn Through the Tempest.

Torn through myself.

Torn through my writing.



I've come across epiphanies and discarded them moments later.



I've understood.



Then understood we'd never understand.



I've recollected



Then reorganized.



I've burned books,

and drowned books,



Yet I've yet to here

the sound of depths

in my writings.



I'm Faustus staring at Prospero

wondering what is his wonder

while Shakespeare shakes his speare-

broken'n half- waterlogged

n' soaking fairies!



And yet I see only the allusions of words

and the illusions of his tempest.

Or is it his Tempest?

No, it's his tempest!

Know it's his tempest,-

Alas we'll never KNOW!



I'm a wreck of intellect!

Standing under loss

waiting its weight!



I've given up the Illusions 'ledges,'

I have given to no rants!

I am g'en No rants!

I am g'enrance!

Ignorance! Ah! I am!



I've typed up ramblings

and depyt them back,



I've given into Logic,

saying logic has no chance

and, having given logic its chance,

taken my belief in't back-



Thus then have I started

the way of not knowing

to start my way back?