Below are the 14 most recent journal entries recorded in Fetch Me Another Gin Fizz's LiveJournal:

Tuesday, May 8th, 2007
11:40 am	Alexander Gaston Peter Discernment 1 Peter has a number of passages which I find curious, and which seem to be inconsistent with current Christian doctrine as well as things asserted in most other scriptures. That’s not particularly unusual for a book in the Bible, but most of those differences were issues of person behavior, interaction between communities, or details of Jesus’ life and what he said. Peter goes more into the cosmology of his faith, as well as the nature of Jesus’ existence. In 1:20 Peter writes “He was destined before the foundation of the world, but was revealed at the end of times for your sake”. This differs from the idea that Jesus existed at the beginning of creation as put forward in the Epistle of John. Its possible to interpret the passage as saying that his coming was destined, while he existed before, but the fact that it only says “he” suggests differently, at least in modern English. The other interesting detail is that Jesus is described as coming at “the end of days”, which would seem to place the author of the letter at some time after Armageddon. However, this does not seem to refer to the second coming, since “was revealed” usually refers to the original visit. If we use “was revealed” in the usual sense, then the writer considers the end of days to have come when Jesus was first born. The ramifications of that would be immense, and I’m not sure how to fit it into Christianity at the time. However there are other passages which suggest that Peter believes that Jesus will not be truly revealed until the end of days. “But remember insofar as you are sharing Christ’s sufferings, so that you may also be glad and shout for joy when his glory is revealed,” (4:13) He doesn’t say “when the wicked are punished” or something to that extent, though punishment for the wicked is no doubt implied. The real satisfaction that Chrstians would get would be everyone else knowing that they were wrong. This synchronizes well with the idea that the parables are not meant to be understood. The first coming becomes a preliminary to save the most worthy, those who take Christ’s message through faith, while the second coming definitively reveals his nature to the entire world. Of course this is too late for anyone who didn’t take the message on faith, and preferably suffered for it. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Thursday, May 3rd, 2007
12:10 pm	Alexander Gaston Synoptic Study of the Parable of the Wedding Banquet The three gospels relating the parable of the wedding banquet reflect the concerns of the authors and perhaps those of the Christian community at large during the time of their writing. Matthew seems primarily concerned with the persecution of the Christian apostles, Luke with the legitimacy of the old law in the face of new doctrines, and Thomas with the tendency of the worldly to interfere with the spiritual. The nature of those sent to invite the guests varies, as does the person holding the banquet, the nature of the invitees’ excuses, and the reaction of the banquet holder to their refusal to attend. These are the most obvious differences, though more subtle ones abound. Each serves to alter the possible meaning of the parables a great deal, suggesting that the motivation for their writing included something other than merely relating the event as it transpired. Or at least how the author's concerns formed a lens through which the parable's, or perhaps parables', meanings were interpreted. Matthew differs most in the basic narrative of the parable, from the identity of the person holding the banquet, the nature of the banquet its self, and the crime of those who refused attendance. The image of the King holding a wedding banquet for his son immediately brings to mind the position and the power of the host, and seems to suggest God the Father (Matthew, 22:2). The idea that the host could be Jesus is made unlikely by the existence of the Son, who significantly stays out of the main narrative, as well as the vengeance that is later taken upon those who abuse his slaves. The nature of the feast as a "wedding banquet" bring held by a king becomes significant later, when it serves as a possibly justification for casting out those not properly garbed. The fact that "slaves" are sent out to question the absentees rather than a "slave" implies a reference to the apostles, rather than Jesus (22:3). Aside from the obvious lack of numerical agreement, the son has already been removed from the narrative and made the cause of the feast. The term “other slaves” is open to interpretation. The first slaves could have been earlier Israelite prophets who were ignored, with the second wave being the Christian apostles. Alternately the first could refer to the original apostles of Jesus, and the second as later messengers who were persecuted. Since the writing of the Gospel of Matthew is estimated between 80-90 C.E., either is conceivable since at least some of the original apostles could be alive, though a new wave would have begun evangelizing. However, the fact that the first slaves are simply ignored while the second ones killed means that Matthew was attempting to contrast the two. Assuming that the slaves represent mortal messengers of god, the idea of two different groups of apostles does not hold up, since persecutions can be found in either era of early Christianity. Though prophets do come under threat in the Old Testament, the most common crime of the Israelites is disobedience. It should also be noted that when they do attempt to cause harm to the prophets they usually fail. Therefore it is safe to assume that the original group of slaves is roughly analogous to the Jewish prophets. The important detail, in which Matthew differs from both Luke and Thomas, is that the messengers are not only ignored, but killed (22:5). The violent reaction of those invited casts their own situation in an entirely different light. They are not merely distracted by other issues or unprepared for the message of the slaves, but seem to actively oppose their mission. Their reaction would seem to be completely irrational within the context of the story itself. It’s incomprehensible that those invited to a banquet by a king would not only refuse to attend, but kill his servants. If it is safe to assume that these "slaves" refer to the apostles or prophets, then this detail is meant to highlight the sheer horror with which the author views the behavior of the people when confronted with the messengers of god. Whether the "king" who is referred to is directly analogous of god, killing his messengers is as if one killed the messengers of a king inviting one to a banquet. The identity of the original invitees is to some extent dependent upon the identity of the messengers. The idea of inviting outsiders due to the refusal of the original guests to attend immediately suggests a Gentile/Jew dichotomy on its own. “Go therefore to the thoroughfares, and invite to the marriage feast as many as you find,” (22:9). Due to the fact that Matthew does not reveal the specific excuses given, the only direct evidence we have, other than a theme prevalent in the New Testament, comes from the slaves representing first the prophets and then the apostles of Christ. The prophets spoke to the Jews, who formed the majority of the audience for the Apostles early on. The line where the King destroys the murderers and burns their city probably refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the emperor Titus in the year 70 , or if not that some other disastrous event that occurred in Israel in that time frame. Matthew draws a direct connection between the Jewish treatment of the Apostles and the disasters which later befell them. The message of this section of the parable is that the original guests proved themselves unworthy of the kingdom of god, necessitating the invitation of riffraff from “the thoroughfares”. These thoroughfares don’t seem to be the same ones as the original guests were living in, since Matthew describes the King as having destroyed “their city”(of the murderers), not his. The tone taken by Matthew almost suggests that the invitation of the others was meant almost as a last resort/additional punishment to those who refused to attend in the first place. The line “And those servants went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good; so the wedding hall was filled with guests”(22:10), gives a sense of a randomly selected mass, superior only in their willingness to attend. But willingness is not the only criteria, a certain level of moral readiness is required, symbolized in the guest who lacked a wedding garment (22:12-13). The wedding garment represents some sort of right to stand in the presence of a figure of authority, particularly some kind of moral preparation as evidenced in the Talmudic parable. “So much the more must on today repent; perhaps he will die tomorrow. It follows that a person should repent every day. Even said Solomon in his wisdom ‘Let thy garments always be white; and let thy head not lack ointment,’” (Bavil, Shabbat 153a, as in C.K. Barrett, ed., The New Testament Background: Selected Documents). The same basic idea is expressed in Matthew. There is a possibility that one may be called to the Kingdom of God and must be ready. Not knowing that this was happening is no excuse, and is cause to be rejected. It’s present as somewhat more unreasonable in Matthew, since those who attended had no idea a feast was even going on, but this only highlights the metaphorical nature of the line. If Matthew focuses on the Jewish persecution of Christian messengers, Luke chooses to launch an attack on traditional law and traditional morality as well as presenting a total shift in the established order. Unlike Matthew, the main offence of the invitees is not their poor treatment of his “servant”, in this case there is only one, but in the simple act of their refusal of the invitation. Also different from Matthew is the fact that their excuses are specifically explained from Luke 14:18 – Luke 14:20. These are all legitimate reasons to be excused from holy war in Jewish law. The law its self is therefore interfering with entrance to the Kingdom of God. The person having the banquet is no longer a King. Luke’s host does not need to be in a position to wreak bloody vengeance, since the transgressions he faces are only harmful to the invitees themselves, and do not interfere with the message. The enemy addressed by Luke is no longer an individual consciously seeking to interfere with god’s messengers, but on the cultural basis for particular individuals’ unwillingness to accept the message. There are also two types of guests which are invited to replace those who refused to come. The first who are invited are members of the same society who are from a different social stratum than those originally invited. “…Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and maimed and blind and lame,” (14:21). One assumes by the nature of the excuses given that the original guests were from a relatively wealthy background, being able to own fields and have five yoke of oxen, as well as not physically deformed since they are able to find a wife. Due to their apparent position high on the social hierarchy, as well as their excuses being legitimate within Jewish law, this could be interpreted as a dig against various sects who criticized Christianity for its non-adherence to these laws. Whether he is referring to Pharisees, scribes, or High Priests the same criticism applies. Not to over-estimate his class consciousness, but Luke obliquely associates adherence with Jewish law to wealth and worldly trappings, suggesting that the poor and unclean are actually the more holy. Or at least suggest that in the new order of things, all the old aspects of the society no longer serve as legitimate excuses. The host is not merely inviting the gentiles as opposed to Jews as in Matthew, but establishing an entirely different dichotomy between traditionalists and those who have accepted the new message, regardless of their background. In fact the invitation of the gentiles seems to be secondary, occurring only after he realizes that there are still seats available despite the attendance of the poor and maimed (14:22-23). Instead of closing with a person being ill prepared, Luke closes with a direct statement about those who didn’t attend, showing that they are the main focus of the parable. The Gospel of Thomas is concerned with neither the persecution of apostles nor the tendency of Jewish law to get in the way of realizing the new message, but on the tendency of worldly concerns, regardless of religious or legal significance, to distract one from a spiritual existence. The Kingdom of God is never mentioned, nor is there any context other than “Jesus said” (Thomas 64:1 Steven Patterson and Marvin Meyer, from Robert J Miller, ed., The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version.). The form its self serves to address less physical concerns, since it isn’t burdened with any narrative context in which it must function. The closest thing that Thomas has to the “kingdom of god” is the last line which refers to “the places of my father”, which is somewhat less specific, although it does clearly identify the speaker within the saying as Jesus himself. One could argue that Thomas isn’t even technically a parable. Its meaning is relatively clear and explained in the last line, and there is no attempt to compare “the places of my father” to the rest of the parable. In fact the placement of the lesson at the end of the passage makes it more closely resemble a fable. The reason that the no-shows chose not to attend is never in question. Although their excuses are in line with Jewish law , Thomas leaves no ambiguity about what sort of people chose not to attend. “Buyers and merchants [will] not enter the places of my Father,” They will not enter due to the fact that they are mainly concerned with material wealth. Since it is clear that the crime is actually being a buyer or merchant, we have no indicators as to whom, exactly, the new guests are. We only know that they are people who are not distracted from spiritual concerns by the worldly. The master merely says “Go out on the streets and invite whoever you find” (Gospel of Thomas, 64.) which does suggest that their race is irrelevant, but it is the rich in general that are being condemned purely for their wealth. Though there could be a tacit connection between wealth and obedience to the law in Jewish society, as Luke seemed to suggest, Thomas takes care to universalize his statement with the all-important last line. There is no possibility of rejection like in Matthew, suggesting that Thomas views wealth as the force that makes one ill-prepared to enter the places of the father. To call these three the same parable seems almost dishonest, as all they really have in common is the same central metaphor. And even that is questionable in Thomas’ case. The meanings are entirely defined by the themes that run through them, which in turn reflect the concerns of the author. The same basic symbols are used to address three vastly different issues: persecution, law/society, and the spiritual vs. the material. When one moves from Matthew to Luke to Thomas the message becomes less about specific events. Matthew references a particular incident and uses it to reinforce his point; Luke addresses a specific cultural conflict, and Thomas a philosophical/metaphysical dichotomy. The vast differences in meaning between the three parables demonstrate the power of intent. One can keep the same basic story structure, setting, and many of the details while completely altering the meaning of a passage. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
9:29 am	The three gospels relating the parable of the wedding banquet reflect the concerns of the authors and perhaps those of the Christian community at large during the time of their writing. Matthew seems primarily concerned with the persecution of the Christian apostles, Luke with the legitimacy of the old law in the face of new doctrines, and Thomas with the tendency of the worldly to interfere with the spiritual. The nature of those sent to invite the guests varies, as does the person holding the banquet, the nature of the invitees excuses, and the reaction of the banquet holder to their refusal to attend. These are the most obvious differences, though more subtle (but perhaps no less important) ones abound. Each serves to alter the possible meaning of the parables a great deal, suggesting that the motivation for their writing included something other than merely relating the event as it transpired. Or at least how the author's concerns formed a lens through which the parable's, or perhaps parables', meaning was interpreted. Matthew differs most in the basic narrative of the parable, from the identity of the person holding the banquet, the nature of the banquet its self, and the crime of those who refused attendance. The image of the King holding a wedding banquet for his son immediately brings to mind the position and the power of the host, and seems to suggest God the Father (Matthew, 22:2). The idea that the host could be Jesus is made unlikely by the existence of the Son, who significantly stays out of the main narrative, as well as the vengeance that is later taken upon those who abuse his slaves. The nature of the feast as a "wedding banquet" bring held by a king becomes significant later, when it serves as a possibly justification for casting out those not properly garbed. The fact that "slaves" are sent out to question the absentees rather than a "slave" implies a reference to the apostles, rather than Jesus (22:3). Aside from the obvious lack of numerical agreement, the son has already been removed from the narrative and made the cause of the feast. Other slaves is open to interperetation. The first prophets could have been earlier Israelite prophets who were ignored, with the second wave being the Christian apostles. Alternately the first could refer to the original apostles of Jesus, and the second as later messengers who were persecuted. Since the writing of the Gospel of Matthew is estimated between 80-90 C.E ., either is conceivable since at least some of the original apostles could be alive, though a new wave would have begun evangelizing. Either way, they are initially speaking to the same group of people initially. The important detail, in which Matthew differs from both Luke and Thomas, is that the messengers are not only ignored, but killed (22:5). The violent reaction of those invited casts their own situation in an entirely different light. They are not merely distracted by other issues or unprepared for the message of the slaves, but seem to actively oppose their mission. Their reaction would seem to be completely irrational within the context of the story its self, even absurd. Its incomprehensible that those invited to a banquet by a king would not only refuse but kill his servants. If it is safe to assume that these "slaves" refer to the apostles or prophets, then this detail is meant to highlight the sheer horror with which the author views the behavior of the people when confronted with the messengers of god. Whether the "king" who is referred to is directly analogous of god, killing his messengers is as if one killed the messengers of a king inviting one to a banquet. (Comment on this)
Thursday, April 26th, 2007
10:42 am	The three gospels relating the parable of the wedding banquet reflect the concerns of the authors and perhaps those of the Christian community at large during the time of their writing. Matthew seems primarily concerned with the persecution of the Christian apostles, Luke with the legitimacy of the old law in the face of new doctrines, and Thomas with the tendency of the worldly to interfere with the spiritual. The nature of those sent to invite the guests varies, as does the person holding the banquet, the nature of the invitees excuses, and the reaction of the banquet holder to their refusal to attend. These are the most obvious differences, though more subtle (but perhaps no less important) ones abound. Each serves to alter the possible meaning of the parables a great deal, suggesting that the motivation for their writing included something other than merely relating the event as it transpired. Or at least how the author's concerns formed a lens through which the parable's, or perhaps parables', meaning was interpreted. Matthew differs most in the basic narrative of the parable, from the identity of the person holding the banquet, the nature of the banquet its self, and the crime of those who refused attendance. The image of the King holding a wedding banquet for his son immediately brings to mind the position and the power of the host, and seems to suggest God the Father (Matthew, 22:2). The idea that the host could be Jesus is made unlikely by the existence of the Son, who significantly stays out of the main narrative, as well as the vengeance that is later taken upon those who abuse his slaves. The nature of the feast as a "wedding banquet" bring held by a king becomes significant later, when it serves as a possibly justification for casting out those not properly garbed. The fact that "slaves" are sent out to question the absentees rather than a "slave" implies a reference to the apostles, rather than Jesus (22:3). Aside from the obvious lack of numerical agreement, the son has already been removed from the narrative and made the cause of the feast. Other slaves is open to interperetation. The first prophets could have been earlier Israelite prophets who were ignored, with the second wave being the Christian apostles. Alternately the first could refer to the original apostles of Jesus, and the second as later messengers who were persecuted. Since the writing of the Gospel of Matthew is estimated between 80-90 C.E ., either is conceivable since at least some of the original apostles could be alive, though a new wave would have begun evangelizing. Either way, they are initially speaking to the same group of people initially. The important detail, in which Matthew differs from both Luke and Thomas, is that the messengers are not only ignored, but killed (22:5). (Comment on this)
Thursday, December 14th, 2006
10:27 am	Scottish Labour and National Identity Alexander Gaston "What then, is Patriotism? "Patriotism, sir, is the last resort of scoundrels", said Dr. Johnson. Leo Tolstoy, the greatest anti-patriot of our times, defines patriotism as the principle that will justify the training of wholesale murderers; a trade that requires better equipment for the exercise of man-killing than necessities of life as shoes, clothing, and houses; a trade that guarantees better returns and greater glory than that of the average workingman" - Emma Goldman "On Patriotism" Anarchism and Other Essays In the theories of the left, particularly those dealing with the role of class, patriotism and nationalism are often viewed as weapons used against the interest of the working class by the bourgeoisie. It serves to distract the people from their daily misery with a romantic invention, appealing to their emotion over their intellect in order to create a myth of "national interest", in which all classes of a country have more in common than their respective foreign brethren. Emma Goldman serves as an excellent example of this strain of thinking. An anarchist, she represents anti-nationalism as a force that exists apart from Marxist economic theory. The idea that "national" interest is primarily synonymous with ruling class interest is not solely the domain of Marxist thinkers, and has validity outside of Marxism, it is one that has been propagated by radicals since at least the 18th century. However, there are times when a "national" interest can be the same as the legitimate economic interests of the working class, particularly if that country is under the economic or military domination of another country. In the case of Scotland in the 19th and early 20th centuries the rampant exploitation of the country's resources, to the detriment of the entire population and for the Benefit of the English economy, served to unite nationalist, socialist, and working class interest. Clan mottos were adopted into land leagues, which shared membership with the nascent Labour parties. The highlanders, who had born the brunt of the harshest aspects of colonial exploitation, became a symbol for Scottish national pride, despite representing a previously despised minority. This romantic pride and patriotism lent energy to the emerging labor and socialist parties within Scotland, where they formed and became a political force earlier than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. This alliance occurred because of the complete dominance of England in all affairs of the UK demanded that anyone who wished to participate in business or traditional politics had to adopt English dress and manners, essentially abandoning their former national identity. Thus the ruling classes of Scotland were primarily English or Anglicanized, leaving the moniker of "Scottish" to be claimed by the working class. In the end, the very attempt of the English occupiers to stamp out nationalist sentiment ensured that when it did arise, it would be in its most revolutionary and progressive form. Though rebellions in Scotland had been occurring since its union with the English crown occurred in the 18th century, the first to gain any success in the 19th century was the Crofters rebellion in 1880. Crofters were tenant farmers who often lived under English landlords due to the reforms that occurred after the Jacobite rebellions in the 18th century. These reforms were aimed both at punishing the clan chiefs who had participated in the rebellion, and the Highland population which had proved so troublesome to manage. Four major rebellions had occurred against English rule in past 100 years, as well as numerous instances of rioting, most of them based in the Highlands. As a countermeasure, lands were taken from the traditional Chiefs of the Highland clans and given to absentee English landlords. Other reforms aimed at suppressing Scottish culture and national identity were made, including the suppression of the Gaelic language and the banning of certain clans' tartans. Scottish clans functioned as almost an extended family, the Chief merely being its head. Many of his friends and family would number among his subjects, as the chiefs' families were not the pampered and cloistered noblery of the rest of Europe. The Chief's main duty was to his people, and they often acted as their protectors and benefactors, instituting many early forms of public education, health care, and even social security. This was not always the case, it varied according to the Chief, but since he lacked a standing army it was generally in his interest to keep the people happy. This all changed with the introduction of classically bourgeois and aristocratic landlords from England. Unconcerned with the general welfare of the population, the new lords were primarily concerned with economic profit. Sheep were more profitable than tenant farmers, and so thousands upon thousands were evicted from their homes to create grazing land. More were evicted to create deer reserves so that Lords could go hunting at their new estates. Many were forced to emigrate to the Americas and later New Zealand and Australia. Those who stayed were forced onto "Crofts" in a sort of early policy of collectivization. These crofting towns were greatly overpopulated, each inhabitant was given a small parcel of land to grow food for subsistence and sale. Since the most nutritious crop per square foot were potatoes, these were the main crop grown to sustain the crofters. The Highland potato famine in 1846 further reduced the population, in conjunction with a related cholera epidemic. The population of the Highlands was so reduced by emigration, famine, and plague that it has not recovered to this day. This fulfilled a strain of English thought that attributed the frequent rebellions to the fact the Highlands were "overpopulated". In addition to these misfortunes, the position of those who managed to stay and survive was dismal. Crofters had very few rights under British law. Their leases were yearly, and at any point the landlord could choose not to renew them. The land that they were allowed to farm was small and meager, though they were adjacent to vast tracts of fertile land that were reserved for sheep or hunting. This obvious and unfair dichotomy prompted the formation of the Highland Land Reclamation League, the organized political force that rose from and supported the Crofters rebellion. Formed in 1880, it used mass organization to carry out larger scale version of the tactics that had already begun to be used by rebellious crofters, which consisted largely of direct action tactics. These included strikes, refusal to pay rent, and the occupation of land and foreclosed houses. These actions gained the sympathy of the public throughout Scotland, even in the Lowlands (the areas below Inverness surrounding Glasgow and Edinburgh) where there had been a traditionally hostile attitude towards highlanders. The lowlands had adopted the English language, as opposed to Gaelic, far earlier as well as switching from an agrarian to an industrial economy in the early 19th century. However due to similar policies of land clearance, though on a far smaller scale, practiced in those areas, sympathy began to drift towards nationalism, socialism, and the plight of the Highlanders. The motto of the Land Reclamation League was "is treasa tuath na tighearna" a Gaelic proverb which translates to "The people are mightier than the lord". In addition to Gaelic mottos, the rebelling crofters often dressed in "traditional" Scottish wear, kilts with their respective clan tartans (patterns) and played bagpipes at rallies. Thus a linkage began to be made between Scottish cultural identity and rural working-class interest. This popular support forced the Liberal parliament to enact certain land reforms which acknowledged a number of legitimate grievances, though it was mainly directed at maintaining the established order. This led to the further radicalization of many members of the Lang League, which soon disbanded. Some members felt that their grievances had been addressed and righted and joined the Liberal party. The more radical faction would join the soon to be formed Scottish Labour Party. The latter would spread the psychological linkage between Scottish national identity into the cities of the Highlands and Lowlands with the emergence of large-scale urban working class mobilization. 3. National Labour A large majority of the membership, particularly amongst the leadership, of the Highland Land League leaned to the left of the political spectrum and were not satisfied with the reforms. While the situation of the crofters had bettered somewhat, they still remained an impoverished underclass, still working for the profits of their landlords. These landlords still owned even the small amount of land on which Crofters' houses were built, until they were required to sell that land to the Crofters' family (if the tenants so desired it) in 1976. Many of the original founders of the league were union leaders and socialists who would go on to create the Scottish Labour Party. These included Keir Hardie, a prominent labour unionist and leader who go on to found Labour Representation Committee in 1900 and Robert Cunningham Grahame who founded the Scottish Labour Party in 1888 and then the Scottish National Party in 1928. These two figures are important to the relationship between leftist politics and activism and Scottish independence, due to their leadership roles in both sorts of organizations and their differing views on what steps towards independence they should take. Both were initially dissatisfied with the Liberal party's commitment to both Scottish autonomy (which it tacitly supported) and lack of devotion to socialist ideals. Both were essential factors in the formation of the Scottish Labour Party, the first of its kind in Britain, which advocated policies that placed greater emphasis on the benefit of the working class and the independence (as opposed to autonomy) of Scotland. Robert Cunningham Grahame was elected to parliament as the first Socialist MP in the history of Britain, as well as the most ardent advocate of Scottish independence. However, the party soon dissolved its self into the Independent Labour Party in 1893, the main forerunner to the current Labour party in Britain, as a result of the union of various socialist groups throughout the UK. This party was not devoted to immediate independence, but advocated a separate parliament and autonomous government for Scotland that would control most domestic affairs. There seems is a distinct connection in the minds of the leaders of the various workers' and farmers' parties in late 19th and early 20th century Scotland to the idea of Scottish independence and the interests of the working class. It could be argued that this is a contradiction, and that due to romantic notions these people were unable to realize it. Though many involved in the independence movement were poets, historians, and occultists, the main theorists and politicians came from a more intellectually systematic Marxist or quasi Marxist tradition. Several Marxists were even expelled from the National Party of Scotland founded by Robert Cunningham Grahame in 1928 for being "too Marxist". Ironically, they had been previously expelled from Marxist parties for supporting Scottish Nationalism. In addition, every leftist party with any involvement in Scotland has always at least supported autonomy in policy if not in actuality. The idea is popular, though rarely the most important issue, in the minds of Scots and is a necessary policy point if the party wishes to have any electoral success within Scotland. But what is the intellectual justification for holding a supposedly "internationalist" view of working class unity in which countries are considered to be fictions, and to ardently support a country's independent nationhood? The answer lies in the general tendency of the wealthy elements of Scotland to either be culturally "anglophile" or to have been placed in their position by an act of parliament. Since England was the economic hub, it was more profitable for those in Scotland who wanted to get involved with the emerging capitalist economy, as far back as the 18th century, to adopt English manners of speech and dress. Thus the bourgeoisie became "Anglicanized" while the working class remained "Gaelic" or Scottish. The overwhelming majority that Labour wins in Scotland in every election since 1917 and the fact that many of the leftist organizations that are now pan-Brittanic have their origins in Scotland suggests that Scots view the bourgeoisie as primarily "English". Unlike the English nationalist parties such as the national front, Scottish national parties do not appeal to racism and the culture of the bourgeoisie as the cornerstones of their policy. This is the unintended consequence of English colonialism, the wedding of the national identity to the working class. Thus policies such as the revival of the Gaelic language and Scottish independence are essentially anti-capitalist in Scotland, because they are lionizing a country that does not have its own cultural bourgeoisie. This is not to say that capitalists who consider themselves culturally "Scottish" do not exist in Scotland, but that the majority of the population views them as culturally English. For example Children of the wealthy are often sent to English private schools, which are called public schools, in order to acquire an English accent, a sign of class distinction. Thus to have a Scottish brogue is to not have been educated at a prestigious secondary school. Likewise Gaelic is only spoken in poor, isolated corners of Scotland, and its influence is most apparent in the English of Scots in the most working class areas. In order to win the loyalty of the working class, parties need to support these symbolic policies. It ends up not being a contradiction anyway, because to support the symbols of a working-class culture is to increase its self-identification. This has proved an effective method to gaining the votes of socially or economically conservative Scots, as the policies of independence are not supported by the conservative parties in Britain. The romance of arguments that emphasize the glory of Scotland may overwhelm social prejudice. Thus conservative movements in Scotland lose that critical edge that allows them to gain voted in other places: relying on nationalist sentiment in order to get the proletariat to vote against the interests of their class. The alliance of rural-nationalist to urban socialists was thus not difficult to make. Since the government that represented the interests of the wealthy belonged to a foreign culture, it was more difficult to spread the idea that they shared a common nationalistic bond that took priority over class loyalty. Appeals to patriotism were also diluted, particularly as loyalty to the rightful king became less and less important as the 19th century progressed. The dichotomy splits between Gaels/Celts/Scots, who are poor, working class, and disenfranchised, and the English/Saxons who are wealthy, bourgeoisie and oppressors. The historical national distaste for landlords and bosses allowed the early labor movements to make incredible gains within Scotland, and spread those gains throughout the British Isles. This disdain for wealth was expressed most eloquently by Robert Burns, in his poem "Parcel of Rogues", written in Scots dialect, which I will now close with. Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame, Fareweel our ancient glory! Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name. Sae famed in martial story! Now Sark rins over Salway sands, An' Tweed rins to the ocean, To mark where England's province stands -- Such a parcel of rogues in a nation! What force or guile could not subdue Thro' many warlike ages Is wrought now by a coward few For hireling traitor's wages. The English steel we could disdain, Secure in valour's station; But English gold has been our bane -- Such a parcel of rogues in a nation! O, would, or I had seen the day That Treason thus could sell us, My auld grey head had lien in clay Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace! But pith and power, till my last hour I'll mak this declaration :- 'We're bought and sold for English gold'-- Such a parcel of rogues in a nation! (Comment on this)
9:41 am	Scottish Labour and National Identity Alexander Gaston "What then, is Patriotism? "Patriotism, sir, is the las resort of scoundrels", said Dr. Johnson. Leo Tolstoy, the greatest anti-patriot of our times, defines patriotism as the principle that will justify the training of wholesale murderers; a trade that requires better equipment for the exercise of man-killing than necessities of life as shoes, clothing, and houses; a trade that guarantees better returns and greater glory than that of the average workingman" - Emma Goldman "On Patriotism" Anarchism and Other Essays In the theories of the left, particularly those dealing with the role of class, patriotism and nationalism are often viewed as weapons used against the interest of the working class by the bourgeoisie. It serves to distract the people from their daily misery with a romantic invention, appealing to their emotion over their intellect in order to create a myth of "national interest", in which all classes of a country have more in common than their respective foreign brethren. Emma Goldman serves as an excellent example of this strain of thinking. An anarchist, she represents anti-nationalism as a force that exists apart from Marxist economic theory. The idea that "national" interest is primarily synonymous with ruling class interest is not solely the domain of Marxist thinkers, and has validity outside of Marxism, it is one that has been propagated by radicals since at least the 18th century. However, there are times when a "national" interest can be the same as the legitimate economic interests of the working class, particularly if that country is under the economic or military domination of another country. In the case of Scotland in the 19th and early 20th centuries the rampant exploitation of the country's resources, to the detriment of the entire population and for the Benefit of the English economy, served to unite nationalist, socialist, and working class interest. Clan mottos were adopted into land leagues, which shared membership with the nascent labour parties. The highlanders, who had born the brunt of the harshest aspects of colonial exploitation, became a symbol for Scottish national pride, despite representing a previously despised minority. This romantic pride and patriotism lended energy to the emerging labor and socialist parties within Scotland, where they formed and became a political force earlier than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. This alliance occurred because of the complete dominance of England in all affairs of the UK demanded that anyone who wished to participate in business or traditional politics had to adopt English dress and manners, essentially abandoning their former national identity. Thus the ruling classes of Scotland were primarily English or Anglicanized, leaving the moniker of "Scottish" to be claimed by the working class. In the end, the very attempt of the English occupiers to stamp out nationalist sentiment ensured that when it did arise, it would be in its most revolutionary and progressive form. 1. The Clearances Though rebellions in Scotland had been occurring since its union with the English crown occurred in the 18th century, the first to gain any success in the 19th century was the Crofters rebellion in 1880. Crofters were tenant farmers who often lived under English landlords due to the reforms that occurred after the Jacobite rebellions in the 18th century. These reforms were aimed both at punishing the clan chiefs who had participated in the rebellion, and the Highland population which had proved so troublesome to manage. Four major rebellions had occurred against English rule in past 100 years, as well as numerous instances of rioting, most of them based in the Highlands. As a countermeasure, lands were taken from the traditional Chiefs of the Highland clans and given to absentee English landlords. Other reforms aimed at suppressing Scottish culture and national identity were made, including the suppression of the Gaelic language and the banning of certain clans' tartans. Scottish clans functioned as almost an extended family, the Chief merely being its head. Many of his friends and family would number among his subjects, as the chiefs' families were not the pampered and cloistered noblery of the rest of Europe. The Chief's main duty was to his people, and they often acted as their protectors and benefactors, instituting many early forms of public education, health care, and even social security. This was not always the case, it varied according to the Chief, but since he lacked a standing army it was generally in his interest to keep the people happy. This all changed with the introduction of classically bourgeois and aristocratic landlords from England. Unconcerned with the general welfare of the population, the new lords were primarily concerned with economic profit. Sheep were more profitable than tenant farmers, and so thousands upon thousands were evicted from their homes to create grazing land. More were evicted to create deer reserves so that Lords could go hunting at their new estates. Many were forced to emigrate to the Americas and later New Zealand and Australia. Those who stayed were forced onto "Crofts" in a sort of early policy of collectivization. These crofting towns were greatly overpopulated, each inhabitant was given a small parcel of land to grow food for subsistence and sale. Since the most nutritious crop per square foot were potatoes, these were the main crop grown to sustain the crofters. The Highland potato famine in 1846 further reduced the population, in conjunction with a related cholera epidemic. The population of the Highlands was so reduced by emigration, famine, and plague that it has not recovered to this day. This fulfilled a strain of English thought that attributed the frequent rebellions to the fact the the Highlands were "overpopulated". 2. The Land Leagues In addition to these misfortunes, the position of those who managed to stay and survive was dismal. Crofters had very few rights under British law. Their leases were yearly, and at any point the landlord could choose not to renew them. The land that they were allowed to farm was small and meagre, though they were adjacent to vast tracts of fertile land that were reserved for sheep or hunting. This obvious and unfair dichotomy prompted the formation of the Highland Land Reclamation League, the organized political force that rose from and supported the Crofters rebellion. Formed in 1880, it used mass organization to carry out larger scale version of the tactics that had already begun to be used by rebellious crofters, which consisted largely of direct action tactics. These included strikes, refusal to pay rent, and the occupation of land and foreclosed houses. These actions gained the sympathy of the public throughout Scotland, even in the Lowlands (the areas below Inverness surrounding Glasgow and Edinburgh) where there had been a traditionally hostile attitude towards highlanders. The lowlands had adopted the English language, as opposed to Gaelic, far earlier as well as switching from an agrarian to an industrial economy in the early 19th century. However due to similar policies of land clearance, though on a far smaller scale, practiced in those areas, sympathy began to drift towards nationalism, socialism, and the plight of the Highlanders. The motto of the Land Reclamation League was "is treasa tuath na tighearna" a Gaelic proverb which translates to "The people are mightier than the lord". In addition to Gaelic mottos, the rebelling crofters often dressed in "traditional" Scottish wear, kilts with their respective clan tartans (patterns) and played bagpipes at rallies. Thus a linkage began to be made between Scottish cultural identity and rural working-class interest. This popular support forced the Liberal parliament to enact certain land reforms which acknowledged a number of legitimate grievances, though it was mainly directed at maintaining the established order. This led to the further radicalization of many members of the Lang League, which soon disbanded. Some members felt that their grievances had been addressed and righted and joined the Liberal party. The more radical faction would join the soon to be formed Scottish Labour Party. The latter would spread the psychological linkage between Scottish national identity into the cities of the Highlands and Lowlands with the emergence of large-scale urban working class mobilization. 3. National Labour A large majority of the membership, particularly amongst the leadership, of the Highland Land League leaned to the left of the political spectrum and were not satisfied with the reforms. While the situation of the crofters had bettered somewhat, they still remained an impoverished underclass, still working for the profits of their landlords. These landlords still owned even the small amount of land on which Crofters' houses were built, until they were required to sell that land to the Crofters' family (if the tenants so desired it) in 1976. Many of the original founders of the league were union leaders and socialists who would go on to create the Scottish Labour Party. These included Keir Hardie, a prominent labour unionist and leader who go on to found Labour Representation Committee in 1900 and Robert Cunningham Grahame who founded the Scottish Labour Party in 1888 and then the Scottish National Party in 1928. These two figures are important to the relationship between leftist politics and activism and Scottish independence, due to their leadership roles in both sorts of organizations and their differing views on what steps towards independence they should take. Both were initially dissatisfied with the Liberal party's commitment to both Scottish autonomy (which it tacitly supported) and lack of devotion to socialist ideals. Both were essential factors in the formation of the Scottish Labour Party, the first of its kind in Britain, which advocated policies that placed greater emphasis on the benefit of the working class and the independence (as opposed to autonomy) of Scotland. Robert Cunningham Grahame was elected to parliament as the first Socialist MP in the history of Britain, as well as the most ardent advocate of Scottish independence. However, the party soon dissolved its self into the Independent Labour Party in 1893, the main forerunner to the current Labour party in Britain, as a result of the union of various socialist groups throughout the UK. This party was not devoted to immediate independence, but advocated a separate parliament and autonomous government for Scotland that would control most domestic affairs. 4. Analysis There seems is a distinct connection in the minds of the leaders of the various workers' and farmers' parties in late 19th and early 20th century Scotland to the idea of Scottish independence and the interests of the working class. It could be argued that this is a contradiction, and that due to romantic notions these people were unable to realize it. Though many involved in the independence movement were poets, historians, and occultists, the main theorists and politicians came from a more intellectually systematic Marxist or quasi Marxist tradition. Several Marxists were even expelled from the National Party of Scotland founded by Robert Cunningham Grahame in 1928 for being "too Marxist". Ironically, they had been previously expelled from Marxist parties for supporting Scottish Nationalism. In addition, every leftist party with any involvement in Scotland has always at least supported autonomy in policy if not in actuality. The idea is popular, though rarely the most important issue, in the minds of Scots and is a necessary policy point if the party wishes to have any electoral success within Scotland. But what is the intellectual justification for holding a supposedly "internationalist" view of working class unity in which countries are considered to be fictions, and to ardently support a country's independent nationhood? The answer lies in the general tendency of the wealthy elements of Scotland to either be culturally "anglophile" or to have been English bourgeoisie outrightly (Comment on this)
9:40 am	According to Talal Assad Kant's argument is fundamentally christian due to the underlying structure of his assumptions and suppositions. He posits that the way Kant understands the relationship between the individual and his religious beliefs are based on a fundamentally christian understanding of what it is to be "religious". Specifically, the idea that the individual must discover the objective, universal truth of morality freely without interference from the state, society, or other individuals. This interference only muddies the ability to reason, something Kant, being a rationalist. believed was essential in the search for truth and goodness. This, Assad argues, forms the basis for the modern theory of secularism. Much like Kant's idea of morality, the secular separation of Church and State has been considered to be a universal principle for the governing of religious life and civil affairs. This is really Assad's point, that the seemingly a-religious "neautral" secular government is in fact based upon Christian principles. Specifically Assad argues that the idea of an individual relating to morality as a set of a-priori principles that apply universally is different from the Islamic concept. A good muslim, Assad asserts, is "...seen not as an autonomous individual who assents to a set of universalizable maxims but as an individual inhabiting the moral space that is shared by all who are together bound to god..."(31). By showing that the idea of what "religion" is can change according to culture, he renders the Kantian principles local and cultural, rather than universal. Likewise the idea of "secularism" has its foundations in the same cultural understandings, and so ceases to be a universally applicable form of religion-state relationship. This sort of critique is more difficult to apply to Weber, because he so blatantly acknowledges his cultural bias, guards his points with qualifiers, and (though economics is one of the least measurable or exact sciences) is referring to something that is slightly more quantifiable at least than a-priori, Rationalist morality. However, it would be reasonable to criticize Weber's claims using a similar argument. The manner in which Weber describes religious influence on the life of an individual rests on certain basic assumptions. He does not acknowledge the many, many objections that any religion could have to the emerging capitalist society, or that the individual could have objections independent of their religious beliefs. He certainly assumes that religion interacts with its adherents in a very particlar way, using the same basic Kantian structure of the individual adhering to what they consider to be universal doctrine. Thus, even if the analysis is perfectly sound for the European sphere Weber was discussing, it would not necessarily be applicable to interpretation in the rest of the world. This is an important point, as there have been many recent attempts by neo-Weberians to show similar "protestant" traits in countries whose economies have grown rapidly such as Japan and China, while comparing them favorable to Islam, which supposedly lacks such a "work-ethic". The part of William James that immediately springs to mind as ripe for Asad's criticism is his separation of individuals into the dichotomy of healthy and unhealthy. While I consider his definition of religion loose enough to incorporate Islam, the idea of the negatively prone individual behaving one way and the optimist the other seems to be based in cultural value judgments. ccording to Eliade, religion is to a great extent the imposition of divine (objective) order onto the profane (subjective) chaos that surrounds mankind. By setting one area definitively apart from another by sancitifying it, one can have a point of reference with which to measure the world. In order for this to work, something other than human whim has to take (Comment on this)
Wednesday, December 13th, 2006
10:43 am	Scottish Labour and National Identity Alexander Gaston "What then, is Patriotism? "Patriotism, sir, is the las resort of scoundrels", said Dr. Johnson. Leo Tolstoy, the greatest anti-patriot of our times, defines patriotism as the principle that will justify the training of wholesale murderers; a trade that requires better equipment for the exercise of man-killing than necessities of life as shoes, clothing, and houses; a trade that guarantees better returns and greater glory than that of the average workingman" - Emma Goldman "On Patriotism" Anarchism and Other Essays In the theories of the left, particularly those dealing with the role of class, patriotism and nationalism are often viewed as weapons used against the interest of the working class by the bourgeoisie. It serves to distract the people from their daily misery with a romantic invention, appealing to their emotion over their intellect in order to create a myth of "national interest", in which all classes of a country have more in common than their respective foreign brethren. Emma Goldman serves as an excellent example of this strain of thinking. An anarchist, she represents anti-nationalism as a force that exists apart from Marxist economic theory. The idea that "national" interest is primarily synonymous with ruling class interest is not solely the domain of Marxist thinkers, and has validity outside of Marxism, it is one that has been propagated by radicals since at least the 18th century. However, there are times when a "national" interest can be the same as the legitimate economic interests of the working class, particularly if that country is under the economic or military domination of another country. In the case of Scotland in the 19th and early 20th centuries the rampant exploitation of the country's resources, to the detriment of the entire population and for the Benefit of the English economy, served to unite nationalist, socialist, and working class interest. Clan mottos were adopted into land leagues, which shared membership with the nascent labour parties. The highlanders, who had born the brunt of the harshest aspects of colonial exploitation, became a symbol for Scottish national pride, despite representing a previously despised minority. This romantic pride and patriotism lended energy to the emerging labor and socialist parties within Scotland, where they formed and became a political force earlier than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. This alliance occurred because of the complete dominance of England in all affairs of the UK demanded that anyone who wished to participate in business or traditional politics had to adopt English dress and manners, essentially abandoning their former national identity. Thus the ruling classes of Scotland were primarily English or Anglicanized, leaving the moniker of "Scottish" to be claimed by the working class. In the end, the very attempt of the English occupiers to stamp out nationalist sentiment ensured that when it did arise, it would be in its most revolutionary and progressive form. 1. The Clearances Though rebellions in Scotland had been occurring since its union with the English crown occurred in the 18th century, the first to gain any success in the 19th century was the Crofters rebellion in 1880. Crofters were tenant farmers who often lived under English landlords due to the reforms that occurred after the Jacobite rebellions in the 18th century. These reforms were aimed both at punishing the clan chiefs who had participated in the rebellion, and the Highland population which had proved so troublesome to manage. Four major rebellions had occurred against English rule in past 100 years, as well as numerous instances of rioting, most of them based in the Highlands. As a countermeasure, lands were taken from the traditional Chiefs of the Highland clans and given to absentee English landlords. Other reforms aimed at suppressing Scottish culture and national identity were made, including the suppression of the Gaelic language and the banning of certain clans' tartans. Scottish clans functioned as almost an extended family, the Chief merely being its head. Many of his friends and family would number among his subjects, as the chiefs' families were not the pampered and cloistered noblery of the rest of Europe. The Chief's main duty was to his people, and they often acted as their protectors and benefactors, instituting many early forms of public education, health care, and even social security. This was not always the case, it varied according to the Chief, but since he lacked a standing army it was generally in his interest to keep the people happy. This all changed with the introduction of classically bourgeois and aristocratic landlords from England. Unconcerned with the general welfare of the population, the new lords were primarily concerned with economic profit. Sheep were more profitable than tenant farmers, and so thousands upon thousands were evicted from their homes to create grazing land. More were evicted to create deer reserves so that Lords could go hunting at their new estates. Many were forced to emigrate to the Americas and later New Zealand and Australia. Those who stayed were forced onto "Crofts" in a sort of early policy of collectivization. These crofting towns were greatly overpopulated, each inhabitant was given a small parcel of land to grow food for subsistence and sale. Since the most nutritious crop per square foot were potatoes, these were the main crop grown to sustain the crofters. The Highland potato famine in 1846 further reduced the population, in conjunction with a related cholera epidemic. The population of the Highlands was so reduced by emigration, famine, and plague that it has not recovered to this day. This fulfilled a strain of English thought that attributed the frequent rebellions to the fact the the Highlands were "overpopulated". 2. The Land Leagues In addition to these misfortunes, the position of those who managed to stay and survive was dismal. Crofters had very few rights under British law. Their leases were yearly, and at any point the landlord could choose not to renew them. The land that they were allowed to farm was small and meagre, though they were adjacent to vast tracts of fertile land that were reserved for sheep or hunting. This obvious and unfair dichotomy prompted the formation of the Highland Land Reclamation League, the organized political force that rose from and supported the Crofters rebellion. Formed in 1880, it used mass organization to carry out larger scale version of the tactics that had already begun to be used by rebellious crofters, which consisted largely of direct action tactics. These included strikes, refusal to pay rent, and the occupation of land and forclosed houses. These actions gained the sympathy of the public throughout Scotland, even in the Lowlands (the areas below Inverness surrounding Glascgow and Edinburg) where there had been a traditionally hostile attitude towards highlanders. The lowlands had adopted the English language, as opposed to Gaelic, far earlier as well as switching from an agrarian to an industrial economy in the early 19th century. However due to similar policies of land clearance, though on a far smaller scale, practiced in those areas, sympathy began to drift towards nationalism, socialism, and the plight of the Highlanders. The motto of the Land Reclamation League was "is treasa tuath na tighearna" a Gaelic proverb which translates to "The people are mightier than the lord". In addition to Gaelic mottos, the rebelling crofters often dressed in "traditional" Scottish wear, kilts with their respective clan tartans (patterns) and played bagpipes at rallies. Thus a linkage began to be made between Scottish cultural identity and rural working-class interest. This popular support forced the Liberal parliament to enact certain land reforms which acknowledged a number of legitimate grievances, though it was mainly directed at maintaining the established order. This led to the further radicalization of many members of the Lang League, which soon disbanded. Some members felt that their grievances had been addressed and righted and joined the Liberal party. The more radical faction would join the soon to be formed Scottish Labour Party. The latter would spread the psychological linkage between Scottish national identity into the cities of the Highlands and Lowlands with the emergence of large-scale urban working class mobilization. 3. National Labour In 1888 Robert Cunninghame Graham started the first offical party of labour in Britain, known as the Scottish Labour Party. (Comment on this)
Tuesday, December 5th, 2006
9:36 am	Alexander Gaston Proudfoot, James, and Eliade: An Essay 12/04/06 Both Eliade and James find the ultimate source of religious experience in the emotional life of the individual. While intellectual interpretation of religious experience varies, the energy behind the effort is essentially illogical, emotional, and personal. The last of the three is perhaps the most essential, it means that the cause for religious experience is ultimately unknowable except to the individual themselves. While James defines religious experience as a general, invigorating energy which gives the individual’s life additional meaning and purpose, the particular emotional and logical conclusions that the person comes to are unique. Likewise though Eliade describes the sacred as giving objective definition to an otherwise subjective chaos, the final conclusions as to what consitutes the sacred cannot be understood by examining the particular doctrine prevelant in the individual’s society. This can be observed by the way even non-religious people “sanctify” space. Wayne Proudfoot problematizes the interpretations of both William James and Mircea Eliade by challenging their basic interpretation the source of emotional reactions within individuals. He separates the initial physiological stimulation with the emotion that it produces, saying that the latter is dependent on subjective psychological interpretation of relatively homogenous physiogical symptoms. This psyhcological interpretation is in turn dependent on the defined cultural and religious doctrine that the individual is exposed to at the time of this stimulation. He is able to return legitimacy to the idea that religion can be understood by examining the texts of the particular faiths involved, since these ultimately determine what emotion the individual defines as “religious”. In doing this he both avoids a conflict with objective scientific thought, since religion is still based in the psychological, albeit doctrinally influenced, interpretation of individual experience while avoiding what he views as the “protective” motivations of apologetic scholars. Eliade’s definition of “sacred” provides the reader with the basic motivation of all religions, drawn from a number of examples, to provide some objective context in which to view the terrifying subjective nature of the world as viewed by humanity. The first step of this is process is to separate a certain space as sacred. “Every sacred space implies a hierophany, an irruption of the sacred that results in detaching a territory from the surrounding cosmic milieu and making it qualitatively different.” (26). This marking of sacred land provides fixed points of reference within the world, allowing order and measured distance. However this point of reference cannot come from purely human endeavor, since humanity experience is inevitably subjective and thus cannot be relied upon to create an objective order to the universe. “A sign is asked, to put an end to the tension and anxiety caused by relativity and disorientation – in short, to reveal an absolute point of support. For example, a wild animal is hunted, and the sanctuary is built at the place where it is killed.” (28). Regardless of the deity that is worshipped, the same function is performed with different, and one assumes arbitrary, means of marking the objective sacred space. The other essential aspect of Eliade’s argument is, in addition to a certain homogeneity of motivation amongst religions, this objectification of reality occurs in individuals who claim to live in a wholly profane world. This process reaches one of its ultimate culminations in what he calls “the 20th century historistic philosophies” such as Marxism. Though the Marxism is decidedly atheistic, its foundation is formed by the Judeo-Christian sanctification of history, which Hegel extended to include the entirity of history. According to Eliade “it accords decisive importance to the historical event (and idea whose origin is Christian)...” (112). Though one may disagree with that particular point, there is no denying that the objectification of history shares the same motivation of religion as defined by Eliade: the desire to bring context to something that is otherwise formless and random, namely the origin of our current state of being. The explanation of religious experience as a desire for objectivity removes it from conflict with scientific fact by both putting religious motivation in a complimentary context with scientific progress, and giving scientific pursuit the same motivation. While Eliade attempts to provide a basic emotional urge that underlies all of religious and human endeavor, James is more concerned with the outward manifestation of religious life. He addresses the multiple possibilities for the origins of religious experience only to discredit the idea that materialist explanations discredit religious feeling. It’s notable that he comes to no conclusions as to a uniform cause, simply placing it under the category of “emotional”. Scientific knowledge will never discredit religious experience because it is not based on a strict set of “beliefs”. Belief follows the experience that is described by the individual as “religious” which is in turn based on the inner, unknowable life of the individual. The fact that the mind is unimportant to spiritual genius is best expressed by James’ description of the founder of the Quaker sect, George Fox. “So far as our Christian sects to-day are evolving into liberality, they are simply reverting in essence to the position which Fox and the early Quakers so long ago assumed. No one can pretend for a moment that in point of spiritual sagacity and capacity, Fox's mind was unsound. Every one who confronted him personally, from Oliver Cromwell down to county magistrates and jailers, seems to have acknowledged his superior power. Yet from the point of view of his nervous constitution, Fox was a psychopath or detraque of the deepest dye.” (Proudfoot, pg. 12) (Comment on this)
Thursday, November 17th, 2005
8:14 pm	My Roommate came in and said "Your hat's down stairs on a dryer" and i said "Which one?" and hesaid "The white one with the loop," I didn't feel like getting up so i said "No one would ever steal that hat" and he said "That is definately true" I found this funny because it illustrates the fat that i often wear a hat which most people find unappealing. (4 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, November 5th, 2005
6:50 pm	Events I am going to write an update! A new Myst came out my roommate just told me. I think Myst is what decided how landscapes in my dreams look. I had a weird dream last night, it involved skaket beach and there was a war going on, a magical war, but then the tide came in and flooded the front so everyone had to stop. Then someone was building gantries, sort of iron criss crosses and stuck giant slabs of rock on top. They were forming a roofover my head. I told him i would sue him if one fell on me. He was sitting on some kind of shiny brass chair that was attached to the iron bars, with a magnifying glass on a metal arm thing. I don't really know what he was doing, somehow fidling with something. I got the impression he was an artist of some kind. This reminded me of Myst, due to th gadgetry. I went to the Brooklyn museum yesterday in the context of Hebrew Bible class. They have a very nice arboretum but i was sleepy so i left after looking at the egyptian stuff. I think that teacher is my favorite one. She is the spitting image of a female professor. She has poofy white hair and often forgets to take off her bicycle helmet when she is inside. She also does this strange blinking thing when you say something she likes. It's vaguely reptillian, in that it seems like the sort of thing a gecko might do when you pet it. I sat and had an orange juice with a girl in my class and we chatted. She seemed nice. We were the only ones who actually went on the trip. She was from Lithuania, i had thought argentina. Current Mood: complacent (Comment on this)
Monday, July 18th, 2005
10:12 pm	Today I spent in withdrawl, a state consisting of intermittent exhaustion, paranoia, shakes, and bouts of dementia. My couch will never be the same, and I murdered my cat. I renamed her in death, i couldn't imagine any afterlife scenario where being named "Wilma" would be an asset. Then i threw her body to the wolves, who had gathered round the house upon hearing the inhuman cries i had made from within my madness. (Comment on this)
Sunday, July 3rd, 2005
11:18 am	A Fact: 70% of all office shootings were carried out by Eagle Scouts. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Sunday, June 19th, 2005
4:16 pm	Today i named my i-pod. His name is Allan Quartermain. (Comment on this)