Fundamentally Without Meaning

This is from Wikipedia's entry on Karen Armstrong.



Theory of religious fundamentalism:


Karen Armstrong has advanced a counter-intuitive theory of religious fundamentalism, key to understanding the movements as they emerged in the late fifteenth and twentieth centuries:


Central to her reading of history is the notion that premodern cultures possessed two complementary and indispensable ways of thinking, speaking and knowing: mythos and logos. Mythos was concerned with meaning; it "provided people with a context that made sense of their day-to-day lives; it directed their attention to the eternal and the universal" [1]. Logos, on the other hand, dealt with practical matters. It forged ahead, elaborating on old insights, mastering the environment, and creating fresh and new things. Armstrong argues that modern Western society has lost the sense of mythos and enshrined logos as its foundation. Mythical narratives and the rituals and meanings attached to them have ceded authority to that which is rational, pragmatic and scientific - but which does not assuage human pain or sorrow, and cannot answer questions about the ultimate value of human life. However, far from embarking on a wholesale rejection of the modern emphasis in favour of the old balance, the author contends, religious fundamentalists unwittingly turn the mythos of their faith into logos. Fundamentalism is a child of modernity, and fundamentalists are fundamentally modern.



My thoughts:

While I have never used the words mythos and logos, this excerpt strikes at the heart of evident social ailments particularly present in the US, and seemingly going hand in hand with the tidal wave of changes that bring about what we call modernity. For what is modernity, but the unbridled evolution of scientific/technological, economic, legal, and political systems that massively change our environment and culture. Mostly logical, rational developments, but ones that humans need to adapt to on a level of personal meaning to avoid such chaotic reactions that have shaped recent history in the world with devastating effect.

Terrorists are not a recent phenomena. In fact the name Terrorist shows just how hard it is to find a name for what they are. Islamic Extremist is perhaps more accurate, but it is not for Islam that the majority of fighters perpetrate their crimes despite the superficial claim. Just as it was not for Communism that so many humans perished in the last century from the errs of the most deeply indifferent power addicts. Terrorism is in fact a more accurate name, as it would have been for Communists, Anarchists, Fascists, who employ modern technology in mass murder as a technique for achieving power, and in the end it is only the non righteous, areligous rule by the gun that they truly seek.

However, Terrorism is a dangerous word in that those who use it so frequently do so to promote their own indifferent, power hungry objectives. Musharraf, Putin, Bush, and leaders across the world use this term in every speech that justifies their own evils and immoralities in seeking broader power. They use the word Terrorism in an attempt to absolve themselves of guilt, when anyone with open eyes can see the daily atrocities and immoralities they perpetrate. These global power players and their predecessors helped give rise to Islamic Extremism, and any legitimacy it has in misguided minds, springs from their failings.

Never before have our technological advances been in such ascendancy and capable of changing the lives of so many for the better. If we could only balance what Karen Armstrong calls our logos, with a deeper sense of meaning and stop the senseless, selfish power struggles, oh the things that we may do.

Because it is not in poverty that these power mongering ideologies are born. Bin Laden, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Hussein, these men were not born in constant want. Some call them demons, and surely their actions would lead one to believe this to be true, but we shouldn't try to see these individuals as something other than human, because in the end it is the same failure of humanity that create the wickedness that poisons us all. For it is a logic and rationality not balanced by a sense of meaning and morality, that will be then end of us.

Our public school system is an excellent example of this rush to rationalize, and systemize without a corresponding regard for the emotional, social effects. Founded using the widely shared rational belief that all children deserve a chance, the well intentioned rush to create and standardize institutions to educate. Some say that secularism is to blame for the fact that in most schools children are taught information, before they learn relations, and instead of learning the emotional/moral lessons that balance a life and provide deeper meaning, it seems that more and more in our ever increasing rush for independent "successes" these lessons go untaught and unlearnt. So people look to materialism, physical power and the illusion of control among other paths to fill the void of meaning.

I don't blame secularism or modernity for these short comings, it is not a result of either. After all on the wide and evolutionary scale, humans have most always suffered these imbalances. The pyramids found the world over are monuments to how long and deep humans have prioritized success in material, and physical power above the deeper values of happiness, love, peace and harmony that create and fulfill. I understand that these values of which I speak may also be considered modern, for before the development of language, community and all those other innovations we take for granted today that have helped bring us greater awareness, our stomach was not filled by philosophy alone. Apathy is an unavoidable part of life, modernity did not create it. However, in the modern rush to insulate ourselves from hardship, many have lost the lessons that make real hardship bearable. The love between parent and child, the love of life and living that have provided meaning throughout all struggle and sacrifice, the principles that must be taught and learnt, to live a full life.

Communism, Authoritarianism, Terrorism, Racism, Materialism all spring from our fundamental search for meaning. It is a search that has never been easy, and for which we need to sacrifice more than ever if we are to survive and sustain life.

Be the example.

Thank you for reading and may peace be with you.

The ordinary man with extraordinary power is the chief danger for mankind - not the fiend or the sadist. -Erich Fromm

1. Armstrong, Karen. The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. New York: Ballantine, 2000. p. xv

Karen Armstrong advocates a reading of historical texts from the perspective of it's writers. Her works do an excellent job of precisely capturing ideas that proliferate in great works particularly those of the three faiths of Abraham and Buddhism. I recommend all her works including her most recent, The Bible: A Biography.

Who Would Jesus Vote For?

Any heart that has truly sought to understand the sacrifice of love exhibited by Christ, might ask themselves why electing officials is seen as such a high calling, deserving of so much of our energy. The lines of state are the imperfect invention of men, but the heart of man comes from a higher power and to this Christ spoke.

Would Jesus vote? Would he preach to his family and co-workers, put a bumper sticker on his car, a sign in his yard and give his money and time to their campaign? Would he belong to a party? Would he be a one issue voter? Would he choose between the lesser of evils so his vote would "count"?

Government authority is not beyond morality and the more we treat it as though it is, the more we compromise our beliefs for our intentions the faster we fall into decay. While we claim to be a nation of Believers our actions reveal a feeble character and no politician holds the answer and neither do I. Only the sacrifice that is your love can set us free.

I Love Newt Gingrich?

I don't love Newt Gingrich. However, I listened to a speech he gave at the National Press Club, broadcast by C-Span, that enamored me. In it he spoke quite frankly about the completely deficient system of review that we use to elect the President, and offered a common sense solution that could revolutionize our political system. My summary of these points and some additional comments follow.

The media/political/consultant/lobbyist industry that currently elects high officials is self sustaining, like a perpetual energy machine running on fear, graft and generally bad ethics.

How can there be so much money spent on a campaign, and yet there still be such poor diligence on the process of communicating substantive information to the public. Why did "Howard Dean disintegrate?"(Newt) Why is it more important to report on slights from front runners than analysis of records and serious questions?

The excuse is that this is what people pay attention to, but it's a justification because the problem is that this is what they are given. 1 minute answers in phony debates, short partisan press spots, attack ads. This is a system filled with venom that serves only to bring a candidate down, which is no better shown than in the two recent elections of president Bush. How can we be surprised by the resulting leadership or should I say the utter lack of it?

To win an election you need to be both rich and famous. Namely Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg, Mitt Romney, Jon McCain, Rudy Giuliani, George W. Bush. "Jimmy Carter would have a very hard time rising in that system" Gingrich said. You need the best consultants, the best graphic media, the best theme songs, and polls on top of polls.

So who is the best candidate? We're certainly going to need it to face the overwhelming burden of problems left unsolved for so very, very, very long. How do we find this capable leader?

Surprisingly the answer may be this simple: We test them.

The Lincoln-Douglas debates were held to win a seat in the Senate in 1858. Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglas held 7, 3 hour timed debates to reach the people of Illinois. Newt raised this example a few times. These are classic historical texts that provide more substantive information than I dare say will be covered in this entire election cycle by the major networks.

Now, this is where Newt's message really presents something new. The winners of the Democratic and Republican primaries should agree to host a series of timed debates once a week for a few hours for several weeks before the election. Primarily of a format where they might ask questions directly of each other and be allowed undisturbed periods to respond, questions from the audience a moderator, etc. Perhaps even traveling around the country to encourage greater participation.

To paraphrase Newt, for the primaries instead of these 2 hour debates with 10's of candidates why not a 2 hour debate with two of them? Why not a structured series of debates, round robin, or however. Last week I watched the McLaughlin Group supposedly a show of political insiders and they spent 15 minutes analyzing a few brief remarks between Hilary and Barak during the recent debates. After all it's what people want to see. Sit two opponents down, force them to face each other, answer and ask hard questions, think and for god sakes be challenged. Newt also added that you could pair up Democrats and Republicans during the primaries as well. Not only would it give us a real sense of the candidate and where they stand, it would also raise the dialogue in the whole country.

Certainly this has it's own weaknesses and challenges after all the best leader might not be the best speaker, but it's probably even less likely that it's the person who picked the best consultant groups, who looks and sells the best.

For those who think that people aren't going to pay attention to that much discussion, I'm surprised you made it this far in this post. With the Internet, pod casts, newspapers, C-Span, 24-hour news, there is no doubt the information will disseminate, it's what good information does.


A reporter raised the question that perhaps Newt was so contemplative because he believed this to be a year for the Democrats. A good explanation for his support of possibly the most incapable speaker, debater and statesman in our nations history, but it's not the messenger it's the message that's important.

I generally don't care to listen to Newt, but I believe he recognizes as most adult Americans that give a damn that we are at a moment of decision. It's the same reason that both fields are flooded with candidates. Bush's second election has clearly shown that he was not a mistake or a lucky crook, but the product of a broken system. The door is open to all, the presidency is up for sale and it's a steal.

Our government is collapsing around us. Fiat money is being used poorly to patch the holes of health care, social security, and chronic infrastructure deterioration, all the while further devaluing our currency world wide. The blood of countless Iraqi's, and so many other of our human brothers and sisters is on all of our hands, many good people, equally deserving of love as all of us.

These Presidential candidates are asking for our futures. Doing the same things and expecting a different result is madness. If we let the system stand as it is, we already know what we are going to get.

Please help us and demand what should be our right. Write your Congressman , or any presidential candidate a quick email (you can find most of their contact info at the website listed below) and encourage them to step up and begin a process of open substanative non-partisan discussion. It might be the smallest step you can take to effect the greatest change in our government.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/


You can see more of Newts speech at:

http://www.cspan.org/VideoArchives.asp?CatCodePairs=,&ArchiveDays=100&Page=2


Thank you for your time.




Citations:

Gingrich, Newt. (8-7-07). National Press Club Luncheon
[Television broadcast]. 400 N Capitol St NW # 650 Washington, DC 20001: Comcast.