I don’t agree with Religion Link’s description (http://www.religionlink.com/topic_110131.php) of the Muslim Brotherhood as “not simply a religion, but a way of life.” Indeed, the Muslim Brotherhood believes that. Yet, even though the Muslim Brotherhood is not monolithic, it also believes that Egypt should be an Islamic state, as should other Muslim countries in the Middle East. It does not historically affirm freedom, openness, an entrepreneurial economy, or secular democratic values such as a free press, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. Unlike Iranian Shi’ites, the Mujhadeen, and Jihadists generally, the Muslim Brotherhood is not wedded to intimidation and violence as the primary means of achieving its goals, but it is willing to use violence when it sees fit. For example, members assassinated King Abdullah I in Jordan in 1951, tried to assassinate Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1954, were implicated in the assassination of Anwar El Sadat in 1981, assassinated a number of moderate Arab leaders in the 1950’s, and perpetrated other terrorist attacks including the Hebron massacre of Jews in1929. Since the 1970’s and 80’s, it has renounced violence and has spoken of Islamic democracy, but given its history and its hostility to generally accepted democratic values, it would not be unreasonable to view its democratic advocacy very skeptically. Further, Hamas (which rules Gaza) is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, and it has consistently used violence against both Israelis and Palestinians as an important tactical component. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood views Israel as the enemy of Arabs and Muslims. The Muslim Brotherhood has also had a long-standing, well-documented admiration of, and support, for Nazi ideology. In general, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt now uses moderate tactics, but its goal is still an Islamic state. And, remember, calling for Islam to be a part of government is not the same as calling for an Islamic State, with Sharia law and all its accoutrements. There’s certainly the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood has changed and will continue to evolve into a democratic movement, but there will have to be more evidence to trust that.
Here is a link from Juan Cole, suggesting that a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is unlikely. Many Egyptians who are religious and who oppose the current government also have democratic, secular values. And there is a long tradition of secular politics in Egypt. There is also widespread support for Islamic values, but not necessarily for an Islamic state: http://www.juancole.com/2011/02/why-egypt-2011-is-not-iran-1979.html . I hope Cole is right.
That said, in the final analysis, prosperity and peace in the Middle East depend upon Muslim/Arab societies developing democratic traditions and cultures of openness, That will be good for everyone, including the US and Israel, in the long run. Of course, the “long run” can take a long time, and there can be a lot of turbulence and suffering in-between.
Playing a role in life is a choice, but we can always set it aside and play another.
Creation is a flow of multiplicity in an ocean of oneness.
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Laurence KantChaos is always lurking behind sturdy structures, offering the possibility of change and thus transformation. This is the story of Genesis and of our world today.
Space between breaths, dawn and twilight, midnight, change of seasons, a new moon, being born, marrying, dying: Gateways where the Source reveals Itself.
This is a moving story, a pitcher who gave up 12 million dollars, because he wanted to do the right thing and keep his self-respect. Inspiring.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/sports/baseball/27meche.html?hp
If we want others to see and acknowledge us, we must first see and acknowledge ourselves.
The past provides the experiential data out of which we create wisdom.
Important matters are both more simple and more complex than we think. I always find myself revolting against both those who facilely make broad generalizations and those who won’t say anything conclusive. Events and ideas are more subtle than easy solutions or the denial of any solutions. Such is the dynamic of the One and the Many.
Becoming exists in the past and the future, not in the present.
Being born means that we enter creation: Being and becoming are joined
While we often sail along in life with seemingly nothing happening, awareness comes in explosive bursts, punctuating the monotony with volcanic eruptions.
Other times awareness slowly creeps up on us, grabbing us little by little as if it was always there.
“As state universities cut back on humanities programs, LaGuardia Community College in Queens, N.Y., is going in the opposite direction. At LaGuardia, philosophy is king and challenging the stereotype that four-year colleges are for intellectuals and community colleges are for career training” (via Dianne Bazell). Humanities offer students training in how to analyze, to think, to synthesize, and to transform themselves in a fast-past, changing, world. Humanities also give students a chance to think about what matters, which is is a crucial skill for employees, organizations. and enterprises that must reinvent themselves. (Via Dianne Bazell)
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/04/132633254/philosophy-valued-at-one-community-college
“A New Day”: © 2010, Dr. Laurence H. Kant, Essay for the Evolutionary Envisioning Circle of the Annual Great Mother Celebration, September, 2010: © 2010, Laurence H. Kant, All rights reserved: NewDay1
See my talk: Laurence H. Kant, “Who Are We, You and I: Meditations on Death and Afterlife”: Late Life Concerns: The Final Miles, Newman Center, Lexington, Kentucky, August, 2010: © 2010, Laurence H. Kant, All rights reserved: Who Are We
See my talk: Laurence H. Kant, “Fish and Fishing Symbolism in the Synoptic Gospels,” Synoptic Gospels Section, American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, Chicago, November, 1994: © 1994, Laurence H. Kant, All rights reserved: FishNTTalk1
Here is my dissertation: Laurence H. Kant, “The Interpretation of Religious Symbols in the Graeco-Roman World: A Case Study of Early Christian Fish Symbolism” (3 vols): Yale University, 1993. Please note that the pagination in the PDF files, though close, is not exactly the same as in my original dissertation (due to formatting issues).
I originally intended this as part of a comparative study of ancient symbols, including the menorah for Jews. Given the length of the project, this was not practical. However, I regard my dissertation as comparative project whose goal is to understand the nature of religious symbolism.
There are many things that I would now change, including writing style. Of note is the Avercius (Abercius) inscription text, which has several errors; for a correct edition, see above. I also wish that I had included a section on the use of fish and fishing symbolism in the gospels. If interested, take a look at the text of a talk I gave on this topic in “Essays and Talks” in “Larry Kant.”
I have also somewhat changed my views of Freud and Jung. I always appreciated them, but my dissertation is more critical of them than I would be now.
Diss1; Diss2; Diss3; Diss4; Diss5; Diss6
We cannot get to the One except through the Many.
Being and Becoming: Being is who we are authentically; becoming is why we enter the cycle of life. Being teaches us that the authentic present is eternal. Becoming teaches us that change is ongoing and inevitable. Wisdom involves integrating both.
This is a timely piece giving a real sense of the difference between modern fitness yoga and the authentic tradition of spiritual discipline practiced by Indian yogis and yoginis. Yoga is an ancient spiritual practice that was then adapted in other religious traditions in the twentieth century. Yet, it has its roots in Indian religion, and this is how it first came to the US. Yoga is not necessarily exercise or breath work, but a system of feeling, thought, and experience. In fact, Yoga does not even have to involve the body at all, but can consist of communal activities or study. Yoga simply means “union” (as in union with God).
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/3917/mormon-born_daya_mata_typifies_american_yoga/
Naming the Source is impossible. Once you name “God,” you are no longer describing the Source.
Our lives are holy texts, chapters in the sacred scripture of humanity.
Our lives are sacred stories. We are here to tell them and inspire others.
There are those moments–moments when you enter a gateway, and you feel the presence of God. I remember Erice in Sicily: eating a meal at a local restaurant, lingering, savoring the garlic, the olive oil and the pasta–and most of all the wine–cold, white, shimmering, crisp–Ambrosia, the best wine I ever tasted, the same for Dianne and for our friend Tony. Was it the wine, the town, the restaurant, or the moment with my wife and our friend? I don’t know, but it felt like heaven: like a dream in which my senses put me deep underwater, gliding effortlessly, with no particular goal, just living fully.
Symbols are the medium through which feeling finds form.
Who are we? Definable bodies? But human bodies are composed mostly of water and space. We are descendants of beings who lived in oceans, lakes, rivers, and streams. Our bodies are not solid, but fluid and open. Every day the cells in our bodies are born and die. Every seven years, we are composed of entirely new sets of cells. Why do we fix ourselves into an illusion of isolation and rigidity, as concrete form, frozen images, as if we are separate things? In fact, we are permeable, protean, one composed of many, continually transforming. Made in the image of God, we are no/thing, one through many, colored glass turning in a kaleidoscope, always in flux, movement in form.
In the bleakest moments, our strength comes from where we least expect it.
Where do we find justice? Only by pursuing it. (Deut 16:20)
Rather than working to breathe, let yourselves be breathed. Then you’re not an I, but a We.
What is one task of human beings? To convert the everyday into the eternal.
Where should we feel most at home? Inside ourselves.
Neal Boortz says that people have a right to be angry and use whatever imagery they wish as long as they do not resort to violence. Of course, there is no legal question here. Free speech is guaranteed by the first amendment to the US Constitution. But is it wise to use such imagery? I’m angry about many things in our culture and politics, but I would try not to use imagery that others can misinterpret or take literally. When we talk about targeting a political opponent with gun imagery, or taking second amendment remedies if we lose at the ballot box, or publicly describing our opponents as evil, unamerican, or alien, or musing or joking about assassinating politicians we don’t like, we have crossed the moral line.
Further, metaphors and symbols are not simply colorful ways of speaking, but the core elements of communication and expression which human beings use to articulate ideas and give voice to feeling. They express our most deeply held worldviews and values. When we use them, we are tapping into powerful currents of visceral emotion. By using war and combat imagery, we are not merely offering persuasive rhetoric, but we are appealing at a visceral level to a deep need for aggression that is latent in all us and part of the biological memory of our species. It is not surprising or unexpected that there are those who would take the metaphor literally, because the distance from violent language to violent action is not all that great.
The vast majority of us would not do so, but there are those who are disturbed or unbalanced who could well do so. Now no one has responsibility for this assassination attempt and mass murder except for Jared Lee Loughner. But what we say and do influences others, both directly and indirectly. Whatever Loughner’s particular motivations, it is unlikely that he would have acted in this way without living in a culture of violence, including violent language and symbolism.
Whether or not Loughner listened to particular radio shows, belonged to specific groups, or was conservative or liberal is not the most important factor here. What matters is that the language we use sets a tone that affects the behavior of others, especially the mentally ill and disturbed. Those of us who speak and write in public venues have a great responsibility because others are watching us and following us. Gabby Giffords understood the violent context in which she worked and many (including her) have rightly noted that “words have consequences.” Indeed they do, because they are not “merely” words, but images and symbols that connect to primal, archetypal emotions.
It is not a question of assigning blame to the right or left or to any group, but rather of understanding the context in which our politics take place. There is a sense that it is legitimate to dehumanize others by using violent metaphors about them. Those on all sides of the political spectrum have done this. We don’t need to aggravate the hostile climate further by focusing on individuals who have made poor use of language and imagery, but we simply must ask them to stop doing it.
Let’s find other words and symbolism to express our anger and frustration.
Where is Jacob’s ladder now? Inside each of us.
“Suckling honey from a rock” (Deut. 32:13): In difficult moments, that’s what we have to do.
Tapping into the earth’s energy is a lot easier than creating our own.
This article discusses the effect of exercise on brain chemistry (via Nelson French): http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/phys-ed-why-exercise-makes-you-less-anxious/?emc=eta1
Compassion also means having compassion for those who don’t have much compassion.
Every feeling carries with it the faint echo of its opposite: love-hate, courage-fear, compassion-anger. We always have the choice of transforming one into the other.
I recall explaining to a group that the percentage of soldiers killed in war is much lower than in the past, especially in hunter-gatherer societies. The number of civilians killed was also much higher, and people viewed genocide as a normal (though dreaded) hazard of life. In fact, we did not even have a word for “genocide” until the twentieth century. There is no record of any nation intervening to stop a genocide until the US intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo.
The fact that we talk about “genocide,” condemn it, and criticize lack of action about it is in fact a testament to the unfolding evolution of humanity. This did not happen in past centuries, in pre-modern cultures, or in the Bible. That’s why cultural transformation is difficult. People refuse to see what right in front of them: a growing repulsion for the annihilation of groups of human beings. If we want to move forward, we need to talk about what’s good about us. Otherwise, those listening shut down.
God has no image, and neither ultimately do we.
Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.