Posting just to post

[muckefuck]

• It's a pet peeve of mine that some people term lists of loosely or seemingly unrelated items like this one "random". One of the days, I want to assemble a truly random list of short entries, but I haven't decided what's the best mechanism to use.
• No Hungarian subway movies for me tonight: I'm underslept, cranky, underperforming at work, and I forgot my tummy meds.
• I've been meaning to post about the pretty fall colours, which are just now appearing in earnest, but I haven't yet found an angle of approach that intrigues me. In short, the sweetgums and many of the sugar maples are starting to peak, as are a subset of the honey locusts, and various plain jane trees (those whose leaves merely yellow or brown, like basswoods and poplars) are providing background. The saddest of all are the ashes, which look about as they would if they were losing foliage simply due to drought.
• When I first sent one of my new hires down to file books, I had trouble understanding why he ordered them all right-to-left when I must've said "left-to-right" at least three times. Turns out that, at a previous job, he learned to file on shelves boustrephedon so now he naturally follows a l-r row with a r-l one. He learn, even if it means having to spend all day in the basement!
• I probably have a mini-rant about national language policy coming up, but I want to see where a discussion I'm in about it goes first.
• I'm also currently in a discussion about the possibility of "reconciling" Buddhism with other, theistic religions. (I spastically went on about this a bit in one of cpratt's recent entries.) I have a real bug up my ass about people trying to shoehorn concepts unique to Buddhism--such as Nirvana or boddhisattvas--into a framework derived from Abrahamic religions. I see these "universalising" motivations as either chauvinistic ("See, everyone really worships my god, even if they use different names!") or trivialising ("Deep down, we're all really the same people with the same beliefs.")
• For another viewpoint on Lyric's Don Giovanni that largely supports my own but augments it with some fresh observations, see bunj's recent contribution in the comments to my entry.
• I found out over the weekend that Chinese (by which I mean SMC--"Standard Modern Chinese") has two different words for "future". One appeared in the title of the MCA's exhibit of recent Chinese art, another in the movie McDull: Prince de la Bun. I'm not sure what the distinction is, if any, and I haven't been able to ask my teacher because class was cancelled due to some dipwad from Genoa hopping the Atlantic 512 years ago.
• Speaking of McDull, I'm more baffled by the subtitle than ever. As far as I can tell, it reads "Pineapple Oil Prince". Is boloyau some dim sum order I've never heard of before?

Comments

[lhn.livejournal.com]

I see these "universalising" motivations as either chauvinistic ("See, everyone really worships my god, even if they use different names!") or trivialising ("Deep down, we're all really the same people with the same beliefs.")

Is it really chauvinistic if you're coming at it from the perspective that a given Abrahamic religion is true? If there is in fact a being who created the universe, filled it with purpose, and occasionally or constantly intervenes in human destiny, then it seems reasonable to see reflections of that being's existence and works in the world. (The engineering of people who've never heard of Newton is still going to reflect physics, and someone who knows mechanics may be able to better explain why a certain technique works-- and how some features are functional, others extraneous, and others make it less strong or robust than it might be-- than the original prescientific engineer could). It seems reasonable for an Abrahamic theist, given his premises, to presume that people who didn't have the true explanation would still be constrained by the existence and purposes of the Creator, and to similarly analyze other religions for where they caught glimpses of what was really going on.

Someone who doesn't share the theistic premise is under no obligation to consider this persuasive, of course. But calling it chauvinistic seems to assume that the theists themselves "know" that there isn't really a God or Heaven or whatever out there for people to apprehend or misinterpret, such that they're nonetheless privileging their own view of the world for no other reason than that it's theirs. Believing that the metaphysical underpinnings of the world are reflected in the history and culture of peoples, whether they understand it or not, seems as natural as believing that gravity or genetics affect them ditto. If there's a problem, it would seem as if it's in the overall belief itself, rather than in drawing the conclusion from it that something universal would be likely to have wide-ranging and discoverable effects. (And patronizing as it may sometimes come out, "You're really worshipping my God, you just don't know it" seems as if it has the potential to lead to better relations than "You're really worshipping demons, dead men, and/or lumps of clay.")

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Of course it's not chauvinism from the perspective of the theists. Male chauvinism isn't chauvinism from the perspective of machos either--it's just a recognition of basic and irrefutable facts about humanity. However, I'm no longer within a theistic tradition so I feel no reason to label the actions of those who are as if I were one of them.

I would feel differently if I felt that more of these theists were doing for Buddhism what you are attempting to do for them here: Investigating the system of belief on its own terms rather than according to the prejudices of the one they presently adhere to. This won't necessarily cause them to doubt their faith in the absolute truth of their religion (though one can always hope)--it might well reaffirm it. But, at the very least, they will gain in appreciation for the truly awe-inspiring depth and diversity of human belief systems. In my mind, an honest comparison of Buddhism to the Abrahamic relgions can't help but underline the striking compatibility of the former with scientific rationalism and the parochial limitations of the latter, raising all sorts of complex and intriguing questions for the confirmed theist to answer.

As for patronisation universalism being potentially superior to recognition of incommensurability, it's only preferable due to the historical intolerance of Abrahamic religions for non-monotheistic systems of belief. I'd feel much more comfortable with better relations which were a product of a healthy scepticism among believers that they possess absolute truth rather than a dismissive acknowledgement that someone who possesses a truth in a partial and distorted way can't be all bad.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

In my mind, an honest comparison of Buddhism to the Abrahamic relgions can't help but underline the striking compatibility of the former with scientific rationalism and the parochial limitations of the latter,

Though the location of the major centers of where mathematics and the scientific method developed most rapidly over the last couple thousand years is at least a countervailing data point. If Buddhism is more compatible with scientific rationalism, it raises the question of why Abrahamic cultures have thus far produced rather more of it. (I can think of some starting points, like the idea of God-the-lawgiver lending itself to the idea of a universe which is itself bound by laws, or the universe as divine creation making the study of the world worthwhile in a way that the universe as a source of desire-caused pain doesn't. Or it could be mostly contingent on non-religious factors. It's a question that would need serious study to be addressed usefully, rather than me pulling ideas out of the air.)

I'd feel much more comfortable with better relations which were a product of a healthy scepticism among believers that they possess absolute truth rather than a dismissive acknowledgement that someone who possesses a truth in a partial and distorted way can't be all bad.

I think that tolerance is all about the coexistence of strongly-held incompatible beliefs, as long as behavior remains within certain limits. Publicly analyzing other's beliefs on the assumption that your own are true falls within those limits, I think-- as does wishing that people would change their beliefs to something more compatible with one's own. (And the latter is impossible to avoid, I suspect, except maybe for Buddhists who've managed to overcome desire to that extent). But if people didn't have strong, irreconcileable convictions about what's true, then tolerance as such wouldn't be necessary. (And it is necessary, even outside purely religious contexts, as every election season proves all too clearly. :-) )

I got it right the first time: you are an asshole!

[foodpoisoningsf.livejournal.com]

"Dipwad dago" is so not cool.

Oh! I forgot. You also support George W Bush and his war in Afganistan and Iraq.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

I apologise for offending you. That wasn't my intention. The impolite reference to Columbus' Genovese ancestry has been excised.

[cpratt.livejournal.com]

Shouldn't that be boustrephedon? I mean, if you're going to go to the trouble of using fancy-ass Greek words and all...

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Spelling fixed. If you know a non-fancy-ass English equivalent, please share.

[cpratt.livejournal.com]

I don't.

Does anyone really file books LTR on one shelf, RTL on the next, and so on and so forth?

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Apparently, that was the practice at his previous place of employment--though probably with something other than books.