More Comments on Animism and Ritual
A friend who is a philosopher/historian of science wrote to remind me that one of my assertions in the last post is considered somewhat controversial, at least in the field of science studies. There is an argument about whether, as I claim, religion creates or proceeds from rituals- in science terms, whether abstract science depends on consolidating and systematizing the insights of engineers. There are fields in which goal-oriented science is hamstrung next to a couple of guys with a decent testing apparatus- metallurgy, for instance, remains almost blind when predicting the behavior of new alloys- and in the past thermodynamics and steam engines, or ballistics and computers, have been so entangled as to be nearly indistinguishable.
In terms of religion, I think my comprehenson is much clearer: practice precedes principle. Things that seem "right" according to personal psychology and cultural valuation have very strong mechanisms for survival, and are only consolidated into intellectual schema about The Nature Of The Universe when they have reached the point of ubiquity, or at least become common enough that people start to wonder what's going on and why do the new neighbors do it different. We are somewhat confused by the fact that three major world religions (Buddhism, Christianity and Islam) trace their origins to a single prophet figure whose personal insights formed the subsequent cosmology of the beliefs that now study their books. However, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed weren't just "right"- they were embedded in complex cultural processes. Two (Christianity and Islam) grew out of regularizing the practices of a dissident social movement (the Essenes and the... crap, somebody help me out) and two (Christianity again and Buddhism) acquired prominence only by imperial fiat some time long after the initial period of heresy. All three depend for their coherence and relevance on much larger volumes written susequently by others, who explain how traditions, stories, and practices common to the various host cultures prior to the rise of the prophets, are relevant within the new system of belief. Hence, Christmas as the Christian explanation for Saturnalia, or the Boddhisattva incarnations who were the old heroes and gods.
I think this is why I am so skeptical of the Derrick Jensens and Daniel Quinns of the world. I was asked, both here on the blog and (in absentia) on IshThink why I distrust Quinn. I said that he can preach, but he can't minister, and I think this is what I mean: no set of principles, however artfully (Quinn) or strenuously (Jensen) articulated, can create practice more than a hair's breadth away from the norm. So far, there is no dissident movement practicing "leaver" culture, who need reassurance, or need to be reconciled in their differing reasons for living like they live, with others who are similar but not quite the same.
On the other hand (and yes, I recognize the irony here) there is a huge cultural swath of people who have been recycling, using energystar fridges, and longing for solar panels for years, who took to An Inconvenient Truth like fish to water. Why? Because it gave them a sense of support, reason, and collective awareness for what they were already doing. Quinn could do that if there was a second-generation cultural moment looking for direction, but there isn't, so he's reduced to calling everyone else blind. Maybe he'll get lucky, like Thoreau, and get rediscovered in a hundred years, but by then someone more attuned to what it is people do-without-understanding-why will probably have filled the gap.
On a whim, I read a (free) copy of Vanessa Farquharson's book Sleeping Naked Is Green. It starts out pretty dishearteningly with an entire chapter (entry?) on, basically, how unstylish cloth shopping bags are. And, let me just say, this girl loves her facial product! By the end of the year, though, she's unplugged her fridge and is butchering her own meat. How? Or rather, Why? Because products like meat-butchering classes are already available, and the "green living" schema allows her to consolidate her interests and (desired) lifestyle. Practice precedes principle.
A
[ETA: Or, put another way, the Bubel's book on root cellaring changed more lives than Ishmael, because it gave people something to do. Or, Dwelling Portably or the guy who figured out how to scam the machines at Kinko's.]
In terms of religion, I think my comprehenson is much clearer: practice precedes principle. Things that seem "right" according to personal psychology and cultural valuation have very strong mechanisms for survival, and are only consolidated into intellectual schema about The Nature Of The Universe when they have reached the point of ubiquity, or at least become common enough that people start to wonder what's going on and why do the new neighbors do it different. We are somewhat confused by the fact that three major world religions (Buddhism, Christianity and Islam) trace their origins to a single prophet figure whose personal insights formed the subsequent cosmology of the beliefs that now study their books. However, Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed weren't just "right"- they were embedded in complex cultural processes. Two (Christianity and Islam) grew out of regularizing the practices of a dissident social movement (the Essenes and the... crap, somebody help me out) and two (Christianity again and Buddhism) acquired prominence only by imperial fiat some time long after the initial period of heresy. All three depend for their coherence and relevance on much larger volumes written susequently by others, who explain how traditions, stories, and practices common to the various host cultures prior to the rise of the prophets, are relevant within the new system of belief. Hence, Christmas as the Christian explanation for Saturnalia, or the Boddhisattva incarnations who were the old heroes and gods.
I think this is why I am so skeptical of the Derrick Jensens and Daniel Quinns of the world. I was asked, both here on the blog and (in absentia) on IshThink why I distrust Quinn. I said that he can preach, but he can't minister, and I think this is what I mean: no set of principles, however artfully (Quinn) or strenuously (Jensen) articulated, can create practice more than a hair's breadth away from the norm. So far, there is no dissident movement practicing "leaver" culture, who need reassurance, or need to be reconciled in their differing reasons for living like they live, with others who are similar but not quite the same.
On the other hand (and yes, I recognize the irony here) there is a huge cultural swath of people who have been recycling, using energystar fridges, and longing for solar panels for years, who took to An Inconvenient Truth like fish to water. Why? Because it gave them a sense of support, reason, and collective awareness for what they were already doing. Quinn could do that if there was a second-generation cultural moment looking for direction, but there isn't, so he's reduced to calling everyone else blind. Maybe he'll get lucky, like Thoreau, and get rediscovered in a hundred years, but by then someone more attuned to what it is people do-without-understanding-why will probably have filled the gap.
On a whim, I read a (free) copy of Vanessa Farquharson's book Sleeping Naked Is Green. It starts out pretty dishearteningly with an entire chapter (entry?) on, basically, how unstylish cloth shopping bags are. And, let me just say, this girl loves her facial product! By the end of the year, though, she's unplugged her fridge and is butchering her own meat. How? Or rather, Why? Because products like meat-butchering classes are already available, and the "green living" schema allows her to consolidate her interests and (desired) lifestyle. Practice precedes principle.
A
[ETA: Or, put another way, the Bubel's book on root cellaring changed more lives than Ishmael, because it gave people something to do. Or, Dwelling Portably or the guy who figured out how to scam the machines at Kinko's.]