(no subject)
I was at Barnes and Noble tonight doing homework and read an article for my Anthropolgy class titled "The Salamander's Tale." It opened in explaining the patterns of breeding of one genus of salamander in the Central Valley of California. Later, it morphed into a discussion about continuum's and the struggle of the discontinuous in the academic world. It jarred me and got me thinking and the following was what I put to paper (comments welcomed):
Until very recently, I believed there was a battle of faiths whose outcome would decide the path of academia for the coming generations. And, though I'm still fully conscious of the actual battle of faiths (predominantly of the three monotheistic faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam) I find it increasingly more difficult to see it as simply that. I have to look at the motivating factors in the contention and after giving it a whip around my brain a few times, I came upon the very obvious conclusion that knowledge is driving the strife.
There is a war taking place and that is the war of intelligence.
On the one side, academia drives the force of furthering our intelligence; on the other, the intellectually apathetic support and aid by continuing to be depraved of knowledge.
But, before you can launch into a discussion of what is aiding or prohibiting further discovery, you have to discuss what it is to strive towards introspection and thought.
It is not enough to "know." "Knowing" about a particular subject is not the victory, neither is it the apex of growth. One must understand. Do you (editorial) "know of" or "understand" that one factor influences another towards a result? Because, "knowing" and "understanding" are starkly different. Can you deconstruct your pattern of thought, see the pros and cons, and values of your argument? That is to say, do you understand that you must understand?
As an example, take the most taboo ideas in the fight between academia and faith-based leanings; evolution, sexuality, gender and abortion. Do you "know" or do you "understand" that there is a continuous link between species? Do you "know" or do you "understand" that there is a continuum of sexuality? Why is it shallow to believe these at truths instead of ideas left to speculation?
The first step seems to be acceptance. It may abridge ones faith or moral fiber (that is weaved into a persons belief) to know that the Earth is billions of years old or that no scientist can define the moment of humanity in an embryo, but do you, or can you, accept these as fact?
Do you accept that there are individuals whose sexual orientation is not defined as wholly homosexual or hetersexual? Furthermore, can you accept the idea of homosexuality itself? Do you accept the continuum of sexuality? Or, do you believe it to be one or the "other?" Do you accept that there are individuals whose gender is undefinable as neither male or female? Can you accept that a female may feel biologically, socially and psychologically more comfortable as a male? Can you understand why? What are the determining factors?
In the minds of the spiritually faithful, these notions are subversive because they assault religious values and religious "fact." This is clearly a delusion. These are individuals who place faith-based morality before reality and science and by doing so have flawed logic.
Since when have we released intellectual responsibility (the absolute pursuit of -real- truth) for fairy tales and omniscient Gods? It seems since forever. But, when will we learn to overcome them?
In the same ways that history will inevitably repeat itself in all the social sciences (in race, in creed, in nationality, in war, in sociology, etc.) one can trace the pattern of religion versus science. When the notion that the Earth was indeed round and not flat was presented to the intellectual audience of that time, it was viewed as absurd. When the notion that the Earth was, in fact, not the center of the universe, the intellectual audience of that time viewed it as absurd. When oppressed Blacks declared they're deserving of the same rights as white folk, the masses stood up and campaigned against it. History has demonstrated time and time again that the struggle is not in the presentation of fact or courtesy, but in the battle of the mind - acceptance.
Furthermore, it is becoming clear to me that dualities can not exist and still exhibit freedom of thought. Dualities do nothing but lend themselves to displacing blame and conciousness. For example, it was easier to say that women were less intellectual, competitive and strong (physically and mentally) as men, because the institution of gender had already subjected them as lower. Instead of examining the validity of feminist arguments at their inception and the institution of subjugation examined fairly, the masses fell back on the established system of duality; women were less, because they "were," without a discussion of why. Why did they (the lenders to the duality) not examine what brought society to that point?
Under the same token, the notion of fighting for equality as a whole is ludicrous and flawed from a philosophical standpoint. One should never have to strive for equality, for they were already equal at the start. It was a process of misguided intelligence that created, as Simone de Beauvoir said, a system of "self" and "other." Furthemore, it's rather depressing that as people built with the abilities of cognition and academic rights that anyone be subjugated at all. And, for the purpose of deconstructing these social maladies, one can appreciate the purpose of philosophy. Philosophy was born to educate and awaken; it was born to guide the mind towards universal truths and qualities that must be established individually to allow for living. Philosophy helps nourish the mind. One can consider it the processing unit for life.
Consider how severely society has been dumbed down. Our system for grading intelligence (school, A,B,C's, etc.) has been condensed for ease of understanding. We've assigned letter grades to mean marks of intelligence. Resumes are shortened and nowhere are you allowed to describe the state of your comprehension beyond "loves multi-tasking and taking on hard challenges."
I've observed in myself this bias against the lame. If I can tell instantly you've no real passion or zest then I write you off immediately. And, I no longer have a problem with this.
Until very recently, I believed there was a battle of faiths whose outcome would decide the path of academia for the coming generations. And, though I'm still fully conscious of the actual battle of faiths (predominantly of the three monotheistic faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam) I find it increasingly more difficult to see it as simply that. I have to look at the motivating factors in the contention and after giving it a whip around my brain a few times, I came upon the very obvious conclusion that knowledge is driving the strife.
There is a war taking place and that is the war of intelligence.
On the one side, academia drives the force of furthering our intelligence; on the other, the intellectually apathetic support and aid by continuing to be depraved of knowledge.
But, before you can launch into a discussion of what is aiding or prohibiting further discovery, you have to discuss what it is to strive towards introspection and thought.
It is not enough to "know." "Knowing" about a particular subject is not the victory, neither is it the apex of growth. One must understand. Do you (editorial) "know of" or "understand" that one factor influences another towards a result? Because, "knowing" and "understanding" are starkly different. Can you deconstruct your pattern of thought, see the pros and cons, and values of your argument? That is to say, do you understand that you must understand?
As an example, take the most taboo ideas in the fight between academia and faith-based leanings; evolution, sexuality, gender and abortion. Do you "know" or do you "understand" that there is a continuous link between species? Do you "know" or do you "understand" that there is a continuum of sexuality? Why is it shallow to believe these at truths instead of ideas left to speculation?
The first step seems to be acceptance. It may abridge ones faith or moral fiber (that is weaved into a persons belief) to know that the Earth is billions of years old or that no scientist can define the moment of humanity in an embryo, but do you, or can you, accept these as fact?
Do you accept that there are individuals whose sexual orientation is not defined as wholly homosexual or hetersexual? Furthermore, can you accept the idea of homosexuality itself? Do you accept the continuum of sexuality? Or, do you believe it to be one or the "other?" Do you accept that there are individuals whose gender is undefinable as neither male or female? Can you accept that a female may feel biologically, socially and psychologically more comfortable as a male? Can you understand why? What are the determining factors?
In the minds of the spiritually faithful, these notions are subversive because they assault religious values and religious "fact." This is clearly a delusion. These are individuals who place faith-based morality before reality and science and by doing so have flawed logic.
Since when have we released intellectual responsibility (the absolute pursuit of -real- truth) for fairy tales and omniscient Gods? It seems since forever. But, when will we learn to overcome them?
In the same ways that history will inevitably repeat itself in all the social sciences (in race, in creed, in nationality, in war, in sociology, etc.) one can trace the pattern of religion versus science. When the notion that the Earth was indeed round and not flat was presented to the intellectual audience of that time, it was viewed as absurd. When the notion that the Earth was, in fact, not the center of the universe, the intellectual audience of that time viewed it as absurd. When oppressed Blacks declared they're deserving of the same rights as white folk, the masses stood up and campaigned against it. History has demonstrated time and time again that the struggle is not in the presentation of fact or courtesy, but in the battle of the mind - acceptance.
Furthermore, it is becoming clear to me that dualities can not exist and still exhibit freedom of thought. Dualities do nothing but lend themselves to displacing blame and conciousness. For example, it was easier to say that women were less intellectual, competitive and strong (physically and mentally) as men, because the institution of gender had already subjected them as lower. Instead of examining the validity of feminist arguments at their inception and the institution of subjugation examined fairly, the masses fell back on the established system of duality; women were less, because they "were," without a discussion of why. Why did they (the lenders to the duality) not examine what brought society to that point?
Under the same token, the notion of fighting for equality as a whole is ludicrous and flawed from a philosophical standpoint. One should never have to strive for equality, for they were already equal at the start. It was a process of misguided intelligence that created, as Simone de Beauvoir said, a system of "self" and "other." Furthemore, it's rather depressing that as people built with the abilities of cognition and academic rights that anyone be subjugated at all. And, for the purpose of deconstructing these social maladies, one can appreciate the purpose of philosophy. Philosophy was born to educate and awaken; it was born to guide the mind towards universal truths and qualities that must be established individually to allow for living. Philosophy helps nourish the mind. One can consider it the processing unit for life.
Consider how severely society has been dumbed down. Our system for grading intelligence (school, A,B,C's, etc.) has been condensed for ease of understanding. We've assigned letter grades to mean marks of intelligence. Resumes are shortened and nowhere are you allowed to describe the state of your comprehension beyond "loves multi-tasking and taking on hard challenges."
I've observed in myself this bias against the lame. If I can tell instantly you've no real passion or zest then I write you off immediately. And, I no longer have a problem with this.