Watch Out Hollywood!

Part two of the Kebra Negast was certainly more cinematic than part one. David the King of Ethiopia receives the Ark of the Covenant by the Will of God, and is whisked away magically, hovering across deserts and seas to reach by the power of heaven, in some sort of sci fi fantasy setting. But beyond the spectacular imagery, God has chosen Ethiopia as the protectors of his divine word. This could certainly be Ethiopia carving their own role in the history of the religion that they have chosen.

Another meaning in the transfer of the Ark, is, in the them of my Iconography post, the ban against the worship of object idols. King Solomon greatly values the Ark itself, mourning on and on for excruciating pages its loss, and preparing to kill for its retrieval, forgetting its power, that delivered Jerusalem many times from enemies. If the Ark is of such power, how could it ever be stolen by unworthy. Contrastingly, David does not seek possession of the Ark, but only something to think of it by, a symbol to prevent his people from returning to idol worship, and ends up possessing the Ark itself. The Ark (or metaphorically, the power which the Ark represents) is held only by those people who recognize it as a symbol.

This again represents a transfer of ownership to the people of Ethiopia. In recognizing the symbolism of the Ark, they are the inheritors of the wisdom of Solomon and Jerusalem. This is another identification with religion by Ethiopia.

Women are Hell

Emily S, in Metropolis continued discusses religious symbolism in Metropolis as well as possible meaning behind "Hel," the name of Fredersen's wife (and Freder's mother). To me "Hel" stood out as a sort of alias for the Maria robot, the machine's true identity, and I have approached the question from this angle.

I too was intrigued by the robot formerly known as Hel, in the movie Metropolis, so I did a little internet investigation to find out what Fritz Lang's choice of name might mean.

"Hel" is the Old English root for the "hell" that we use in modern English, with the meaning "to hide or conceal." Exploring this meaning, the name could be reflective of the roboMaria's deceptive nature, or the hidden agendas of Fredersen and the thinking class, or the hidden malevolence of Rotwang.

More interesting, is that the Norse "Hel" having the same root, developed somewhat differently than its English counterpart. In Norse mythology, Hel is the daughter of Loki (the trickster, a non deity, but adopted brother of Odin), one of his three children, imprisoned by the Norse pantheon until they become free in the destruction of the world, and combat the gods at Ragnarok. This roll, while decidedly not good, plays a critical part in Norse mythology. With her siblings Jörmungandr (the world serpent) and Fenrisulfr (a gargantuan wolf) Hel is to lead an army of dead against the (good) Norse gods, and die, but succeed in taking the lives of most of the pantheon in her defeat. As the only honorable way to die in the Norse belief system is in battle, Hel and her siblings are securing the fate of the Gods by fatally wounding them in combat. Similarly, in Metropolis, the robot Maria causes great destruction by inciting rebellion among the workers, but is a necessary catalyst in the sequence of events that leads to resolution and peace between Fredersen and the leader of the workers. Hel leads an army of the dead to the salvation of the Norse pantheon, while the robot Maria leads an army of workers to the salvation of the thinking class (as they are no longer trapped in their contructed and somewhat dysfunctional society).

What is the value of these reflections? Perhaps, simply, that evil (or chaos, or whatever it is that you suppose causes trouble) has its place. Good and order cannot exist without their counterparts. Beyond this rather common reflection, something incredibly destructive and costly can result in something priceless. Though rioting and floods are certainly not good in themselves, in Metropolis they bring about resolution between unhappy classes that fail to communicate with each other. As a piece, it lends us insight. Do not dwell on the bad, but instead, what good can be made of the turmoil which has resulted.

Iconography.

In the first reading from the Kebra Negast, we are struck with many instances of icons, some of which are "idols" and other which are Christian. The treatment of these icons is not always consistant, however, and exploring the verious icons yields insight on their meaning.

First Abraham denounces his fathers sale of wooden, metal, and stone hewn idols, bowing to the "Creator of the heavens and the earth," at which point "He removed fear from him" (10). Moses is then instructed to construct the Ark of the Covenant. Yet, is this not just another construction of wood and metal to be worshipped? Page thirteen tells that the arks purpose was the containment of God's Law, not to be worshipped itself. The Queen of Ethiopia also recognizes the value of wisdom over gold or silver, in another rejection of material idols over less tangible but more valuable abstracts (22).

How can we resolve some of the conflicts we see between the Queen and Abraham's rejected idols and Moses' ark?

First, we might note the nature of the ark. When God commands Moses to build the ark, it is for the purpose of containing God's Law and some other major and minor artifacts. The passage describes the contents of ark as spirtual, made by God not the artificer, man. The contents are magnificent and spiritual. "A habitation of His glory" and "a habitation of the Godhead, Whose habitation is in heaven" (13). All of this seems to suggest that the ark, the box itself, contains nothing physical. Since the spiritual things it contains cannot are not at all physical, it is merely a physical symbol of more important things. This icon is only valuable when viewed as a symbol, and not as just an object.

In Abraham's situation, he also rejects physical idols for something more abstract. He turns to the horizon and speaks to a Creator that he cannot see. After this faith in the abstract, God apparently physically manifests and speaks to Abraham, and takes away his fear. But whether or not a physical manifestation occured, it was still merely representative of Abraham's Creator, as it was not physically a fiery man in the fiery chariot who formed the earth and the heavens.

Abraham overcomes his fear when he stops believing in physical idols and believes instead chooses to believe in his idea of a Creator. (We must remember that this decision was made before any physical manifestation, whether or not such a manifestation happened). The Queen of Ethiopia reasserts this message, in her love for wisdom. She explains that wisdom is more valuable than gold or silver, because wisdom cannot be lost or stolen, and is held in the heart, not the physical world.

Empiricism, A Religious Experience.

In Blending and Religious Beliefs Carissa asserts that "the fact is that religion and empiricism are very different." But it is not really the case that religion is all intangibles and empiricism is all concrete. An example from science, the bastion of empiricism is electric field and electric potential. I am learning about these things in Electricity & Magnetism this term. Although their results are very tangible, we have matter, we can observe and move electrons, all sorts of electromagnetic wave based technology, an electric field itself is very intangible. I can't feel it or touch it or see it, yet I believe it exists because I see it's results. In the same way, one could argue that although you can see or touch or feel any god, you can see divine results. But an empiricist understands too that it is possible that the electric field does not exist! If it didn't, however, it would not deny the real phenomena that we observe and attribute to electric fields. Ultimately, we know that electric fields are a tool, and a model for us to understand these phenomena, and what we call it is arbitrary and (hopefully) conveinant. Religion can be viewed in complete the same way (it is the view that I take). It is absolutely possible, perhaps even likely, that there is no existing god, but god as a model can exist and explain the phenomenon around us. Naturally, physics explains fundamental natural phenomena, and god explains things that are much more complex and interweaved into society. We use god as a model to predict things in the world around us. How people ought to act, how we should expect them to act. How we should expect our society to function, and how successful it will be based on our dynamics. Occasionally, in science, a model will be disproven, contradicted by some observable physical phenomenon. But we cannot lose sight of our goal. The model was created to explain the phenomenon, and if it contradicts with what is in front of our eyes, then a new model is required. In the same way, as society defies and breaks the bounds of what religion can explain in human nature, religion evolves and reforms. In this way, religion and empiricism are absolutely the same: tools and models for understanding the world around us.

Of Religious Persuasion.

The Zohar stands out to me as an exemplar of religious texts. It's tone (though certainly partially due to translation is conversational. The narrator is not an orator that lectures to the reader, but a fellow discussing religion. Certainly, the Zohar has an opinion, but it attempts to persuade the reader. More specifically, there are elements of the Socratic method, that is, the Zohar poses questions to lead you along it's argument. On the first page of the article "If this is so with the angels, how much more so with the Torah who created them and all the worlds and for whose sake we all exist!" Page fifty-four contains a particularly good example with the discussion of Adam's sin. "'He drove out et.' Et, precisely! And who drove out Et? 'Adam' Adam out Et! The Zohar is strong in that it approaches religion in an analytical sense. It focuses on small passages and ideas and analyzes them closely for metaphorical meaning. Why is it so different in tone than passages read from the bible? It is even proper to classify the Zohar as a religious text? It analyzes religious passages, but so might a criticism and argument against religion. It's emphasis is analysis, and not new metaphor. Is an art criticism artistic? An article about baseball athletic? In the Zohar, we see a new perspective on religion, and in it's conversational and personal speech, we see that it is a model for individuals, humans, to analyze religion by. Contrastingly, the direct story told in Lamentations or Genesis is not a direct model to show how we should think about metaphors, but are the things to think about. Is a move to abstraction and meta analysis a trend with time? All of us now have taken yet another step back, in a class where we think about how we think about religion. In 2200 perhaps students will take Introduction to Religious Studies Studies.

Animal, Vegetable, Mineral

What is the difference between people and animals? Genesis puts forward that man has dominion over animals. No other animals display the capacity for abstraction and metaphor displayed by humans. (Perhaps religion is an excellent example of the kind of thing that separates animals and people.) At times we envy animals. Their lives are simple, instinctual, and innocent. It was this attraction that lured Timothy Treadwell in the documentary Grizzly Man to live with and protect bears.

In her post about the movie, Noelle brought up a very good point. Only modern humans, overwhelmed with the complexity of society and technology in a fast paced world would fantasize about the simplicity of animal life. The hunter gatherers competeting with animals for food, and hunting and fighting for survival would nearly have this lifestyle, and not idealize it.

Grizzly Man also illustrates a measure of fear that people are not in fact meant to have dominion over animals. The helicopter pilot, for example, judged Treadwell very harshly for putting himself in a position where he was not in direct power over the bears. Why would the pilot think Treadwell such an idiot after surviving successfully for many summers in the woods? He was clearly competent in some regard. The movie made clear however that Treadwell died in a way that he saw fitting, and so the bear really did not break Treadwell's will. In this way, the bear is still within Treadwell's dominion. People predict animal behaviour regularly, and the question of our relationship really has little to do with animals, and everything to do with how humans should fulfill their end of the relationship.

lim god -> ∞

Time is an important concept to people, and not as well understood as many might think. Historically, people assumed time to be constant, and only with the onset of modern physics was it discvered that in fact, time can dilate, and different reference frames moving at different speeds will experience time and space quite differently. This is not precisely pertinent in Lamentations, where we do not have speeds approaching c, however the historical misperception of time points out we may not understand it as well as we think. The Bible creates many questions about time. In Genesis, while God is creating the sky and the stars and the water and the earth, before there is a sun and moon, how is there any measure of a "day" as we think of it? More specifically concerning Lamentations, we are presented with a superficial contradiction between God's "day of anger"(2.1) and the eternity of His love and mercies (3.22). Non superficially, this is not really a contradiction. We really just have two statements: God has a day of anger. God has an eternity of mercy. To understand this we must look at how to interpret God's anger and mercy. We see God's anger directly resulting in the fall of Jerusalem. God is portrayed as "like an enemy" and firing arrows at Jerusalem, allowing destruction to wrack his own temple. God's "anger" is what we might call "bad stuff." There is no direct portrayal of God's mercy in Lamentations, but it is clear that is something different than anger. So "bad stuff" is a day, passing, and eternity is something else. This seems like a pretty vague comment, but even in it's indescription there is a powerful statement of hope. "Bad stuff" is not the constant that ties the universe together, and endures over time. Rejoice and have hope! Tomorrow always has the chance to be better.

Also related to time is the idea of causality. If mercy or "other stuff" is the constant through time, what brings about the bad stuff? In Lamentations, the fall of Jerusalem is brought about by the sins of her people. This is even admitted by the author, he says "My transgressions were bound into a yoke;" (1.14). The bad stuff happening to Jerusalem is caused by her own sin, her own fault. This adds a little to our Hopeful Message. People make mistakes and bad stuff happens, but this is passing, and tomorrow is another chance to take better actions!

From these simple metaphors we are left with a conceptualization that allows us to keep trying. If bad is constant, why try to fight it? If there is no redemption from mistakes, why continue living once a mistake is made? That is not a model to live by. God's mercies are "new every morning" (3.23). We see that indeed, tribulations are character building. "It is good for one to bear the yoke in youth," (3.27). All of this can be interpretted in a traditional religious sense, but even to the less pious, whether or not you believe in God or a god or no god, we gain a powerful utility from a model for endurance in the face of obstacles, opposition, and tragedy in life.

Effigy Almond Joy Builders

The gist of this article goes something like, the Late Woodland people in Wisconsin constructed massive mounds of earth in forms representing their societal classes and spiritual realms. These realms were divided into air, earth, and water, and represented by various animal and human forms, as well as some more mysterious geometric shapes.

In many ways, this reflects the paleolithic art that we saw from early humans. Symbolic reflections of animals. The notable difference would be the immense scale and the lack of naturalism. Even so, humans have not progressed to the abstract symbols (such as the cross or Star of David) that we see today. There system of belief is in a sense very accurate. Their "sky", "earth", and "water" could reflect and explain the states of matter found on the Earth. This would support the idea that religion explains something not understood abstractly. It's all rather mysterious, these giant piles of dirt in shapes. Why are we, now, in the future with our great technology intrigued by these man-made hills. It's clear that the construction of these mounds was daunting, and I find it amazing that people who needed to worry about finding food took the time to build immense piles of dirt. Clearly these mounds were not build out of boredom or curiosity. How is it someone can hold a belief so dearly as to drive them to do something apparently irrational, something out of their way, and other people can be clueless as to what that belief might be? That is the intrigue of religion.

This post seems a little flaky, but I guess, what I'm getting at is, as humans, we inherently care what the people around us believe. We can't even be sure that our senses aren't deceiving us, so belief is an inherent part of an attempt to live a productive life. We seek verification of our beliefs, we are threatened by apparent inconsistencies, potential flaws in the necessary assumptions we make. From that need comes our inherent interest in the religions of the people around us, past and present, and also the anger and fear and hate, that cause people of different faiths to take each others lives. Well, that's my belief anyhow.

Attaining Nirvana

Where do bad folks go when they die?
They don't go to heaven where the angels fly,
They go to a lake of fire and fry,
see them again til the Fourth of July.

God-Jesus Robot

Sarah highlights that in many ways technology has expanded and strengthened religion. I agree with Sarah's observations; technology in many ways has enabled communication and connectedness where it wasn't before. At the same time, there are also definite detriments connected to the onslaught of technology, not least of all, pushing clashing cultures together. Taking the good and bad together, technology has, simply put, changed religion. This seems like a rather shallow observation, so let's take a step back.

The Greek word, Teknos, originally referred to not what we think of as technology today, but to art. Modern technology and art are not so different, they tend towards different purposes, but are both creations. In the societal shift from the late Paleolithic era to the Pleistocene, we see a change in human society from nomadic hunter-gatherers to a more agrarian and rooted lifestyle. In his article, Guthrie points out this change in lifestyle was accompanied by a shift in the model of religion. I think that it is important to note that a hunter-gatherer lifestyle is nature dependent. Game and edible flora all grow naturally until found and hunted/gathered. The agrarian lifestyle, while still at the mercy of weather, is more calculated. The farmer produces... creates... his own food. The shift from hunter-gatherer to agrarian lifestyle is a shift from being one element or player in nature, to being one who manipulates nature for his own intention. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the mental shift from hunter to farmer and from less technology to more is reflective of the shift in art, from naturalistic reflective art to abstract but purposeful creation.

What does this tell us about technology and modern religion? If our art and our metaphor reflect our lifestyle and technology, perhaps our hardware software metaphor isn't so far off the mark. Furthermore, if it is as Guthrie suggests, then our religion, which is but a form of metaphor, is reflective of our lifestyle, which is reflective of our climate! Guthrie explains that a shift in the orbit of Earth around the Sun rapidly increased the average temperature of the planet, softening our glacial climates into more temperate ones more favorable to humans, along with many kinda of life. This shift made farming as a lifestyle feasible. This viewpoint is further supported by Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, where he argues that all differences in human societal development and culture are resultant from climatic and geographical differences. If this is the case our technology, and likewise our religion, is entirely a consequence of our surroundings.

I must add a disclaimer to this post. I absolutely believe in causality, and to me, it is entirely feasible that religion and our idea of God is only a mental abstract, and completely resultant from our environment. This, to me, does not retract from religion at all. It does not mean that religion is wrong or false, only that it is abstract. If anything, this makes it more diverse in its application and though we must interpret the meaning of its metaphor, as a pure abstraction it is more powerful than it could be any other way.

Technology and Religion

Early in his article, Dale Guthrie points out that the common approach to interpreting paleolithic art is to impose some sort of shamanistic or magical symbolic code onto it, but this is not necessarily a justified interpretation. Indeed, I think there is value in this perspective, in that most certainly this art was not made for us, but for the artists or their contemporaries. Of course, the art could reflect magical thinking, but to assume that it does is completely unfounded.

There are countless speculations about what paleolithic art might represent, but we can be fairly certain that it was made by early humans for early humans. If we allow these early humans to act as a model for human nature, this would indicate that artists create art for themselves, or humans create metaphors for themselves. Religion, held as a personal metaphor, is created and understood for the benefit of the humans who believe it.

But how does this account for the social communities that form around religions? The notable difference between what we assume of paleolithic communities and modern communities, is connectedness. Today technology allows humans to live in dense population, and in the last century, to communicate with other individuals a world away. Lacking technology, early humans could not communicate or travel great distances, and their society was not stratified. Symbols could easily have uniform meaning in small groups. The size that modern society has grown for leaves room for drastically different upbringing and symbolic interpretations, creating the religious conflicts we know today. Technology, in effect, "ruins" religion. Technology is yet another reflection of our ability to create. This raises many interesting questions as to similarities between religion/art and technology.