A Sidenote On Trends and Individuals.

Three statisticians go duck hunting. Before long, their dog chases a duck out of some grass. The duck takes flight. The first statistician fires his rifle, shooting three feet above the duck, the second statistician fires three feet two low, and the third statistician shouts "We got 'em!"

Trends do not always reflect individual cases!

In her post about the Rasta movement, Carissa outlines some striking similarities between the Ethiopian identification with Christianity, and the Rasta identification with Ethiopia, and notes that "both movements were intimately connected with their cultural environment." This is absolutely true, but what social movement is not deeply connected to the cultural environment that created the necessity for it?

As we have discussed in class, cultures and religions do change very much over time. It is valuable to see that religion, in these two examples, does very much serve to create a sense of identity for many of their adherents. This is not necessarily true for every individual Ethiopian or Rastafari, particularly in modern times, removed from factors that directly influence the development of these belief systems. How often in every day life do many of us think of our own religious identities? Some certainly may, but I certainly don't with any regularity. It is inappropriate to analyze a belief system which is strongly based a sense of individuality, and "looking from the inside out" from a completely external point of view, that sums the purpose of the religion, as an over trend of some possible use of its adherents.

The Rastafari way should be used to analyze itself. As an individual, I can see value in believing that there is more value in interpretting life for myself than applying an algorithm to everything I stumble across. I may not choose to believe in a living reincarnation of god walking the Earth, but I see strength and ideals in a return to nature.

Yeah-yeah-yeah, well!
Uh! Open your eyes and look within:
Are you satisfied (with the life you're living)? Uh!
We know where we're going, uh!

Marley's lyrics speak not of seeing trends and analyzing the abstracts of religion, but knowing one's self, and living life with "eyes open."

Looking out from the inside, I think that the Rastafari movement and Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity are both shaped strongly from the cultures where they were born as well as the urgent needs of the people of the time, but as an individual, I know that nothing I believe could ever influence the escape of culture, and also that my uses of my beliefs are very different from the uses of others who share them. I would hate and do hate to be grouped with a cluster of people by the functionality of our shared belief. Marley, the Rastafari movement, and internal feelings can tell us, that religion is not about what the functionality of a belief is, but simply whether or not the belief is functional, to you, or me, or I-an-I, or whoever holds it.

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.