Religion

Last post, I discussed celebration as something particularly human. But celebration is also very religious, and I think religion is a good example of something particularly human.

Now some might contend that neanderthals and other (non homo-sapien) homonids had some form of religion. The proof for these claims lie in the excavations of burial sites, which include, not only the remains of the deceased, but also artifacts such as jewelry, tools, perhaps other household items or even other household members. These findings imply that homonids believed in some form of afterlife, and afterlife usually goes hand in hand with religion.

But when I say that something is particularly human, I don't mean to suggest that other hominids did not share these traits or aspects. To maintain such a position would be to have the idea that these is a strict separation between homo sapiens sapiens and other animals, even other homonids. Clearly, from my previous posts, I think such a position is extreme.

Religion does seem to be universal to human beings. I do not mean that everyone who has ever existed has believed or currently believed in God or some spiritual reality. What I mean is that for the most part, human beings seem to have some idea of the spiritual in their lives, whether this is a religion or just some personal beliefs. If we say this is all superstition, then what does that mean about human beings? It says something about the way we form beliefs and what sorts of beliefs we have.

Maybe religion arises like the idea of cause and effect. Somewhere in our ancestral past, an ancesort jumped when a bush moved instead of standing still. And when the animal jumps, it has a greater liklihood of survival than those that don't jump, because on occasion, a lion is behind the bush and eats the one that does not jump. So we are inbred to believe that every effect has some cause. And we are inbred to believe that behind the bush of death is a lion of God or of some spirit.

But we articulate these beliefs into spiritual theories or religions. And that seems, to me, inbred in us. If we remove religious belief from human life, as Gene Roddenberry tried to do in Star Trek, are we still talking about human life? I don't know, but I somehow don't think so.

Celebration

So I've written recently about human beings being the only critters that overindulge or perhaps the only ones to be ascetic. On the coat-tails of Thanksgiving, I would like to think about human beings as critters that celebrate.

Really, Orycon, which I've written about, is a celebration. It celebrates everything about speculative fiction: authors, games, story-types, vampires, etc.

Thanksgiving celebrates the establishment of the United States in this land -- ignoring, of course, the massacre of the people's that originally lived here.

We celebrate all the time. Part of this is due to our rituals, our traditions, and our rites. We celebrate anniversaries, birthdays, retirements, baptisms, bah mitzvahs. We celebrate graduations. Some people celebrate death.

Do other non-human animals celebrate? Do dolphins celebrate when they play with humans or when they give birth to children? Do lions celebrate their roar or do cheetahs celebrate their speed? I would say no about lions and cheetahs, but I'm not sure about dolphins.

Part of celebration is linked to religion. I'll post on that next Monday.

Orycon 29 -- Overall Experience

You might ask what does Orycon have to do with Philosophy? But, before that, you might ask what IS Orycon?

Orycon is the science fiction convention of Oregon. It is a fan convention, which means it is a place for fans to see and listen to their favorite speculative authors (science fiction, fantasy, horror, magic realism). It also has games (DnD, Magic the Gathering), a costume ball (this year's theme was Pirates), and lots of other cool stuff. This year they held their first Writer's Critique workshop.

This was my first con (yeah me!). I'd been to a DnD gaming convention before and didn't like it. I think DnD should be more about roll playing than dice throwing, but the con was focused on dice throwing. So I did not attend any of the games at Orycon.

Nor did I dress up. I kinda wish I had. I want to compliment those who did. I especially want to compliment Karma whose outfit I simply loved.

What I did do was attend sessions by panels of different authors on different aspects of writing. These were, unfortunately, hit or miss. Some panelists dominated the other panelists and the audience and did not address real issues of writing. Others, however, did. The panel on Making Aliens Alien is one example where the panelists worked with each other and discussed different routes to take in thinking up alien aliens. The session on what makes a good story was also helpful, and gave some pointers on what to look for in writing one's story. But There were many that I sat in and wanted to leave but didn't. (One panel had only one person speaking, and I could not get my self to insult the poor fellow by leaving while he spoke. Others where too close together to leave with any anonymity.)

I also discovered that the Con is a volunteer only organization. I think the organizers should be complimented for their effort and for the result. They cannot determine before hand who will try to be domineering and who won't. So I don't blame them for my experience. All I can really do is hope that one day I can be a panelist and be more balanced and useful to beginning writers.

I did get to meet Peter Beagle and bought a signed copy of The Last Unicorn. (Read it if you haven't.) And there were other cool authors that I met. Jay Lake seemed cool and was very helpful in my writing. Devon Monk presented on several panels that I attended, and I found her friendly, helpful, and a good speaker. Plus she has a COOL name! The panel on Vampires let me meet some interesting writers and get some more names of Vampire novels.

Overall, I did not enjoy this con, but I think that is because my expectations were off. I'd never been to one. Now that I have, I know more what to expect and what to put into it myself. Less work and more fun for one. I still wish I had attended the Browncoat party. If you don't know who the Browncoats are watch Serenity. Hell, whatever you do, watch Serenity. It's awesome!

And while I doubt I could ever real dress in costume, I can be part of the fun and hope to be next time.

Oh, as for philosophy: why do we need to convene with people who love the same things? It's about community and identity, and that is the core of human nature.

Orycon 29-- Writer's Critique

You might ask what does Orycon have to do with Philosophy? But, before that, you might ask what IS Orycon?

Orycon is the science fiction convention of Oregon. It is a fan convention, which means it is a place for fans to see and listen to their favorite speculative authors (science fiction, fantasy, horror, magic realism). It also has games (DnD, Magic the Gathering), a costume ball (this year's theme was Pirates), and lots of other cool stuff. This year they held their first Writer's Critique workshop.

I participated in the Writer's Critique workshop. I found it both painful and educational. I submitted one piece ahead of time which two established authors critiqued (Jean Lamb and Jay Lake). They gave me very good critique in that they pointed out some positive things about my piece and my writing. But it was also destructive in that they pointed out the many negative aspects of my piece. BUT THAT IS WHAT A CRITIQUE SHOULD DO. I was just hoping I was further along than I was.

I also participated in two ORCS (Open Read and Critique). An ORC allows writer';s to drop in, read a few pages of work, and have other writers critique it. Before I even read my second piece, I knew it wasn't ready and knew what the panel would say -- too much exposition. I can correct that, though. The second piece I felt more confident about. (Dare I say I thought it was ready to publish). But my listeners (not Jean and Jay) pointed out some difficulties with it but encouraged me to keep plugging along.

Overall, the experience was PAINFUL and I do not know if I will ever have three pieces critiqued in two days again. I won't say that I cried because I'm a man, but it was soul-rending.

However, I do what to THANK Kami for her organizational skills and dedication to bringing the writer's critique group to the con and for her comments on my work. I hope she does this again next year and that I participate again, because it is a growing experience.

Ok, so what does that have to do with philosophy? Hmm, how about the need we have to be in society with others? Or the need for writer's to have their stuff read by others? Or just the role of leisure and work in life?

Would you like to supersize

I was thinking the other day that human beings are the only animals that overindulge. I actually think I'm wrong on this. Cats tend to eat all they want and grow fat, and maybe dogs do to. But perhaps that is because we've trained them to be that way. They are more human than non-human now. And we won't mention cows.

So what am I missing? Are we the only ones that grow fat and build a largess just to have a largess?

On the other hand, are we the only ones who become ascetic? Cats may not eat certain foods and will starve themselves if you don't give them the proper food, but that's different from just not eating to not eat. Right?

A Heavenly Marriage

I ask my readers to please forgive me for stepping into the realm of Theology, but it is relevant to the issue of human nature.

Yesterday's reading at mass was about marriage and the afterlife. Sadduccees who do not believe in the after life ask Jesus who a woman, who has married seven brothers, is married to in heaven. Is she married to one of the brothers or all of them? Jesus answers two ways. First, he says that people are neither given or taken in marriage in heaven because they are like angels. Second, he says that God is the God of the living, not of the dead, so of course there is an afterlife, because we refer to Him as God of Abraham,Jacob, and Isaac, all of whom are dead.

I certainly understand the second answer. But I don't understand the first. Why are people not given in marriage in heaven? If we have perfected bodies, then shouldn't those bodied be engaged in bodily activities, from sports to sex? If sex is good here on earth in our faulty bodies, won't it be better in heaven where our bodies are perfect?

The point of this question, though, is what does it mean to be gendered and to be sexual beings here on earth. Certainly being sexual beings means something for us as human beings. It is part of what makes us human beings -- we are not angels, we have bodies. So what does it mean to be a sexed body?

A Call for Help -- Science Fiction and Human Nature

So you know I want to write a book on human nature. But I don't want to write just another academic treatise. I want to seriously consider the issues of human nature in a way accessible to and, more importantly, interesting and useful to everyone, philosopher or not.

I thought one way to approach this topic is to think about human nature through science fiction. This is where you come in. What can you think of that I should consider for use in thinking about human nature from a science fiction standpoint. I'm more itnerested in novels and short stories than I am movies, but I'm open to all.

Yes, the best two things to think about here are Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (and its associated movie, Bladerunner) and the movie Ghost in the Shell. Dick's novel deals with how human beings are distinc from machines. Dick's answer is that human beings empathize with others, where androids do not. This is a common answer among students I have taught before: human beings have emotions but robots do not. Interestingly enough, this says something that the Manichean cannot accept or must deny the importance of since emotions are bodily. Ghost in the Shell deals with a similar question but really is posthuman. The main character, Kusanagi, is mostly machine. And the movie tries to answer what makes her a human and what makes her a person. Why does she have rights? And what is consciousness? This movie has one scence on a boat in which Kusanagi gives a summarized version of Locke's view on human identity and consciousness (it's all memory).

But what about works that deal with some of the following topics:
Gender
Free Will
Bodily Nature
Culture and Tradition
Rationality

So I'm asking you, if you are reading this note, send me some ideas or suggestions for sci fi novels that tackle these issues.

Thanks,

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep%3F
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell
http://www.ghostintheshell.com/

The Manichean of Posthumanism

We are posthuman, or we are becoming posthuman. We are moving beyond the human to the next level either through genetic engineering or through cybernetics. Part of posthumanism includes the idea that we can download human consciousness into a machine.

Data, from Star Trek, is a perfect example of this kind. He can easily download his memory into another positronic matrix, or even into a simpler computer. If you are familiar with Data then you are also familiar with The Measure of a Man, in which Data is on trial to determine if he had rights or is a mere machine. What initiates this rather philosophical drama is that someone wants exactly to download Data's memory so that he can dis-assemble Data and see how Data was created. We want to create more Datas-- millions to take on the risks so that human life is not risked.

Data refuses the operation because there is something ineffable about the self which will not be captured by downloading his memories.

This ineffableness is something posthumanist should pay attention to. And it relates to the manichean problem because posthumanism treats the human as manikin. That is, there is nothing that essentially connects the body to the mind. The mind can be removed from the brain intact. While posthumanist do not believe the body is evil, their premise that the mind is separable from the body is inherited from the Platonic-manichean idea that the body is evil. It also distorts the whole view of humanity.

To be human is to be embodied. There is no simpler way to state. In his more sensible moments, St. Thomas admits this and says that our natural state is embodied, even though he suggests that the soul can exist without the body for a period of time after death. But if we truly understand humanity, we must understand that this is not possible. It is a LOGICAL impossibility to separate the soul from the body. It is not a question of God's power because performing a logical contradiction disrupts God's power. Creating a bodiless soul is like creating a squared circle.

So, if posthumanism insists on treating the mind as something separate from the body they fall into the same mistakes that have plagued philosophy from Plato to Descartes and after. And if posthumanism insists that the mind is simply the brain, then they ignore the admonition of Data: there is something ineffable about the self not reducible to body.

cnf: N. Katherine Hayles: How We Became Posthuman

Manichean Problems

Last time,I wrote that I was surprised to find a manichean element in St. Thomas. But why does this matter?

To say that the body is evil is to do several things.

First, it makes it easier to discriminate against people. Philosophers and cultures generally have discriminated against people because they were natural or more bodily. Slavery was justified for Aristotle because slaves were physically suited to work. Many people had/have similar beliefs about African peoples or peoples descended from African peoples (e.g. African Americans). Women were discriminated against because their menstrual cycles showed they were too close to their bodies. Men were rational animals, with the emphasis on rationality as a disembodied activity.

Second, it makes a vile divide between the body and the spirit, as if these two things could be separated. Seeing the body as evil sets us up for misunderstanding the role of the body in our everyday lives and in the meaning of life. We are embodied spirits! Our spirits make no sense outside of our bodies. TO say that the body is evil conflicts the spirit. People are just as likely to fall to evil for spiritual evils as they are for physical sins.

Third, it just makes no sense of our lived experience. Our bodies are the reservoirs of our abilities and our needs. To try, like Plato does, to separate our bodies from our noble selves is to remove the very possibility of nobility. It is to establish a dichotomy that does not exist.

Apologies and Human Embodiment

Hi to all reading this,

I want to apologize for abandoning my post for so long. It is HARD to maintain the blog, and I knew that going in. I promise to try and do better, but hopefully people can comment more on here as well.

Topic for today: human embodiment

I recently read a passage from St. Thomas Aquinas in which he pronounces that the body is evil and brings us to commit evil acts. I was a little surprised at this because I didn't think the manicheanism in him was so strong. But there is was staring at me on the page.

Manicheanism is the idea that there is a battle between a good god and an evil god, with humans and the universe caught in the middle. The evil god is associated with matter and body. Plato could be associated with this, although he was not manichean, but he did believe that the body brought the soul down and prevented it from reaching its best. There's a little of this in St. Paul's latter. St. Augustine was a committed Manichean before his conversion. But he never lost his manicheanism. There is a real sense in Augustine's writings that the body is simple evil.

I was surprised to find this in Thomas because Thomas had the corrective force of Aristotle to draw on. It seems that it did not take.

I'll write tomorrow about why I think such Manicheanism is bad, and on Thursday I'll say a little bit about Manicheanism and posthumanism.