red fuzzy jesus

Great Conversation between Silva and Doyle

I know I post a lot of stuff from HPlus magazine but it is worth it. This conversation between Jason Silva and Richard Doyle is absolutely fascinating. Silva is one of those people that continues to surprise and impress me. He just has one of those lives that is fascinating. You can get a sense of him on his Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Silva

I've posted a video featuring him before. Anyway, here is the start of the conversation and then I link to the rest.

An Ecstatic Dialogue between Jason Silva and Richard Doyle, author of Darwin’s Pharmacy: Sex, Plants and the Evolution of the Noosphere

By: Jason Silva and Richard Doyle

Published: June 24, 2011

A Conversation between TV personality and fellow at the Hybrid Reality Institute, Jason Silva and Rich Doyle, author of Darwin’s Pharmacy:

JASON SILVA: Your new book Darwin’s Pharmacy talks about the relationship between psychedelic plants and the accelerating evolution of the “noosphere”, which some define as the knowledge substrate of reality, the invisible, informational dimension of collective intelligence and human knowledge. Is this more or less accurate?

RICH DOYLE: The book features a set of nested claims about the evolution of mind, psychedelics (or, as I prefer and propose, “ecodelics”), and the evolution of the noosphere, but all of the claims can be understood via two claims:

(1) Ecodelics have been an integral part of the human toolkit, so suppressing them is like suppressing music, jokes or other aspects of our humanity. (Here I am following Samorini, Siegel, and others.)

and…

Interfaith Dialogue Must Include Atheists

Chris Stedman - Managing Director, 'State of Formation,' The Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue

In my work as an interfaith activist, I've fought to bring an end to religious division. Lately this has increasingly meant speaking out against the rise in anti-Muslim rhetoric and violence sweeping America. As a member of the Common Ground Campaign, I'm actively working to oppose those who wish to disenfranchise the American Muslim community.

Advocating for religious people has often put me at odds with my own community. As an atheist I hear a lot of anti-religious talk from other nonreligious people, and speaking out against it has made me somewhat of an unpopular figure among some atheists. Yet it is precisely because I am an atheist, and not in spite of it, that I am motivated to do interfaith work.

Why? For one, without religious tolerance and pluralism, I wouldn't be free to call myself an atheist without fear of retribution. Not that long ago, I could not have been a public, vocal atheist at all.

Still, this expanded freedom shouldn't suggest that everything is coming up roses for atheists in America. Earlier this year, Concordia College in Moorhead, MN forbade the formation of a secular student group, claiming that the group's mission was in direct opposition with the school's identity as an institution affiliated with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Concordia, which currently recognizes a Catholic student group, has so far refused to reconsider their decision. As a graduate of Augsburg College, another Minnesota school affiliated with the ELCA, I was alarmed by this news. Concordia's decision received little attention and it seems that few came to the secular students' defense. Imagine if the school had declined to recognize a Muslim or Jewish student group: would others have spoken up? It seems likely that there would have been a larger response.

Atheists' identities are regularly belittled or dismissed; we often hear that there are "no atheists in the foxhole," that "atheists are parasites," and the reality remains that we still aren't eligible to hold public office in several parts of this country. Even in places where atheists can hold office, studies have shown that we are the least electable group in America. Nearly half of American parents don't want us marrying their kids. Glenn Beck constantly targets atheists, blaming us for America's problems and saying we have no substance. Yet few people outside of our community come to our defense in the face of such blatant prejudice.

Read the rest of the article...

Great Conversation Among Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens

Great interview with the "four horsemen". 

Paradigm Shifts

Personal note:  I am entering into the last two weeks of preparation for my comprehensive exams.  I'm confident and nervous, prepared but stressed.  This is one of - if not the - biggest challenges I've ever faced.  In congruence I am putting the finishing touches on my new course Contemporary Political Theory.  I've decided to do something novel and have no textbook. The texts will be academic articles, websites, and book excerpts available via the course website.  Finally, in perhaps the biggest shift, I have decided to change my approach to a difficult interpersonal challenge after months of unsuccessful attempts at a positive sum solution.  This new direction contradicts core values of mine, but it follows unsuccessful attempts to live those values.  I am forced - literally - to abandon my pursuit of conflict resolution and mutually beneficial outcomes for all parties.  In light of accepting this harsh reality, I am confident it is the correct shift in mentality and behavior.  All outreach efforts and attempts at mediation have failed to produce conflict resolution.  Beyond that, I will not be more specific in a public forum.  However, close confidants are aware of this new phase and I am appreciative of their full support.  Here's to going into a new semester with intimidating challenges.  I look forward to the next fights with renewed energy and unfaltering commitment to my loved ones and myself.   

Equality March Recap

The Equality March was pretty incredible and inspiring today for the usual reasons such events are.  There were tons of people from all walks of life.  There were unexpected allies and celebrities there.  There was moving music and some really clever signs. It was a good pick-me-up but I'm not sure how useful it is.  I don't mean to always play the cynic but I question how effective any such march is.

When I worked in downtown DC near the White House there was some sort of protest or demonstration every single day.  Granted, few were as large as this but I think politicians understandably build up an immunity to demonstrations.  A large crowd of people carrying signs and chanting rhyming slogans only does so good.  The follow-up is what's important.  It's heartening to see so many people so frankly pissed off by the administration's inaction.  But I wonder how many of them are also going to make a donation to the fight in Maine or Washington. 

I find a lot more value in making a donation or calling or writing a representative than marching and chanting.  The latter makes the participant feel better.  The former makes the contributor's life better.  

Existential Morality II

This summer I have had an unfortunate amount of time on my hands.  I have spent a lot of time with friends, traveled extensively, and worked out religiously to fill the gap between spring and fall semesters.  I have also done a lot of reading.  I have never been a huge fan of fiction but this summer even my non-fiction selections sparked limited enthusiasm.  I went the more esoteric route of reading philosophers.  My minor in my program is Religion and Philosophy as they relate to Political Theory.  In the fall I am doing an independent study with an intimidating super intellectual who has already given me quite the reading list of difficult texts.  I would be stupid not to use my free time to get a jump on this challenge. 

With these readings has come a lot of existential thinking about life, my purpose in it, my interaction with others, and again, my own personal value system.  I have previously written about my endeavor to define for myself what I believe and how I live.  This is more challenging but ultimately more satisfying than a superficial claim to one religious group identity or another. 

Although my readings do not address the golden rule explicitly, my mind often drifts to an examination of it.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  That is the familiar Christian version of the axiom but there are similar variations in a lot of faith and philosophic traditions.  What picks at me sometimes is the implied loophole.  Maybe I’m the only one that sees it but I often think people, including myself, will use this guiding principle as a way to justify not treating others well in the face of mistreatment.

Taking a good hard look at myself this summer I have identified a pattern for which I am not proud.  I have too often responded to hurt with hurt.  I have used the absence of principle and restraint in others to justify the same in myself.  Assuming certain people I meet are not going to be nice to me I have preemptively been rude or cold to them.  Absorbing the recent implicit and outright explicit insults toward my identity – my religious expression, my sexuality, my gender expression – I developed a mentality that it was okay to retaliate with similar insults.  It is not. 

I’m not sure what a suitable modification to the golden rule would be.  Do unto others as you know is right to do unto them regardless of what they do unto you?  And it is quite possible that the original does not need improving, just my interpretation of it.  People are going to ridicule me.  People are going to hurt me and let me down.  That does not give me license to be brutally reciprocal or preemptively worse. 

Years ago my friend Dave played the song Make Your Own Kind Of Music and it has been one of my banner anthems ever since.  The full lyrics are below but these lines in particular mean a lot to me. 

You're gonna be knowing
the loneliest kind of lonely.
It may be rough goin',
just to do your thing's
the hardest thing to do.

I have to accept that in trying to live by the principles in which I believe I may be misunderstood and ridiculed.  I may falsely be accused of bigotry and fascism (both have occurred recently) and I may lose friends.  But I have to remain true to myself and know that my own way is the only way that is comfortable for me. 

Mama Cass – Make Your Own Kind Of Music

Nobody can tell ya;
There's only one song worth singin'.
They may try and sell ya,
'cause it hangs them up
to see somone like you.

But you've gotta make your own kind of music
sing your own special song,
make your own kind of music
even if nobody else sing along.

You're gonna be knowing
the loneliest kind of lonely.
It may be rough goin',
just to do your thing's
the hardest thing to do.

But you've gotta make your own kind of music
sing your own special song,
make your own kind of music even if nobody
else sings along.

So if you cannot take my hand,
and if you must be goin',
I will understand.

You gotta make your own kind of music
sing your own special song,
make your own kind of music even if nobody
else sings along.

Existential Morality

I have been thinking much lately about what it means to live by one’s own principles, ethics, and morals.  Some months ago a woman insulted my belief system and since then I have been mulling this topic.  Without being too specific, her basic claim was that I lacked morals because I did not ascribe to a specific faith teaching or group identity.  Since the purpose of faith and faith-based group identity was to provide moral guidance she concluded that I was essentially a moral vacuum due to my rejection of faith signifiers. 

Being the over thinker that I am this has made me more determined to figure out for myself just what I am.  It is no one’s business but my own but I know I have spent years and a lot of energy shaping a definition of what I am not.  I am not my mother’s fundamentalism.  I am not my father’s ignorance or a member of my former church.  I am opposed to this expression of faith and those spokespeople for it.  Separating one’s self from the specifics of one’s upbringing is useful, even essential in some cases, but it is ultimately empty if there is not a corresponding effort to shape the is in the absence of the is not.

I do have morals regardless of what that woman says.  I should not let her words bother me so much.  She has her own frame of reference and I have mine.  But it is still a valuable exercise to examine what my morals are.  One principle that I have always adhered to for years and years is that there are certain things about individuals that you just do not ridicule.  Among these are one’s religion and taste in art/music.  I often read unfair coverage of Muslims or see Bill Donahue speak for all Catholics and actively restrain myself from participating in condescension.  The mistake I made with this woman was that I insulted, indirectly, her faith identity.  I felt that since she disrespected my belief system I could disrespect hers.  All this did was lend credibility to her misconceptions.

If one is really to live by their own principles those principles have to be consistent regardless of circumstances.  If I have a principle not to insult another’s faith then I have to adhere to that whether they insult mine or not.  In my mind, I justified my criticism because she insulted me and her faith was inconsistent.  She was quite a believer when it was time to pass moral judgment on others but in her own life she was not all that consistent and frequently violated even the most basic teachings of the faith community in which she claimed membership.  She was a more personally hurtful version of the students that suddenly become orthodox Jewish, devout Catholic, or strictly observant Muslim when an exam falls on a religious holiday. 

By breaking my own principle in making fun of her faith identity – the expression I found quite hypocritical – I was being just as bad as that which I ridiculed.  The person who individually defines their own morals and ethics rather than claim to receive them prepackaged from a faith has to be that much more consistent.  I have to examine what my morals really are and why.  Do they come from irrational fears or the desire to reduce harm to others?  Am I motivated by selfishness or self-aggrandizement?   Are the principles I live by logically consistent or contradictory? 

Here is an example of one small snippet of my own guidelines.  I do not eat meat or white bread.  I do not drink alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, smoke anything or use recreational drugs.  These are strict rules I have followed for years and years.  I’ve been a strict vegetarian for over a decade for my health, the effect of corporate farming on the environment, the abuse of workers in the meat processing industry, and the abuse of animals in common practices.  I take this standard very seriously.  However, I would never expect anyone else I know not to eat meat, drink alcohol, give up soda, etc. 

To me expecting that of others is like expecting them to get the benefit from my prescriptions lenses.  They have a different vision than I do so my glasses wouldn’t work on them.  My principles come from the specifics of my life.  They come from what I have experienced and what I hope to experience.  They come from thoughts about the effect I want to have on my inner being and the way I want to interact with the world.  They are custom tailored to my perceptions and history and always subject to review.  To the moral universalistic people out there and the one-size-fits-all, group-think “faith” adherents this personalized method for determining ethics is quite frightening – almost as frightening as their conformity based dogma is to me. 

I would like to think that I am a work in progress and will be until the day I die.  I would like to think that life experiences are teaching me how to treat people better and live a more principled existence.  And whether I would like to think it or not I have to realize I have a long way to go.  As I sit here I notice my cell phone charger has been plugged in with no phone attached, just wasting energy.  So much for my environmentalism... 

Simply signing on to be a member of the club with one or another faith identity is not enough for me.   But I have concluded recently that if I am going to go the lonely route of personal discovery I need to do so with the intentions of accepting and embracing rather than dividing and rejecting.  There is something scary about the process of really figuring out what you are.  But, it is fortifying when someone else wants to label you as something you know you are not.