May 4th, 2008 Gennaro Brooks-Church
First lets get one thing clear. We are a combination of nature and nurture. Who we are is a mixture of our inherited genetics and our influenced environment. One is not more than the other.
So “I” am a little bit genetics and a little bit environment. The two make up “me”.
That’s pretty basic to me and a little irrelevant.
People who try to prove one over the other are like trying to prove sleep is more important than being awake, or vice versa.
What interests me is a suspicion that both genetics and environment are just as shallow as makeup.
The real depth of being alive actually has very little with your genetic and environmental body.
This is not so obvious in a world where people travel little, genetic lineage is very important, and tradition rules peoples’ actions. This can be seen in older societies.
In that kind of world it is very important who your parents are, who you are related to etc - your genetics - and what the traditions are - your environmental influence. And the fact that people travel little means that none of that gets disrupted.
But I live in NY. Like myself, many of us have come from DRASTICALLY different worlds.
I rub shoulders with people who have such drastic differences in genetics and environmental influence (prior to NY) that it all becomes a wash.
Obviously there are many enclaves in NY that have old world features. Places like China Town or Hasidim neighborhoods are deeply rooted in genetic and cultural affiliations.
But in my personal life that is the exception. The world I see is one where we no longer have the genetic or cultural mores to fall back on.
Right now I am working on a house with a white Arab, a black America and a brown Pakistani. We have no common denominator racially or culturally.
This forces us to use other norms of connecting with each other other than the normal tools we would fall back on if we were in a stable social and racial environment.
As we interact none of us talk to each other like we talk to our friends. In my eyes this wipes away dogma, tradition, and ways of interaction that we inherit from our culture and even genetics.
Instead of seeing our little group interaction as a bland United Nations, I see it as a way to wipe the crap away and really see what drives us in the first place.
Contrary to 99% of the way humans act on a daily basis, I think the true driving force of our lives is not genetic or cultural but something else.
This is not to say that culture and genetics doesn’t drive most of humanity most of the time. We eat, sleep, procreate, kill, worship, dance, cry, and all of it is deeply cultural and genetic.
All that is important. But that is humanity on autopilot. All of that is no more aware than the way you breathe all day.
And thank god it works on autopilot because god knows we wouldn’t be able to organize all that.
(Side note: our horror at the atrocities we commit is merely because we have a vague idea that we can do better if we tap this higher awareness. But on the mundane level, as long as we are on autopilot the atrocities are all very useful and part of the plan. Just like wildfires are a useful part of nature.)
But all that is genetics and culture. It is there to feed the body and keep it all running.
That something “other” is the true reason for being - it is our potential. Nature and Nurture are only the containers. They are like petri dishes, inert but fertile.
As far as my interaction in my mini United Nations, it is clear that honesty is the only thing we have in common. When we look into each others eyes, honestly being ourselves, who we are on the Nature/Nurture level really does not matter.
Our religion, nationality, ethnicity, heritage, background, etc - all that rich and juicy stuff that apparently makes us who we are - it becomes irrelevant to me.
What matters to me is their honest energy and my honest energy in return as we work on the project at hand.
I am at a loss to describe it so I call it “honest energy” or “something other”.
I think I will not know what it truly is until enough people are aware of it and the collective (un)conscious pushes me over the hill to that level.
Until people either all move to NY or find another way to break through the facade of Nature and Nurture I guess I’ll have to wait??????? Or do I??????
Here is an article that I found to be interesting. I found it because it is where I found the image I posted at the beginning of this post (an image that is timeless, beautiful, and the essence of being human).
Some thoughts on Science & Religion
Kirk T. Korista
Associate Professor of Astronomy
Western Michigan University
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/
(See also links pertaining to Science & Faith: attempts of reconciliation on this page.)
The following is a personal reflection on this issue, addressed primarily to someone possessing religious or spiritual faith (hereafter, a “believer”) who isn’t a scientist. Scientists, especially geologists, biologists, physicists, and astronomers, are often asked about their beliefs in “God,” a question I believe to be of a most personal nature. But the questions persist. Accompanying the question is often the underlying assumption by the questioner that any such belief is impossible - science and “religion” are totally irreconcilable - and that to be a scientist one must be an atheist. Or perhaps worse - that to understand and place credibility in the findings of science one must be an atheist.
Why this assumption? In most cases it’s because the questioner is repeating a notion that was taught to him/her. So many people are told that the findings of science are completely at odds with the teachings of religion, faith, and spirituality. “The world must be the way we say it is, else `God’ cannot exist ergo there is no purpose of existence” is, in so many words, the cry of many. I will not delve into discussion of this type of thinking here, but I will point out that this path is not the only one followed by the devout.
For example, you may be surprised to learn that….
The “father” of geology - Albert the Great, the father of chemistry - Roger Bacon, the father of genetics - Gregor Mendel, the “second Euclid” of the Renaissance - Christopher Clavius, the father of astrophysics - Angelo Secchi, and the originator of the Big Bang theory - Georges Lemaitre, were all either Christian priests or monks. Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, and Isaac Newton all adhered to the Christian faith. Even Charles Darwin was a practicing Christian for much of his adult life (he turned to agnosticism after the death of one of his children). The Roman Catholic Church and most of the Protestant sects of Christianity do not find conflict with the findings of science, including biological evolution. As Cardinal Baronius said nearly 400 years ago regarding the debate over Earth-centered vs. Sun-centered models of the solar system:
“The Bible teaches us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.” (Galileo Galilei paraphrased this statement during his trial defense.)
The above listing of scientists should in no way be interpreted as some validation of a particular faith. It merely demonstrates that believers can be scientists (and vice versa), as well as that these scientists were products of the society in which they lived (nearly all Renaissance and early neo-classical period scholars were trained as theologians). Indeed, scientists, as human beings, come in all flavors in regards to their personal beliefs, even if this distribution in beliefs differs (substantially) from that of non-scientists. I also do not mean to imply that “science has found God,” or anything of the kind. In fact it should be emphasized that each of the above scientists made their discoveries through the observation of nature, not from revelation or religious text. The scientific value of the work that scientists do is not a reflection of their personal religious beliefs or lack thereof.
Here are some of my evolving opinions on the matter of this “conflict.” I should make it clear that I am trained as a scientist, not as a theologean, but I have given some thought to this matter, and continue to do so.
Humans are inherently curious creatures. So we ask questions…
Science is a human endeavor to understand how nature works. Observational evidence lies at its foundation. Scientific knowledge is never perfect, complete, or absolute and never will be. Science can only expect to produce ever-improved explanations for nature’s workings. That is, science seeks to discover and understand nature’s laws and use them to understand and predict how nature works in general. However imperfect our present understanding of nature, the methods of science have led us to a better understanding of our universe than we had 100 or 1000 years ago. To deny this is to deny the existence of a shred of objective reality in our lives within this universe. I’ll let you ponder that one.
Some of the ultimate human questions of “who am I?”, “why?”, and “what purpose?” have throughout our history led many humans down a spiritual and/or inward-looking path. For some, these are questions of a very personal nature, and when perceived in this way are not naturally addressed by science. Others, however, are content with finding meaning within the natural world without a reliance on the supernatural.
Science and spirituality are both human endeavors to understand, separate though they are. However, unless one denies any shred of rational reality of our existence, then at the very least we live in a physical-natural world with its own sets of rules and laws - those that scientists strive to find and understand. So to those who seek also a spiritual world the following questions may be asked. Why choose to place a schism/chasm between the two worlds? Does the physical world have any meaning? If so, then why would one wish to place his/her spiritual world in direct conflict with the physical? Wouldn’t harmony (or at minimum a truce) be preferable? For some, this harmony might manifest itself as two parallel planes of understanding, for others as two intersecting planes or overlapping planes, or in the language of a physicist - a superposition of two states.
Granted, a path to achieving this sort of harmony can be a long, hard one that can involve difficult questions, with no quick and easy answers - and even uncertainty. I would guess that many find the prospect of walking this path, one that may take years or even a lifetime to travail, too daunting, too uncertain of outcome, and so never venture outward from where it is “safe.” Perhaps some are unaware of the existence of or need for any such paths. To remain in ignorance of and not think about the world and universe around them, and to be told all of the “answers,” is for many so much simpler. This approach to life has its consequences, however. Think totalitarianism and dictatorship - for example, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party had all the answers (as well as the “Final Solution”) to Germany’s problems. History tells us that somebody is always willing to step in to lead the blind and passive (and those unwilling or unable to think critically) over a cliff.
Finally, keep this in mind. Science can neither formally prove nor disprove the existence of a supernatural being or beings. Anyone who claims to do either is twisting truth, and in doing so vying for power, trying to make a buck or both. At the same time, from the point of view of scientists who study the physical/empirical universe, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” holds true in cases where supernatural events are claimed to occur within the physical world. I’ll close this discussion by asking the same question I asked above in a slightly different way: why would anyone of faith wish to place their personal faith on trial against the empirical (measurable) and physical world? Is that what faith means to you?
I don’t expect to change your mind on this matter; it is not my desire to do so. And I certainly do not claim to have the answers to this problem. But it is my hope that you will reflect upon this and along the way perhaps discover something new.
Tags: engraving, Flammarion woodcut, universe
Posted in Art | No Comments »
January 30th, 2008 Gennaro Brooks-Church
Camille Claudel (1864-1943)
Camille Claudel was a genius woman sculptor with mental problems in a world that did not accept or understand any of that.
She lived in Rodin’s shadow, a man of great stature.
Her brother and mother condemned her to an insane asylum for 30 years until her death despite the repeated claims of the doctors that she should not be interned.
Her work is powerful, something that her society could not deal with.
She had a bum rap.
In the ideal world her power as an artist would not be at odds with being a woman.
In an ideal world her mental illness would be treated.
In an ideal world she would live a long and creative life, loved and appreciated for her talents.
Life unfortunately is not always ideal.
Maybe Buddha had it right when he said happiness is not the goal. The goal is freedom from both happiness and pain. Once you are free from that roller coaster you are empty and the universe fills your vessel.
The WaltzFear and Loathing in Las Vegas download
I’ll Believe You trailer Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering full movie
Tags: buddha, camille claudel
Posted in Art | No Comments »
January 23rd, 2008 Gennaro Brooks-Church
There are only a few requisites for a web site that can make you millions:
- Easy to build and maintain.
- When people go to it they say “Cool!”.
- They tell their friends about it.
- They visit it a couple times a day.
Exit Plan: after 5 years sell it to one of the big players for $100 million.
You might be saying, sure, that’s not exactly easy.
But if you have the right idea it can be. Do you have any? I’m waiting for the apple to fall on my head. I really can be that easy.
The Idea by Jonathan Cox Charlotte Sometimes divx
An Evening with Kevin Smith hd Accepted trailer Stock Shock rip
Tags: Jonathan Cox, sculpture, The Idea
Posted in Art | No Comments »
