I ain't afraid of no ghost
2 views
Skip to first unread message
dwr...@mail.usask.ca
Nov 20, 2008, 8:38:09 PM11/20/08
to aboriginal mind and mental health
So, I found the following exerpt off of a web page that I was reading.
Basically I was wondering about the power and the purpose of spirits.
Clearly, there has been much conjecture about spirituality in the
posts so I guess i am kind of bringing that up with a bit of a twist.
The quote says:
"While the Iroquois belief system centered around the idea of a
benevolent Great Spirit, it did not ignore the existence of evil in
the world. Evil is represented by the brother of the Great Spirit, "Ha-
ne-go-ate-geh", or "the Evil-minded". This evil spirit exists
independently and controls it's own inferior spiritual beings. These
agents of evil also exist in the material world and are place there in
an attempt to bring about evil. The Great Spirit does not have any
type of positive authority over the Evil-minded, except for the power
to overcome him when necessary. The red race is left to choose either
obedience to the Great Spirit or submission to the Evil-minded."
What I am trying to highlight here is the presence of a malevolent
spirit. We have talked about the existence of spirits and how they act
in Aboriginal peoples' lives but we have only talked about it in a
positive sense.
I am not promoting that there are necessarily evil aspects in seeking
out spirits, but I was wondering what the role of evil spirits was. I
had this question because I was talking to a friend who attended the
Aboriginal law class that is offered during the summer. I asked him if
they particpated in ceremonies and other cultural activities and he
said that they didn't do much except for have a medicine man who would
come a once a week. What struck me is that he'd mentioned that the
medicine man would talk for a few hours and consistently emphasize
that if people committed a wrong towards him or his family that he
would send evil spirits after them. In different scenarios if
something doesn't go right, send the evil spirits. Anyway, from this
description it almost sounded like Voodoo or some sort of black
magic.
In any case, the quote comes from the iroquois people, so it may not
be representative of other groups or other Aborignal beliefs. I would
like to know, however, how the evil spirits are involved in our lives.
Do they tempt us? Do they haunt us? Or do they just exist with little
influence on humans. Just thought I'd throw that out there. maybe
others have some answers/insight or their own questions about it.
Basically I was wondering about the power and the purpose of spirits.
Clearly, there has been much conjecture about spirituality in the
posts so I guess i am kind of bringing that up with a bit of a twist.
The quote says:
"While the Iroquois belief system centered around the idea of a
benevolent Great Spirit, it did not ignore the existence of evil in
the world. Evil is represented by the brother of the Great Spirit, "Ha-
ne-go-ate-geh", or "the Evil-minded". This evil spirit exists
independently and controls it's own inferior spiritual beings. These
agents of evil also exist in the material world and are place there in
an attempt to bring about evil. The Great Spirit does not have any
type of positive authority over the Evil-minded, except for the power
to overcome him when necessary. The red race is left to choose either
obedience to the Great Spirit or submission to the Evil-minded."
What I am trying to highlight here is the presence of a malevolent
spirit. We have talked about the existence of spirits and how they act
in Aboriginal peoples' lives but we have only talked about it in a
positive sense.
I am not promoting that there are necessarily evil aspects in seeking
out spirits, but I was wondering what the role of evil spirits was. I
had this question because I was talking to a friend who attended the
Aboriginal law class that is offered during the summer. I asked him if
they particpated in ceremonies and other cultural activities and he
said that they didn't do much except for have a medicine man who would
come a once a week. What struck me is that he'd mentioned that the
medicine man would talk for a few hours and consistently emphasize
that if people committed a wrong towards him or his family that he
would send evil spirits after them. In different scenarios if
something doesn't go right, send the evil spirits. Anyway, from this
description it almost sounded like Voodoo or some sort of black
magic.
In any case, the quote comes from the iroquois people, so it may not
be representative of other groups or other Aborignal beliefs. I would
like to know, however, how the evil spirits are involved in our lives.
Do they tempt us? Do they haunt us? Or do they just exist with little
influence on humans. Just thought I'd throw that out there. maybe
others have some answers/insight or their own questions about it.
Andrei Vinogradov
Nov 21, 2008, 12:02:44 AM11/21/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com
I wish class had started from this discussion... Oh well...
Kim Duff
Nov 21, 2008, 1:02:08 AM11/21/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com
dwr...@mail.usask.ca wrote:
>
>So, I found the following exerpt off of a web page that I was reading.
>Basically I was wondering about the power and the purpose of spirits.
>Clearly, there has been much conjecture about spirituality in the
>posts so I guess i am kind of bringing that up with a bit of a twist.
>The quote says:
>"While the Iroquois belief system centered around the idea of a
>benevolent Great Spirit, it did not ignore the existence of evil in
>the world. Evil is represented by the brother of the Great Spirit, "Ha-
>ne-go-ate-geh", or "the Evil-minded".
This reminds me of one of the historical fiction books I've been
>
>So, I found the following exerpt off of a web page that I was reading.
>Basically I was wondering about the power and the purpose of spirits.
>Clearly, there has been much conjecture about spirituality in the
>posts so I guess i am kind of bringing that up with a bit of a twist.
>The quote says:
>"While the Iroquois belief system centered around the idea of a
>benevolent Great Spirit, it did not ignore the existence of evil in
>the world. Evil is represented by the brother of the Great Spirit, "Ha-
>ne-go-ate-geh", or "the Evil-minded".
reading recently which referred to First man and his twin brother "Many
Coloured Crow" with a similar duality mentioned ...
>This evil spirit exists
>independently and controls it's own inferior spiritual beings. These
>agents of evil also exist in the material world and are place there in
>an attempt to bring about evil. The Great Spirit does not have any
>type of positive authority over the Evil-minded, except for the power
>to overcome him when necessary. The red race is left to choose either
>obedience to the Great Spirit or submission to the Evil-minded."
>What I am trying to highlight here is the presence of a malevolent
>spirit. We have talked about the existence of spirits and how they act
>in Aboriginal peoples' lives but we have only talked about it in a
>positive sense.
>I am not promoting that there are necessarily evil aspects in seeking
>out spirits, but I was wondering what the role of evil spirits was.
The universe would stagnate if there wasn't struggle and contests
between things... every once in a while thigns need to be stirred up...
but if either side gets too strong then it needs balancing out again.
Too much good is just as bad as too much evil... (I think I've
mentioned before, my favourite novel on this theme is eve Forward's
VILLAINS BY NECESSITY. But this is a different book thant eh one i've
been reading recently.)
I
>had this question because I was talking to a friend who attended the
>Aboriginal law class that is offered during the summer. I asked him if
>they particpated in ceremonies and other cultural activities and he
>said that they didn't do much except for have a medicine man who would
>come a once a week. What struck me is that he'd mentioned that the
>medicine man would talk for a few hours and consistently emphasize
>that if people committed a wrong towards him or his family that he
>would send evil spirits after them. In different scenarios if
>something doesn't go right, send the evil spirits. Anyway, from this
>description it almost sounded like Voodoo or some sort of black
>magic.
belieev that anyone can perform 'magic' so to speak, and send illenss
to another through sorcery. which is why good relationships with others
is necessary.
>In any case, the quote comes from the iroquois people, so it may not
>be representative of other groups or other Aborignal beliefs. I would
>like to know, however, how the evil spirits are involved in our lives.
>Do they tempt us? Do they haunt us? Or do they just exist with little
>influence on humans. Just thought I'd throw that out there. maybe
>others have some answers/insight or their own questions about it.
>
>>
---------------------------------------
"The tragedy [with autism] is not that
we're here, but that your world has no
place for us to be. How can it be
otherwise, as long as our own parents
are still grieving over having brought
us into the world?"
— Jim Sinclair "Don't Mourn For Us"
Heather
Nov 21, 2008, 4:06:27 PM11/21/08
to aboriginal mind and mental health
I was also wondering about the role of evil spirits in the Aboriginal
culture. I had always been under the belief that all religions or
traditions had a notion of good and evil. It seems to me that
reference to evil spirits acts to guide the behaviour of the group
members and acts as a warning against or threat to engaging in
culturally unacceptable behaviour. For example, the threat of going to
hell in Christianity. I read an ethnography where the author was
living with and learning from a medicine man in a tribe in Africa. He
described all sorts of ceremonies involving both good and evil
spirits. He also talked about exorcism and how sickness was considered
to be a result of black magic and possesion etc. But how does this
work in Aboriginal spirituality?Are their similar beliefs in the Cree
or Lakota traditions?
culture. I had always been under the belief that all religions or
traditions had a notion of good and evil. It seems to me that
reference to evil spirits acts to guide the behaviour of the group
members and acts as a warning against or threat to engaging in
culturally unacceptable behaviour. For example, the threat of going to
hell in Christianity. I read an ethnography where the author was
living with and learning from a medicine man in a tribe in Africa. He
described all sorts of ceremonies involving both good and evil
spirits. He also talked about exorcism and how sickness was considered
to be a result of black magic and possesion etc. But how does this
work in Aboriginal spirituality?Are their similar beliefs in the Cree
or Lakota traditions?
Christine
Nov 21, 2008, 8:25:13 PM11/21/08
to aboriginal mind and mental health
This isn't directly linked to evil spirits, necessarily, but it's
about another culture's view of spirits and it's what I first thought
of when I read this thread.
In a class with Jim Waldram a few years ago (Kim I think you were in
it too - Psychology 224?) we read a book called The Spirit Catches You
and You Fall Down by Anne Fadiman (excellent read by the way - I
totally recommend it if you're interested). The book tells the true
story of a young Laos girl named Lia (who's family was associated with
the Hmong culture) who has severe epilepsy. Fadiman is a reporter who
investigated all the events, hospitalizations, cultural clashes, etc.
that went on during this young girl's short life.
The book basically describes the two cultures (the Hmong and the
Americans and their medical institution) and how they clash when
trying to treat Lia and help her get better. The American doctors
believe in all the "Western" medical facts (we've already discussed on
this thread so I won't get into them), while the Hmong believe that
epilepsy is, literally, when the "spirit catches you and you fall
down". Lia's family wants to do all their rituals and religious rites
and the doctors want her hospitalized and on meds, and so it goes on
and on. Tragically, Lia ends up dying, with neither group successfully
healing her (or at least the doctors didn't think they were
successful, since their definition of success would've involved her
seizures being controlled)
Here's a quote I really liked. It is from the time of Lia's death,
where the "txiv neeb" (aka shaman) is in a trance and is chanting to
Lia's soul. During the ceremony a pig is offered as a sacrifice and
this is what Fadiman writes about it:
[Lia's parents] hoped this txiv neeb would make Lia happier so that
she would stop crying at night. And there was still the faintest
flicker of a chance, not altogether extinguished even after years of
failed sacrifices, that Lia's soul would be found after all, that the
dabs [spirits] who were keeping it would accept the pig's soul in its
stead, and that she would be restored to health. Pg 283
Anyway - here is an example of a belief in spirits, some perhaps
considered evil, and some not. And the spirits are linked to health
and happiness.
By the way - I love the title of this thread. I ain't afraid either.
about another culture's view of spirits and it's what I first thought
of when I read this thread.
In a class with Jim Waldram a few years ago (Kim I think you were in
it too - Psychology 224?) we read a book called The Spirit Catches You
and You Fall Down by Anne Fadiman (excellent read by the way - I
totally recommend it if you're interested). The book tells the true
story of a young Laos girl named Lia (who's family was associated with
the Hmong culture) who has severe epilepsy. Fadiman is a reporter who
investigated all the events, hospitalizations, cultural clashes, etc.
that went on during this young girl's short life.
The book basically describes the two cultures (the Hmong and the
Americans and their medical institution) and how they clash when
trying to treat Lia and help her get better. The American doctors
believe in all the "Western" medical facts (we've already discussed on
this thread so I won't get into them), while the Hmong believe that
epilepsy is, literally, when the "spirit catches you and you fall
down". Lia's family wants to do all their rituals and religious rites
and the doctors want her hospitalized and on meds, and so it goes on
and on. Tragically, Lia ends up dying, with neither group successfully
healing her (or at least the doctors didn't think they were
successful, since their definition of success would've involved her
seizures being controlled)
Here's a quote I really liked. It is from the time of Lia's death,
where the "txiv neeb" (aka shaman) is in a trance and is chanting to
Lia's soul. During the ceremony a pig is offered as a sacrifice and
this is what Fadiman writes about it:
[Lia's parents] hoped this txiv neeb would make Lia happier so that
she would stop crying at night. And there was still the faintest
flicker of a chance, not altogether extinguished even after years of
failed sacrifices, that Lia's soul would be found after all, that the
dabs [spirits] who were keeping it would accept the pig's soul in its
stead, and that she would be restored to health. Pg 283
Anyway - here is an example of a belief in spirits, some perhaps
considered evil, and some not. And the spirits are linked to health
and happiness.
By the way - I love the title of this thread. I ain't afraid either.
Andrei Vinogradov
Nov 21, 2008, 11:37:32 PM11/21/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com
In Siberia, where I worked, as well as in some cultures of North America, a
human may be sacrificed instead of a pig. Usually, it is a person from a
different tribe/community. S/he is not sacrificed by being killed directly.
His/her soul is offered to spirit(s) as a ransom for the soul of the
shaman's client. The client recovers, and the sacrificed person dies (hence
the soul is taken away). It is a fairly common practice.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christine" <crk...@mail.usask.ca>
To: "aboriginal mind and mental health" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
> > — Jim Sinclair "Don't Mourn For Us"
human may be sacrificed instead of a pig. Usually, it is a person from a
different tribe/community. S/he is not sacrificed by being killed directly.
His/her soul is offered to spirit(s) as a ransom for the soul of the
shaman's client. The client recovers, and the sacrificed person dies (hence
the soul is taken away). It is a fairly common practice.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christine" <crk...@mail.usask.ca>
To: "aboriginal mind and mental health" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
Kim Duff
Nov 22, 2008, 12:25:20 AM11/22/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com
Christine wrote:
>
>This isn't directly linked to evil spirits, necessarily, but it's
>about another culture's view of spirits and it's what I first thought
>of when I read this thread.
>
>In a class with Jim Waldram a few years ago (Kim I think you were in
>it too - Psychology 224?)
>
>This isn't directly linked to evil spirits, necessarily, but it's
>about another culture's view of spirits and it's what I first thought
>of when I read this thread.
>
>In a class with Jim Waldram a few years ago (Kim I think you were in
>it too - Psychology 224?)
Yeah, that's the one.
>we read a book called The Spirit Catches You
>and You Fall Down by Anne Fadiman (excellent read by the way - I
>totally recommend it if you're interested). The book tells the true
>story of a young Laos girl named Lia (who's family was associated with
>the Hmong culture) who has severe epilepsy. Fadiman is a reporter who
>investigated all the events, hospitalizations, cultural clashes, etc.
>that went on during this young girl's short life.
>
Kim
---------------------------------------
"The tragedy [with autism] is not that
we're here, but that your world has no
place for us to be. How can it be
otherwise, as long as our own parents
are still grieving over having brought
us into the world?"
— Jim Sinclair "Don't Mourn For Us"
Marisha
Nov 24, 2008, 8:25:10 PM11/24/08
to aboriginal mind and mental health
Andrei, I was just wondering how do they decide who the human
sacrifice is? Do certain cultures just go capture another from another
tribe? Does the sacrificed person have any spiritual relevance?
Lastly, what is the significance of doing this? Does it bring with it
healing?
sacrifice is? Do certain cultures just go capture another from another
tribe? Does the sacrificed person have any spiritual relevance?
Lastly, what is the significance of doing this? Does it bring with it
healing?
Andrei Vinogradov
Nov 24, 2008, 11:23:36 PM11/24/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com
Hi,
Below--->
1) Sometimes, the spirits in question just say who they want as a ransom for
the client's soul.
2) If not, then it usually is the proverbial "other" - a person who is
either from a different tribe, or a slave (as in West Coast Native
societies). Somebody, who is safe to sacrifice in the sense that there will
be no retaliation on the part of the other community and/or its shaman.
Do certain cultures just go capture another from another
tribe?
Sometimes they do, but often the sacrifice is done "at a distance." Shaman
either allows the spirits to take the other person's soul, or takes it
him/herself and trades with spirits for the soul of the client.
Does the sacrificed person have any spiritual relevance?
This is not always the case, but sometimes it may be. Spirits are very
specific about what they want. Sometimes they might want, say, a virgin, or
a person with spiritual powers/energy.
Lastly, what is the significance of doing this?
Quite literally - exchange a soul of one's client for another soul, thus
allowing the client to live.
Does it bring with it
healing?
Yes it does. But there are remote consequences to it. There are more
proximal ones - shamans from another tribe may spot the transgression and
strike back. This is very common. Another, more remote, "karmic"
consequences are (IN MY OPINION) such things as eventual arrival of "white
men" and a grand cultural screwup. It is quite obvious to me, but not very
obvious to Native people, alas.
On Nov 21, 11:25 pm, Kim Duff <kld...@mail.usask.ca> wrote:
> Christine wrote:
>
> >This isn't directly linked to evil spirits, necessarily, but it's
> >about another culture's view of spirits and it's what I first thought
> >of when I read this thread.
>
> >In a class with Jim Waldram a few years ago (Kim I think you were in
> >it too - Psychology 224?)
>
> Yeah, that's the one.
>
> >we read a book called The Spirit Catches You
> >and You Fall Down by Anne Fadiman (excellent read by the way - I
> >totally recommend it if you're interested). The book tells the true
> >story of a young Laos girl named Lia (who's family was associated with
> >the Hmong culture) who has severe epilepsy. Fadiman is a reporter who
> >investigated all the events, hospitalizations, cultural clashes, etc.
> >that went on during this young girl's short life.
>
> Kim
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "The tragedy [with autism] is not that
> we're here, but that your world has no
> place for us to be. How can it be
> otherwise, as long as our own parents
> are still grieving over having brought
> us into the world?"
> — Jim Sinclair "Don't Mourn For Us"
Below--->
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marisha" <mnw...@mail.usask.ca>
To: "aboriginal mind and mental health" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: I ain't afraid of no ghost
From: "Marisha" <mnw...@mail.usask.ca>
To: "aboriginal mind and mental health" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: I ain't afraid of no ghost
Andrei, I was just wondering how do they decide who the human
sacrifice is?
It seems that the criteria for a suitable candidate are:
sacrifice is?
1) Sometimes, the spirits in question just say who they want as a ransom for
the client's soul.
2) If not, then it usually is the proverbial "other" - a person who is
either from a different tribe, or a slave (as in West Coast Native
societies). Somebody, who is safe to sacrifice in the sense that there will
be no retaliation on the part of the other community and/or its shaman.
Do certain cultures just go capture another from another
tribe?
either allows the spirits to take the other person's soul, or takes it
him/herself and trades with spirits for the soul of the client.
Does the sacrificed person have any spiritual relevance?
specific about what they want. Sometimes they might want, say, a virgin, or
a person with spiritual powers/energy.
Lastly, what is the significance of doing this?
allowing the client to live.
Does it bring with it
healing?
proximal ones - shamans from another tribe may spot the transgression and
strike back. This is very common. Another, more remote, "karmic"
consequences are (IN MY OPINION) such things as eventual arrival of "white
men" and a grand cultural screwup. It is quite obvious to me, but not very
obvious to Native people, alas.
On Nov 21, 11:25 pm, Kim Duff <kld...@mail.usask.ca> wrote:
> Christine wrote:
>
> >This isn't directly linked to evil spirits, necessarily, but it's
> >about another culture's view of spirits and it's what I first thought
> >of when I read this thread.
>
> >In a class with Jim Waldram a few years ago (Kim I think you were in
> >it too - Psychology 224?)
>
> Yeah, that's the one.
>
> >we read a book called The Spirit Catches You
> >and You Fall Down by Anne Fadiman (excellent read by the way - I
> >totally recommend it if you're interested). The book tells the true
> >story of a young Laos girl named Lia (who's family was associated with
> >the Hmong culture) who has severe epilepsy. Fadiman is a reporter who
> >investigated all the events, hospitalizations, cultural clashes, etc.
> >that went on during this young girl's short life.
>
> Kim
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "The tragedy [with autism] is not that
> we're here, but that your world has no
> place for us to be. How can it be
> otherwise, as long as our own parents
> are still grieving over having brought
> us into the world?"
Gord
Nov 25, 2008, 3:02:36 PM11/25/08
to aboriginal mind and mental health
While I fear that I may open up a conversation that has been closed
for some time, I have a few thoughts on what has been said so far...
From my point of view, the most important question to be asked with
respect to spirits, sacrifices, and the like, is why would spirits
want a soul (of a pig or human.. or cow or grasshopper, etc.)? Indeed,
it seems that in some cases, as Andrei has mentioned, spirits are very
specific about what they want, and may want a virgin or someone with
spiritual powers. In such cases I'm assuming that there must be some
stories that explain why a virgin soul is especially in demand by this
or that spirit. Also, what happens to the soul after sacrifice? Does
it pass on to the spirit realm? Does reincarnation occur forthwith (in
such a case, wouldn't there be a lot of apprehension about sacrificing
a soul since the reincarnated being may take some revenge - perhaps
this has to do with the "karmic" consequences that andrei mentioned)?
What do the spirits do to/with the soul? Also, do the spirits ever ask
for a soul of a non-traditional person? Could someone sacrifice George
Bush's soul? (perhaps I should say please, har har har)
Although I must say, the idea of sacrificing a soul to spirits seems
odd to me (for more than just obvious reasons)... I was under the
impression that once we died our soul was what passed on to the spirit
world. I guess I view the soul and the spirit as essentially the same
thing, with the obvious exception that a soul exists with relation to
a physical body. In such a case, it doesn't seem to make much sense
for spirits to want the soul of person.. since the soul is just
another spirit. Do they want someone else to basketball with, or what?
(<-- just kidding). I imagine this objection is fueled by ignorance on
my part.
This discussion has lead me to a thought that I had previously but I
did not mention. That is, why is it that spirits are interested in the
affairs of humans in the first place? I've mentioned earlier that
humans have only been around for a very short period of time relative
to the Earth or the Universe... the spirits must have been pretty
bored prior to human existence (imagine how boring it would have been
prior to the existence of life-forms.. which is estimated as being
between 4.4-3.5 billion years ago. i.e., a little bit less than 10
billion years after the universe came to be... 10 billion years
without any chance to carnate (on Earth anyways), wow). Also, what
created the spirit's need for souls in the first place? Presumably no
animals prior to humans were capable of sacrificing a soul...
P.S.- sorry if you're busy Andrei, I couldn't help myself.
for some time, I have a few thoughts on what has been said so far...
From my point of view, the most important question to be asked with
respect to spirits, sacrifices, and the like, is why would spirits
want a soul (of a pig or human.. or cow or grasshopper, etc.)? Indeed,
it seems that in some cases, as Andrei has mentioned, spirits are very
specific about what they want, and may want a virgin or someone with
spiritual powers. In such cases I'm assuming that there must be some
stories that explain why a virgin soul is especially in demand by this
or that spirit. Also, what happens to the soul after sacrifice? Does
it pass on to the spirit realm? Does reincarnation occur forthwith (in
such a case, wouldn't there be a lot of apprehension about sacrificing
a soul since the reincarnated being may take some revenge - perhaps
this has to do with the "karmic" consequences that andrei mentioned)?
What do the spirits do to/with the soul? Also, do the spirits ever ask
for a soul of a non-traditional person? Could someone sacrifice George
Bush's soul? (perhaps I should say please, har har har)
Although I must say, the idea of sacrificing a soul to spirits seems
odd to me (for more than just obvious reasons)... I was under the
impression that once we died our soul was what passed on to the spirit
world. I guess I view the soul and the spirit as essentially the same
thing, with the obvious exception that a soul exists with relation to
a physical body. In such a case, it doesn't seem to make much sense
for spirits to want the soul of person.. since the soul is just
another spirit. Do they want someone else to basketball with, or what?
(<-- just kidding). I imagine this objection is fueled by ignorance on
my part.
This discussion has lead me to a thought that I had previously but I
did not mention. That is, why is it that spirits are interested in the
affairs of humans in the first place? I've mentioned earlier that
humans have only been around for a very short period of time relative
to the Earth or the Universe... the spirits must have been pretty
bored prior to human existence (imagine how boring it would have been
prior to the existence of life-forms.. which is estimated as being
between 4.4-3.5 billion years ago. i.e., a little bit less than 10
billion years after the universe came to be... 10 billion years
without any chance to carnate (on Earth anyways), wow). Also, what
created the spirit's need for souls in the first place? Presumably no
animals prior to humans were capable of sacrificing a soul...
P.S.- sorry if you're busy Andrei, I couldn't help myself.
Heather
Nov 25, 2008, 4:55:03 PM11/25/08
to aboriginal mind and mental health
i am also curious as to why a spirit would want the soul of a person.
In addition I know we have mentioned this before, but what are ghosts?
In the Silvia Brown sense i mean. Are these lost souls that have not
passed on to the other side(as she says) or what? Are they perhaps the
stolen souls of those sacrificed for someone else? are these lost
souls capabl of harming the living? I guess these are all quesions
with a hundred different answers, depending on your beliefs. I have
no beliefs so I am curious as to what everyone else thinks?
In addition I know we have mentioned this before, but what are ghosts?
In the Silvia Brown sense i mean. Are these lost souls that have not
passed on to the other side(as she says) or what? Are they perhaps the
stolen souls of those sacrificed for someone else? are these lost
souls capabl of harming the living? I guess these are all quesions
with a hundred different answers, depending on your beliefs. I have
no beliefs so I am curious as to what everyone else thinks?
Andrei Vinogradov
Nov 25, 2008, 5:02:32 PM11/25/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com
Hi Gord,
Answering your question(s) will take a couple of hours' lecture. I'll try my
best, but in a couple of days.
And, yes, the issue that you pointed out as the most important is te most
important issue in my opinion as well.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gord" <grp...@mail.usask.ca>
To: "aboriginal mind and mental health" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: I ain't afraid of no ghost
>
Answering your question(s) will take a couple of hours' lecture. I'll try my
best, but in a couple of days.
And, yes, the issue that you pointed out as the most important is te most
important issue in my opinion as well.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gord" <grp...@mail.usask.ca>
To: "aboriginal mind and mental health" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: I ain't afraid of no ghost
>
Gord
Nov 26, 2008, 4:31:14 PM11/26/08
to aboriginal mind and mental health
No problem Andrei. Don't feel obligated to answer at all if you're too
busy.
Although, on second thought, I doubt you feel obligated. I suspect you
like to answer as much as I like to question.
busy.
Although, on second thought, I doubt you feel obligated. I suspect you
like to answer as much as I like to question.
Andrei Vinogradov
Nov 29, 2008, 4:41:30 PM11/29/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com
Hi Gord.
I do not think that I'll be able to anwer your questions exhaustively. As I
thought about answering them, I realized that to answer them adequately
(or - to be sure that the answers would be adequately understood) it would
be necessary to create a context to these answers, which would indeed take
hours of lecturing (if not days, if not months). It may be compared to, say,
answering the question posed by a 13th century man, "What is car?" Of
course, this question may be answered philosophically - something like
"mechanical vehicle." Such an answer would be understood, but on a very
trivial level. Now, if we try to get onto the nuts and bolts of the "car
idea," this, as you understand, will take A LOT of time. Your questions are,
in a sense, close to "nuts and bolts." So, what can I do? I will answer your
questions as a naive car mechanic, thinking that you know the "basics of car
principles." I know that you probably do not know those basics, but this is
the best I can do in this format. Maybe my answers will alert you to the
fact that there are "car principles" at least to consider, which is not a
small thing on its own.
So, below-->
that are used in anthropological discourse etc. with regard to stealing
souls and so on. There are specifically two very different "items" that are
called "soul". One is so-called "vital soul". It is not "self", but a sum
total of vital energy. Another "soul" is the self proper. The motives for
possessing of one or another soul are very different. Motives for wanting to
have one's vital soul are very simple - it is energy/food, that is the main
proto-currency of negotiations between humans, spirits and so on. Wanting to
have one SELF is entirely different matter. If spirits want to have your
SELF, they want to have you a) as a slave, b) as a member of their
community. In a sense, such gods as Yama (Hindu god of death) or Hades
"want" your soul because it is its time to join their comminity.
Indeed,
> it seems that in some cases, as Andrei has mentioned, spirits are very
> specific about what they want, and may want a virgin or someone with
> spiritual powers. In such cases I'm assuming that there must be some
> stories that explain why a virgin soul is especially in demand by this
> or that spirit.
Yes, there are such stories. Again, if a spirit wants the SELFof a young
girl (as do spirit foxes in China), it is usually with a purpose of
marrying. If we talk about the girl's vital soul, virgins worlwide are
perceived as huge reservoirs of vital energy. In other words, the best food.
Also, what happens to the soul after sacrifice?
If it is the vital soul (that is given away), the fate of "remaining" self
is the same as any after the person dies. There is some relation between the
quality and presence of person's "vital soul" up until one's death and the
character of afterlife, but it is not rigidly determined and is too complex
to discuss here. In a nutshell, loss of vital energy/soul is lethal only to
one's physical existence - not to afterlife. If you have read a very good
novel by Stephen King, Insomnia, that "bubble" that Clotho, Lachesis and
Atropos clip off a person with their scissors to let the preson die is
exactly the vital soul.
Now, if we are talking about the captured SELF, it is a totally different
story. This has a lot of influence on afterlife indeed.
Does
> it pass on to the spirit realm?
In the first case - yes it does, in the second - we may only hope that
eventually it will.
Does reincarnation occur forthwith (in
> such a case, wouldn't there be a lot of apprehension about sacrificing
> a soul since the reincarnated being may take some revenge - perhaps
> this has to do with the "karmic" consequences that andrei mentioned)?
Now, you have to take into account that while I do believe in reincarnation,
many cultures don't. So here I do not know who to "speak for" - myself or,
for example, Dakota culture.
In my view, there are very heavy karmic consequences for taking vital soul
(yes - revenge in the next life is one of them) and even heavier ones in
taking the self. However, in the cultures where such things are practiced,
shamans either think that they can get away with it somehow, or the
temptation of having a lot of vital energy overrides any other concerns.
This is my personal observation. Even then, serious games with people's
souls are looked at as very risky.
> What do the spirits do to/with the soul?
See above. In addition, spirits may be (and ofetn are) after somebody's
vital soul to do HUMAN'S bidding.
Also, do the spirits ever ask
> for a soul of a non-traditional person?
Yes they do. For a variety of reasons, however, the vital souls of
non-traditional people are not that worthy of stealing (unless they are
children). Also, for another variety of reasons, thay, as a rule, are not
that easy to take. I think I told you before that the Dakota term "wasichu"
for white people that is supposed to be pejorative, is in fact kinda
flattering. One of its translations is "people with impregnable energy."
Could someone sacrifice George
> Bush's soul? (perhaps I should say please, har har har)
I think that theoretically it is possible. However, GWB is VERY heavily
guarded. Or, should I say, it is not he as a person that is heavily guarded,
but he as a token. Like a banner of sorts. So, It is very hard to justify
all the hassle in stealing GWB's soul. This is a very interesting and deep
question - how is vital power related to the "office." In all traditional
cultures, including old(er) Western monachies, the leader was the carrier
and holder of actual vital power. Knocking down such a leader was indeed an
important magico-political act that had very serious consequences. Hitler
was the last one of this type of leaders in the West. Nowadays, leader of a
culture/nation in the West is not a holder of power. This is a very smart
move, because you really cannot magically knock down such an abstract thing
as "american presidency." Sure, you can knock down a person, but it will
have absolutely no consequences and will not transfer (his) vital power to
you (as would happen with a traditional chief), because he hasn't got any.
> Although I must say, the idea of sacrificing a soul to spirits seems
> odd to me (for more than just obvious reasons)... I was under the
> impression that once we died our soul was what passed on to the spirit
> world. I guess I view the soul and the spirit as essentially the same
> thing, with the obvious exception that a soul exists with relation to
> a physical body. In such a case, it doesn't seem to make much sense
> for spirits to want the soul of person.. since the soul is just
> another spirit. Do they want someone else to basketball with, or what?
> (<-- just kidding). I imagine this objection is fueled by ignorance on
> my part.
See above. I hope I explained this stuff.
>
> This discussion has lead me to a thought that I had previously but I
> did not mention. That is, why is it that spirits are interested in the
> affairs of humans in the first place?
Because the humans are here to reckon with. Same idea as "why would Native
people be interested in whites' affairs?"
I've mentioned earlier that
> humans have only been around for a very short period of time relative
> to the Earth or the Universe... the spirits must have been pretty
> bored prior to human existence (imagine how boring it would have been
> prior to the existence of life-forms..
This is hard to say. In my opinion, human-like or comparable-to-human
spirits have been around for a very long time before they actually begun
incarnating in gross physical form. So life and spirit-politics have been
fun all along. But this is a very complex question.
which is estimated as being
> between 4.4-3.5 billion years ago. i.e., a little bit less than 10
> billion years after the universe came to be... 10 billion years
> without any chance to carnate (on Earth anyways), wow). Also, what
> created the spirit's need for souls in the first place? Presumably no
> animals prior to humans were capable of sacrificing a soul...
No they weren't capable of that - not in the sense humans are. Humans have
been the first (and maybe only) consistent magic/energy capitalists on Earth
(I actually think that they were not the only ones, but this is another
topic altogether). Read Marx' "Das Kapital", translate it into
"vital/energy/mana/prana" etc. terms, and you'll get the idea of what has
been the main devotion of humans (into which they have involved spirits as
well) since their begining. In my opinion, the "gross" physical capitalism
is the "late bloomer" of the process that has been going on for tens of
thousands of years. And, I think that its "descent" onto the physcial (as
opposed to magical) level has been an unconscious collective "cultural"
attempt to curtail its magical version that is a lot more sinister than the
physical one. The "physical" capitalism is not the cure, but it is the best
palliative care up to date. For this reason, I am not very sentimental about
the traditional tribal life etc.
Be well,
AV
I do not think that I'll be able to anwer your questions exhaustively. As I
thought about answering them, I realized that to answer them adequately
(or - to be sure that the answers would be adequately understood) it would
be necessary to create a context to these answers, which would indeed take
hours of lecturing (if not days, if not months). It may be compared to, say,
answering the question posed by a 13th century man, "What is car?" Of
course, this question may be answered philosophically - something like
"mechanical vehicle." Such an answer would be understood, but on a very
trivial level. Now, if we try to get onto the nuts and bolts of the "car
idea," this, as you understand, will take A LOT of time. Your questions are,
in a sense, close to "nuts and bolts." So, what can I do? I will answer your
questions as a naive car mechanic, thinking that you know the "basics of car
principles." I know that you probably do not know those basics, but this is
the best I can do in this format. Maybe my answers will alert you to the
fact that there are "car principles" at least to consider, which is not a
small thing on its own.
So, below-->
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gord" <grp...@mail.usask.ca>
To: "aboriginal mind and mental health" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: I ain't afraid of no ghost
>
From: "Gord" <grp...@mail.usask.ca>
To: "aboriginal mind and mental health" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: I ain't afraid of no ghost
>
> While I fear that I may open up a conversation that has been closed
> for some time, I have a few thoughts on what has been said so far...
>
> From my point of view, the most important question to be asked with
> respect to spirits, sacrifices, and the like, is why would spirits
> want a soul (of a pig or human.. or cow or grasshopper, etc.)?
Here it is very important to look at the variety of the notions of "soul"
> for some time, I have a few thoughts on what has been said so far...
>
> From my point of view, the most important question to be asked with
> respect to spirits, sacrifices, and the like, is why would spirits
> want a soul (of a pig or human.. or cow or grasshopper, etc.)?
that are used in anthropological discourse etc. with regard to stealing
souls and so on. There are specifically two very different "items" that are
called "soul". One is so-called "vital soul". It is not "self", but a sum
total of vital energy. Another "soul" is the self proper. The motives for
possessing of one or another soul are very different. Motives for wanting to
have one's vital soul are very simple - it is energy/food, that is the main
proto-currency of negotiations between humans, spirits and so on. Wanting to
have one SELF is entirely different matter. If spirits want to have your
SELF, they want to have you a) as a slave, b) as a member of their
community. In a sense, such gods as Yama (Hindu god of death) or Hades
"want" your soul because it is its time to join their comminity.
Indeed,
> it seems that in some cases, as Andrei has mentioned, spirits are very
> specific about what they want, and may want a virgin or someone with
> spiritual powers. In such cases I'm assuming that there must be some
> stories that explain why a virgin soul is especially in demand by this
> or that spirit.
girl (as do spirit foxes in China), it is usually with a purpose of
marrying. If we talk about the girl's vital soul, virgins worlwide are
perceived as huge reservoirs of vital energy. In other words, the best food.
Also, what happens to the soul after sacrifice?
is the same as any after the person dies. There is some relation between the
quality and presence of person's "vital soul" up until one's death and the
character of afterlife, but it is not rigidly determined and is too complex
to discuss here. In a nutshell, loss of vital energy/soul is lethal only to
one's physical existence - not to afterlife. If you have read a very good
novel by Stephen King, Insomnia, that "bubble" that Clotho, Lachesis and
Atropos clip off a person with their scissors to let the preson die is
exactly the vital soul.
Now, if we are talking about the captured SELF, it is a totally different
story. This has a lot of influence on afterlife indeed.
Does
> it pass on to the spirit realm?
eventually it will.
Does reincarnation occur forthwith (in
> such a case, wouldn't there be a lot of apprehension about sacrificing
> a soul since the reincarnated being may take some revenge - perhaps
> this has to do with the "karmic" consequences that andrei mentioned)?
many cultures don't. So here I do not know who to "speak for" - myself or,
for example, Dakota culture.
In my view, there are very heavy karmic consequences for taking vital soul
(yes - revenge in the next life is one of them) and even heavier ones in
taking the self. However, in the cultures where such things are practiced,
shamans either think that they can get away with it somehow, or the
temptation of having a lot of vital energy overrides any other concerns.
This is my personal observation. Even then, serious games with people's
souls are looked at as very risky.
> What do the spirits do to/with the soul?
vital soul to do HUMAN'S bidding.
Also, do the spirits ever ask
> for a soul of a non-traditional person?
non-traditional people are not that worthy of stealing (unless they are
children). Also, for another variety of reasons, thay, as a rule, are not
that easy to take. I think I told you before that the Dakota term "wasichu"
for white people that is supposed to be pejorative, is in fact kinda
flattering. One of its translations is "people with impregnable energy."
Could someone sacrifice George
> Bush's soul? (perhaps I should say please, har har har)
guarded. Or, should I say, it is not he as a person that is heavily guarded,
but he as a token. Like a banner of sorts. So, It is very hard to justify
all the hassle in stealing GWB's soul. This is a very interesting and deep
question - how is vital power related to the "office." In all traditional
cultures, including old(er) Western monachies, the leader was the carrier
and holder of actual vital power. Knocking down such a leader was indeed an
important magico-political act that had very serious consequences. Hitler
was the last one of this type of leaders in the West. Nowadays, leader of a
culture/nation in the West is not a holder of power. This is a very smart
move, because you really cannot magically knock down such an abstract thing
as "american presidency." Sure, you can knock down a person, but it will
have absolutely no consequences and will not transfer (his) vital power to
you (as would happen with a traditional chief), because he hasn't got any.
> Although I must say, the idea of sacrificing a soul to spirits seems
> odd to me (for more than just obvious reasons)... I was under the
> impression that once we died our soul was what passed on to the spirit
> world. I guess I view the soul and the spirit as essentially the same
> thing, with the obvious exception that a soul exists with relation to
> a physical body. In such a case, it doesn't seem to make much sense
> for spirits to want the soul of person.. since the soul is just
> another spirit. Do they want someone else to basketball with, or what?
> (<-- just kidding). I imagine this objection is fueled by ignorance on
> my part.
>
> This discussion has lead me to a thought that I had previously but I
> did not mention. That is, why is it that spirits are interested in the
> affairs of humans in the first place?
people be interested in whites' affairs?"
I've mentioned earlier that
> humans have only been around for a very short period of time relative
> to the Earth or the Universe... the spirits must have been pretty
> bored prior to human existence (imagine how boring it would have been
> prior to the existence of life-forms..
spirits have been around for a very long time before they actually begun
incarnating in gross physical form. So life and spirit-politics have been
fun all along. But this is a very complex question.
which is estimated as being
> between 4.4-3.5 billion years ago. i.e., a little bit less than 10
> billion years after the universe came to be... 10 billion years
> without any chance to carnate (on Earth anyways), wow). Also, what
> created the spirit's need for souls in the first place? Presumably no
> animals prior to humans were capable of sacrificing a soul...
been the first (and maybe only) consistent magic/energy capitalists on Earth
(I actually think that they were not the only ones, but this is another
topic altogether). Read Marx' "Das Kapital", translate it into
"vital/energy/mana/prana" etc. terms, and you'll get the idea of what has
been the main devotion of humans (into which they have involved spirits as
well) since their begining. In my opinion, the "gross" physical capitalism
is the "late bloomer" of the process that has been going on for tens of
thousands of years. And, I think that its "descent" onto the physcial (as
opposed to magical) level has been an unconscious collective "cultural"
attempt to curtail its magical version that is a lot more sinister than the
physical one. The "physical" capitalism is not the cure, but it is the best
palliative care up to date. For this reason, I am not very sentimental about
the traditional tribal life etc.
Be well,
AV
Lewis MehlMadrona
Dec 1, 2008, 12:35:42 AM12/1/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com
I think Andrei has done great at starting to explain this.
There are also ways of avoiding the whole gamish or of protecting onself from much of it.
I hope you guys keep discussing this, but, as it's the end of the class, and I have many papers to read, including Shelah's, which I received, I am going to leave this discussion to you guys, though I will read and enjoy it.
Lewis--
IMPORTANT WARNING: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it contain CONFIDENTIAL information, including PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL HEALTH INFORMATION which is intended for the use of the person to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail/attachment is not the intended recipient, employee, or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, reproduction, reading, or copying of this information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete the related e-mail and all attachments and notify the sender immediately (reply e-mail) at mehlm...@gmail.com.
There are also ways of avoiding the whole gamish or of protecting onself from much of it.
I hope you guys keep discussing this, but, as it's the end of the class, and I have many papers to read, including Shelah's, which I received, I am going to leave this discussion to you guys, though I will read and enjoy it.
Lewis
IMPORTANT WARNING: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it contain CONFIDENTIAL information, including PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL HEALTH INFORMATION which is intended for the use of the person to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail/attachment is not the intended recipient, employee, or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, reproduction, reading, or copying of this information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW. If you received this e-mail in error, please delete the related e-mail and all attachments and notify the sender immediately (reply e-mail) at mehlm...@gmail.com.
Julia M
Dec 3, 2008, 10:20:41 PM12/3/08
to aboriginal mind and mental health
Forgive me for digressing from the previous discussion, I am not
following it in a linear way, but I wanted to contribute something
from my life that I think ties into this. I thought it would be
interesting to share a first hand story I heard from someone I know
doing mediation work on a reserve (I'm going to work hard to preserve
anonymity here, so bear with me if it gets a bit confusing or vague).
This person is doing a mediation between two indiviudals who work
together and are having trouble getting along. Upon the most recent
visit to the reserve, one of the reasons the two don't get along was
made clear- because one of the indiviudals is using bad magic on the
other. Apparently, one of the indiviudals used bad magic at the work
place, so that it made the others joints hurt while they were at work.
The individual knew this because the Elders told her so (the other
person had not admitted to doing it). When asked by the mediator if
they could go talk to the woman and ask her to stop doing the bad
magic on her, this individual told the mediator that the other person
couldn't stop using the bad magic because they would die. Again, this
was told to them by the Elder. Needless to say, this became a bit of a
problem with the mediation, as, being a white westerner, the mediator
wasn't sure where to go from here or how to mediate this particular
problem.
I'm not sure what I wanted to get out of sharing this story, I just
thought it was fascinating to think that two mature adults were
reduced to animosity over bad magic supposedly being practiced. I also
think it demonstrates two worlds colliding, such that the westerner
really had no way of being prepared for dealing with this form of
conflict.
I am curious how this could be approached from an aboriginal
perspective, or just any thoughts on the story. Is this a common
occurance among aboriginal communities??
Julia
On Nov 30, 11:35 pm, "Lewis MehlMadrona" <mehlmadr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
following it in a linear way, but I wanted to contribute something
from my life that I think ties into this. I thought it would be
interesting to share a first hand story I heard from someone I know
doing mediation work on a reserve (I'm going to work hard to preserve
anonymity here, so bear with me if it gets a bit confusing or vague).
This person is doing a mediation between two indiviudals who work
together and are having trouble getting along. Upon the most recent
visit to the reserve, one of the reasons the two don't get along was
made clear- because one of the indiviudals is using bad magic on the
other. Apparently, one of the indiviudals used bad magic at the work
place, so that it made the others joints hurt while they were at work.
The individual knew this because the Elders told her so (the other
person had not admitted to doing it). When asked by the mediator if
they could go talk to the woman and ask her to stop doing the bad
magic on her, this individual told the mediator that the other person
couldn't stop using the bad magic because they would die. Again, this
was told to them by the Elder. Needless to say, this became a bit of a
problem with the mediation, as, being a white westerner, the mediator
wasn't sure where to go from here or how to mediate this particular
problem.
I'm not sure what I wanted to get out of sharing this story, I just
thought it was fascinating to think that two mature adults were
reduced to animosity over bad magic supposedly being practiced. I also
think it demonstrates two worlds colliding, such that the westerner
really had no way of being prepared for dealing with this form of
conflict.
I am curious how this could be approached from an aboriginal
perspective, or just any thoughts on the story. Is this a common
occurance among aboriginal communities??
Julia
On Nov 30, 11:35 pm, "Lewis MehlMadrona" <mehlmadr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Julia M
Dec 4, 2008, 2:25:52 PM12/4/08
to aboriginal mind and mental health
Tied into what I wrote above, I'm also curious how the Elders play
into the conflict between the two individuals. Are they responsible
for creating problems between the two, or are they merely passing on
information? Would there be any gain for the elders by these two
having conflict and seeking help from them (monetary or otherwise)?
into the conflict between the two individuals. Are they responsible
for creating problems between the two, or are they merely passing on
information? Would there be any gain for the elders by these two
having conflict and seeking help from them (monetary or otherwise)?
Gord
Dec 4, 2008, 3:25:08 PM12/4/08
to aboriginal mind and mental health
Thanks for your explanation Andrei. I feel as though my questions have
been answered sufficiently... although an issue still lingers for me.
With the exception of perhaps scientology and some others, most
religions came to be (i.e., were created - although, based on our
discussion in class on Tuesday, my opinion in this regard is quite
contentious) prior to any knowledge of the actual extent of the
immense age and size of the universe. As a result, these religions
have to either 1) accept these findings and subsequently adapt their
viewpoints (if contradictions arise), or 2) reject the findings
outright. So in the case of Christianity, most followers accept the
age of the Earth and then dismiss the genesis account of creation as a
type of metaphor (or whatever) and deny that the creation story in the
Bible wasn't intended to be a literal account of what happens.
(although Christians had probably already done this prior to the
establishment of such knowledge due to already established suspicions
that the Earth isn't 6000 years old.) However, there are some
Christians who follow the 2nd strategy and deny the age of the Earth
and assert the literal truth of the Bible account (i.e.,
fundamentalists)... resulting in ridiculous $25 million museums where
dinosaurs and humans are depicted to have lived side-by-side etc
(note: I'm referring to the museum in Kentucky, but there is actually
a creationist/intelligent design museum in Alberta, somewhere near
Drumheller I believe).
In my opinion, though, it doesn't really matter how much a religion
adapts to findings (that are indeed very high on the likelihood scale
to my estimation) such as the age of the Earth or the immensity of the
universe. This is because it seems to me that such findings pose a
fundamental problem to all religions, in that, I believe all religions
to be fueled by anthropocentrism (in one form or another). While I am
not knowledgeable enough about traditional religions, I know that
Christianity is certainly anthropocentric. If the universe is indeed ~
14 billion years old and there are indeed billions of other planets is
this vast universe, then doesn't it seem odd that if there was a God
he/she/it would be intimately concerned with the affairs of a species
of animals that have only been around for a tiny fraction of this time
and only occupy a tiny fraction of this space? If humans are so
important then why wait for such a long time to "create" us? If humans
are so important then why create such a vast universe? Why are there
350,000 different species of beetles? Think about it. Seriously, it's
like buying a huge aquarium (large enough for billions of fish),
setting it all up really nice and running it for, say, 66 years
without any animals in it... then putting a bunch of really cool fish
in there and replacing some and stuff for another 33 years, and then
after having the tank for 100 years, putting another fish in the tank
(i.e.- the "human" fish) and after a day proclaiming that the reason
you bought the tank was for this "human" fish.
Anyways, what I was intended to get at here is whether or not people
think that things like the age and immense size of the universe pose a
problem for traditional spirituality. In my opinion it does. If humans
are the important link between the spirit and natural worlds then why
wouldn't the creator have "created" humans earlier? Or, on the other
hand, why would the creator not have had some other sort of animal
from the beginning that could bridge this gap since this was the
ultimate intention anyways? Or, why would the creator wait for 10
billion years to create any life forms at all? The only way to answer
these problems, as far as I can tell, is to somehow degrade the
importance of humans and life forms. It has to be made to seem like
the spirit world was quite content by itself without anything going on
in the natural world (unless there happened to be life forms on some
other planet), and therefore the whole interaction between spirit
world and natural world is sort of an afterthought of the creator. Of
course, it seems to me that if this is the case then spirits, in
general, would be much less interested in our affairs then traditional
spirituality suggests. Standing against the vast stretches of time and
the universe, humans would be sort of like the new iPod - of immense
interest for a while, but no real lasting appeal.
been answered sufficiently... although an issue still lingers for me.
With the exception of perhaps scientology and some others, most
religions came to be (i.e., were created - although, based on our
discussion in class on Tuesday, my opinion in this regard is quite
contentious) prior to any knowledge of the actual extent of the
immense age and size of the universe. As a result, these religions
have to either 1) accept these findings and subsequently adapt their
viewpoints (if contradictions arise), or 2) reject the findings
outright. So in the case of Christianity, most followers accept the
age of the Earth and then dismiss the genesis account of creation as a
type of metaphor (or whatever) and deny that the creation story in the
Bible wasn't intended to be a literal account of what happens.
(although Christians had probably already done this prior to the
establishment of such knowledge due to already established suspicions
that the Earth isn't 6000 years old.) However, there are some
Christians who follow the 2nd strategy and deny the age of the Earth
and assert the literal truth of the Bible account (i.e.,
fundamentalists)... resulting in ridiculous $25 million museums where
dinosaurs and humans are depicted to have lived side-by-side etc
(note: I'm referring to the museum in Kentucky, but there is actually
a creationist/intelligent design museum in Alberta, somewhere near
Drumheller I believe).
In my opinion, though, it doesn't really matter how much a religion
adapts to findings (that are indeed very high on the likelihood scale
to my estimation) such as the age of the Earth or the immensity of the
universe. This is because it seems to me that such findings pose a
fundamental problem to all religions, in that, I believe all religions
to be fueled by anthropocentrism (in one form or another). While I am
not knowledgeable enough about traditional religions, I know that
Christianity is certainly anthropocentric. If the universe is indeed ~
14 billion years old and there are indeed billions of other planets is
this vast universe, then doesn't it seem odd that if there was a God
he/she/it would be intimately concerned with the affairs of a species
of animals that have only been around for a tiny fraction of this time
and only occupy a tiny fraction of this space? If humans are so
important then why wait for such a long time to "create" us? If humans
are so important then why create such a vast universe? Why are there
350,000 different species of beetles? Think about it. Seriously, it's
like buying a huge aquarium (large enough for billions of fish),
setting it all up really nice and running it for, say, 66 years
without any animals in it... then putting a bunch of really cool fish
in there and replacing some and stuff for another 33 years, and then
after having the tank for 100 years, putting another fish in the tank
(i.e.- the "human" fish) and after a day proclaiming that the reason
you bought the tank was for this "human" fish.
Anyways, what I was intended to get at here is whether or not people
think that things like the age and immense size of the universe pose a
problem for traditional spirituality. In my opinion it does. If humans
are the important link between the spirit and natural worlds then why
wouldn't the creator have "created" humans earlier? Or, on the other
hand, why would the creator not have had some other sort of animal
from the beginning that could bridge this gap since this was the
ultimate intention anyways? Or, why would the creator wait for 10
billion years to create any life forms at all? The only way to answer
these problems, as far as I can tell, is to somehow degrade the
importance of humans and life forms. It has to be made to seem like
the spirit world was quite content by itself without anything going on
in the natural world (unless there happened to be life forms on some
other planet), and therefore the whole interaction between spirit
world and natural world is sort of an afterthought of the creator. Of
course, it seems to me that if this is the case then spirits, in
general, would be much less interested in our affairs then traditional
spirituality suggests. Standing against the vast stretches of time and
the universe, humans would be sort of like the new iPod - of immense
interest for a while, but no real lasting appeal.
Andrei Vinogradov
Dec 4, 2008, 4:46:12 PM12/4/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com
Being a relatively mature adult, I totally believe in magic, including "bad"
magic that is a lot more common than the good variety. And I mean magic
quite literally.
magic that is a lot more common than the good variety. And I mean magic
quite literally.
Andrei Vinogradov
Dec 4, 2008, 4:59:51 PM12/4/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com
The "short-time" version of universe is entirely a property of
judaeo-christian lineage, which is, in many respects, the most
anti-knowledge bunch of traditions I know. Eastern religions, if anything,
"overdue" the temporal dimension compared to science. Their kalpas last for
tens of billions of years.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gord" <grp...@mail.usask.ca>
To: "aboriginal mind and mental health" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: I ain't afraid of no ghost
>
judaeo-christian lineage, which is, in many respects, the most
anti-knowledge bunch of traditions I know. Eastern religions, if anything,
"overdue" the temporal dimension compared to science. Their kalpas last for
tens of billions of years.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gord" <grp...@mail.usask.ca>
To: "aboriginal mind and mental health" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: I ain't afraid of no ghost
>
Andrei Vinogradov
Dec 4, 2008, 11:14:01 PM12/4/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com
Also, Gord, most religions beyond Judeo-Christian triad are certainly not
anthropocentric. If we look at various triba, or pre-written traditions,
anthropocentrism (in a sense of absolutisation of humans) is simply not
there. Even when the stories that they possess as the sacred lore speak of
humans as the central characters, this is simply because these are human
stories meant for humans to live by (i.e., dolphins and cockroaches have
different stories). Hinduism, for example, is quite explicit about this. So
is Taoism. So is Shintoism. So is Buddhism. Etcetera.
However, it is also important to note, that humans are seen in many
traditions as "special," qualitatively so. It is too long a story to discuss
why and how they are so special. But the interesting thing is that what is
meant by "humans" is not necessarily us, primates. The term "humans" is
applied to beings with a certain type of consciousness, which may be
humanoid, or somebody else entirely (as makaras in Hinduism who are like
fish (dolphins?) or nagas who are serpent-like and so on). There is an
exchange of souls between the primate modern humans and other "humans".
E.g., who once was, say, a gandharva, may be reincarnated as a primate human
(and vice versa). Again, in Hinduism avatars even of gods are listed as once
having had fish-like form, monkey-like form and so on. According to Eastern
traditions, entities that are "basically human" have been present always -
it is just one of fundamental "personality types," for no better word, or an
evolutionary station. Their shape, however, has been changing throughout
time and space.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gord" <grp...@mail.usask.ca>
To: "aboriginal mind and mental health" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: I ain't afraid of no ghost
>
anthropocentric. If we look at various triba, or pre-written traditions,
anthropocentrism (in a sense of absolutisation of humans) is simply not
there. Even when the stories that they possess as the sacred lore speak of
humans as the central characters, this is simply because these are human
stories meant for humans to live by (i.e., dolphins and cockroaches have
different stories). Hinduism, for example, is quite explicit about this. So
is Taoism. So is Shintoism. So is Buddhism. Etcetera.
However, it is also important to note, that humans are seen in many
traditions as "special," qualitatively so. It is too long a story to discuss
why and how they are so special. But the interesting thing is that what is
meant by "humans" is not necessarily us, primates. The term "humans" is
applied to beings with a certain type of consciousness, which may be
humanoid, or somebody else entirely (as makaras in Hinduism who are like
fish (dolphins?) or nagas who are serpent-like and so on). There is an
exchange of souls between the primate modern humans and other "humans".
E.g., who once was, say, a gandharva, may be reincarnated as a primate human
(and vice versa). Again, in Hinduism avatars even of gods are listed as once
having had fish-like form, monkey-like form and so on. According to Eastern
traditions, entities that are "basically human" have been present always -
it is just one of fundamental "personality types," for no better word, or an
evolutionary station. Their shape, however, has been changing throughout
time and space.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gord" <grp...@mail.usask.ca>
To: "aboriginal mind and mental health" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: I ain't afraid of no ghost
>
Andrew Hatala
Dec 5, 2008, 1:26:15 AM12/5/08
to 480
Hello Gord,
You may find the attached of interest. It is a paper written from the Bahá'í
perspective attempting to unite creationism with evolution, or science and
religion and addresses some of your previous questions. By the way, I found
your aquarium argument quite interesting...
Andrei, although the "short term" version of the universe or 6000 year old
creation story may be a property of the judaeo-christian lineage, I believe
your statement is not entirely accurate. It is imperative to identify the
fact that this literalist interpretation of the bible is strictly limited to
certain "fundamentalist" Christian sects developing in the united states
fairly recently and I would further argue is by no means a widespread
interpretation. To make the generalization that the judeo-christian lineage
is "anti-knowledge" based on a limited number of literalist interpretations
or fundamentalist sects is unwarranted. I will, however, agree that eastern
religions are typically more sophisticated in describing the temporal
dimensions of our universe. This is obvious.
Regards, Andrew
You may find the attached of interest. It is a paper written from the Bahá'í
perspective attempting to unite creationism with evolution, or science and
religion and addresses some of your previous questions. By the way, I found
your aquarium argument quite interesting...
Andrei, although the "short term" version of the universe or 6000 year old
creation story may be a property of the judaeo-christian lineage, I believe
your statement is not entirely accurate. It is imperative to identify the
fact that this literalist interpretation of the bible is strictly limited to
certain "fundamentalist" Christian sects developing in the united states
fairly recently and I would further argue is by no means a widespread
interpretation. To make the generalization that the judeo-christian lineage
is "anti-knowledge" based on a limited number of literalist interpretations
or fundamentalist sects is unwarranted. I will, however, agree that eastern
religions are typically more sophisticated in describing the temporal
dimensions of our universe. This is obvious.
Regards, Andrew
Andrei Vinogradov
Dec 6, 2008, 7:45:37 PM12/6/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com
Hi Andrew,
By saying that the judeao-christian triad is "anti-knowledge" I mean that
they are the most "anti-knowledge" among the "big" traditions. Christianity
leads the triad. In a sense, this antiknowledge is, paradoxically, the
trigger of scisnce/technology etc. The combination of dynamic, history-and
eschatology bound nature of christianity and its quite rigid system of
proscriptions on knowledge created a cultural "overheating" and bifurcation
into the clerical and the secular segments of society. Which is excatly why
the Western countries are so driven in all respects.
Hinduism, being not antiknowledge at all, has, in a sense, exhausted
cultural curiousity. There is nothing important to know, because all the
fudamentals has been discovered. And - stagnation follows.
However, I do not think that Christianity, even in its most liveral forms,
has successfully INTEGRATED the evolutionist perspective. What happened
instead is that the Christian individuals compartmentalized their
"religious" and "scientific" personae, thus becoming a little schizophernic
and fragmented, but still quite functional. This problem is not so acute in
Islam and Judaism, because in either of two traditions the way one THINKS is
not crucial for one's salvation. Both traditions stress the loyalty to
god(s) a lot more than the orthoDOXY ("doxy" refers exactly to the thinking,
or postulating "righteousness").
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Hatala" <andrew...@gmail.com>
To: "480" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: I ain't afraid of no ghost
Hello Gord,
You may find the attached of interest. It is a paper written from the Bah?'?
By saying that the judeao-christian triad is "anti-knowledge" I mean that
they are the most "anti-knowledge" among the "big" traditions. Christianity
leads the triad. In a sense, this antiknowledge is, paradoxically, the
trigger of scisnce/technology etc. The combination of dynamic, history-and
eschatology bound nature of christianity and its quite rigid system of
proscriptions on knowledge created a cultural "overheating" and bifurcation
into the clerical and the secular segments of society. Which is excatly why
the Western countries are so driven in all respects.
Hinduism, being not antiknowledge at all, has, in a sense, exhausted
cultural curiousity. There is nothing important to know, because all the
fudamentals has been discovered. And - stagnation follows.
However, I do not think that Christianity, even in its most liveral forms,
has successfully INTEGRATED the evolutionist perspective. What happened
instead is that the Christian individuals compartmentalized their
"religious" and "scientific" personae, thus becoming a little schizophernic
and fragmented, but still quite functional. This problem is not so acute in
Islam and Judaism, because in either of two traditions the way one THINKS is
not crucial for one's salvation. Both traditions stress the loyalty to
god(s) a lot more than the orthoDOXY ("doxy" refers exactly to the thinking,
or postulating "righteousness").
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Hatala" <andrew...@gmail.com>
To: "480" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 12:26 AM
Subject: Re: I ain't afraid of no ghost
You may find the attached of interest. It is a paper written from the Bah?'?
Andrei Vinogradov
Dec 9, 2008, 10:31:43 PM12/9/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com
Hi Andrew,
Last time, I was really overwhelmed by my upcoming exams so I answered your
message very sketchily.
The question of anti-knowledge of the Middle Eastern triad (Christianity
especially) is not so much the question of ontology, although it used to be
important. It is mostly (and, I would say, was initially) a proscription of
certain epistemological "ways of knowing": the wrong "ways of knowing" were,
or should I say - have been either the capital offenses, or deadly risks for
one's eternal fate. This situation has not changed, really. In addition,
ironically, science has picked up the slack regarding prescriptions and
proscriptions on knowledge that church dropped as it weakened. It is not
surprising: the hutzpach of science is inherited from christianity. It has
undergone some important changes, but the core is still the same. There was
a deviation from this path during the Renaissance, but it got straightened
out pretty quickly in the 17th century by... Jesuits! The church
straightened science! And it has been straight ever since :-)...
Check out "Mersenne" on Google.
Be well,
Andrei
P.S. When I was a Religious Studies' student, I was very interested in the
"accomodation" of evolution etc. by christian churches. My conclusion is
that all this stuff has not been accomodated at all. As I said in my
previous message, knowledge was compartmentalized instead. And this applies
not only to fundamentalists.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Hatala" <andrew...@gmail.com>
To: "480" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 12:26 AM
Last time, I was really overwhelmed by my upcoming exams so I answered your
message very sketchily.
The question of anti-knowledge of the Middle Eastern triad (Christianity
especially) is not so much the question of ontology, although it used to be
important. It is mostly (and, I would say, was initially) a proscription of
certain epistemological "ways of knowing": the wrong "ways of knowing" were,
or should I say - have been either the capital offenses, or deadly risks for
one's eternal fate. This situation has not changed, really. In addition,
ironically, science has picked up the slack regarding prescriptions and
proscriptions on knowledge that church dropped as it weakened. It is not
surprising: the hutzpach of science is inherited from christianity. It has
undergone some important changes, but the core is still the same. There was
a deviation from this path during the Renaissance, but it got straightened
out pretty quickly in the 17th century by... Jesuits! The church
straightened science! And it has been straight ever since :-)...
Check out "Mersenne" on Google.
Be well,
Andrei
P.S. When I was a Religious Studies' student, I was very interested in the
"accomodation" of evolution etc. by christian churches. My conclusion is
that all this stuff has not been accomodated at all. As I said in my
previous message, knowledge was compartmentalized instead. And this applies
not only to fundamentalists.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Hatala" <andrew...@gmail.com>
To: "480" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 12:26 AM
Melissa
Dec 11, 2008, 8:31:45 PM12/11/08
to aboriginal mind and mental health
Hi Gord,
You bring up some really interesting questions with your aquarium
analogy. I'm sure that I can't answer them in a satisfying way, but I
wanted to mention a couple of things. First, regarding the time span
before the creation of the universe and the creation of man- just
because we as humans exist within time, there's no reason why God
would have to operate within the same constraints. If God exists in
eternity rather than time, it's not like he was waiting around before
humans were created. Second, as Andrei already mentioned, there could
be lots of different stories, but the ones which are relevant to us
center around humans.
Third, I'm not asking you to try to see this from my perspective, but
I just wanted to say this as a Christian and (I hope) a fairly
intelligent person who respects the knowledge that science has to
offer. Questions about God's motivation which originate from our
expectations as humans seem in themselves anthropocentric and ignore
the radical freedom of God. I think that most Christians would agree
that God is free to act in ways that we don't understand. Just look at
the book of Job. Also, Walter Bruggemann's book "The Prophetic
Imagination" discusses what happens when Christians ignore God's
freedom in favour of emphasis on how He can serve the state (it's a
really good book, for anyone who's interested in that kind of thing,
so I thought I'd give it a shout-out). In this case, your aquarium
analogy wouldn't be very convincing for someone who already had these
beliefs.
You bring up some really interesting questions with your aquarium
analogy. I'm sure that I can't answer them in a satisfying way, but I
wanted to mention a couple of things. First, regarding the time span
before the creation of the universe and the creation of man- just
because we as humans exist within time, there's no reason why God
would have to operate within the same constraints. If God exists in
eternity rather than time, it's not like he was waiting around before
humans were created. Second, as Andrei already mentioned, there could
be lots of different stories, but the ones which are relevant to us
center around humans.
Third, I'm not asking you to try to see this from my perspective, but
I just wanted to say this as a Christian and (I hope) a fairly
intelligent person who respects the knowledge that science has to
offer. Questions about God's motivation which originate from our
expectations as humans seem in themselves anthropocentric and ignore
the radical freedom of God. I think that most Christians would agree
that God is free to act in ways that we don't understand. Just look at
the book of Job. Also, Walter Bruggemann's book "The Prophetic
Imagination" discusses what happens when Christians ignore God's
freedom in favour of emphasis on how He can serve the state (it's a
really good book, for anyone who's interested in that kind of thing,
so I thought I'd give it a shout-out). In this case, your aquarium
analogy wouldn't be very convincing for someone who already had these
beliefs.
Lewis MehlMadrona
Dec 12, 2008, 12:17:22 AM12/12/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com
What a rich series of posts!
I loved Melissa's wisdom -- that God's time is different from human time. I use this idea often with patients, especially those with what are conventionally called "religious delusions".
Gord, I personally use the vastness of the universe as a sign of the existence of God (aka Creator, aka Dakuskanskan, aka initiator of the big bang) because the probably of the cosmological constants being maintained at their current level by chance is something around the reciprocal of 10 to the 128th power. See the web site of my hero, Max Tegmark at MIT Department of Astrophysics.
I think aboriginal spirituality is pretty consistent in emphasizing that we are little people and the spirits could hardly trouble themselves to be bothered by our affairs so we must make a big production (ceremony with lots of songs) and offer them gifts (sacrifices and lots of tobacco) so that they will notice us and pay attention and maybe even help us, though we don't actually deserve it.
Lewis
I loved Melissa's wisdom -- that God's time is different from human time. I use this idea often with patients, especially those with what are conventionally called "religious delusions".
Gord, I personally use the vastness of the universe as a sign of the existence of God (aka Creator, aka Dakuskanskan, aka initiator of the big bang) because the probably of the cosmological constants being maintained at their current level by chance is something around the reciprocal of 10 to the 128th power. See the web site of my hero, Max Tegmark at MIT Department of Astrophysics.
I think aboriginal spirituality is pretty consistent in emphasizing that we are little people and the spirits could hardly trouble themselves to be bothered by our affairs so we must make a big production (ceremony with lots of songs) and offer them gifts (sacrifices and lots of tobacco) so that they will notice us and pay attention and maybe even help us, though we don't actually deserve it.
Lewis
Gord
Dec 12, 2008, 12:08:50 PM12/12/08
to aboriginal mind and mental health
Hi Melissa,
Thanks for responding. I wasn't really planning on posting anymore
because I'm a bit busy, but you've compelled me. Although, I'm not
sure how to go about responding because I don't want to seem
combative.. since I'm glad you responded. Having said that, I'm going
to address your points one-by-one because I don't really know how else
to do it.
"First, regarding the time span before the creation of the universe
and the creation of man- just because we as humans exist within time,
there's no reason why God would have to operate within the same
constraints. If God exists in eternity rather than time, it's not like
he was waiting around before humans were created."
Yes, that is a good point. However, God - having created humans (and
time itself) - would surely have known that humans operate within the
constraint of time. The point that I was trying to make was that,
given the relative 'newness' of humankind, the assertion that humanity
is God's great creation makes little sense. So, in other words, the
point is not that God was waiting around before humans were created,
but that the universe was waiting around before humans were "created".
If humans are the point of creation then it doesn't reflect
"intelligent" design for humans to only only occupy a tiny portion of
that which was created (both spatially and temporally). And if humans
AREN'T the point of creation then it seems to be quite foolish for
humans to assert a special place in the proverbial "eyes" of God. With
respect to the aquarium example, the second case would be like if on
the last day it was the "human" fish that proclaimed that the tank was
bought for them, and not the actual buyer of the tank (i.e., God).
Which is equally as silly.
"Second, as Andrei already mentioned, there could be lots of different
stories, but the ones which are relevant to us center around humans."
Certainly. Does this mean that you agree that they are just "stories"
and therefore don't necessarily reflect reality? After all, stories
are created by humans... and we're clueless - especially with respect
to things that we can not perceive (in other words, we're less
clueless about trees than we are about God). Perhaps these stories are
"inspired by divine revelation", but that would seem to be placing
humans at the center of the universe again. If humans are such an
afterthought to creation why would God care to inspire stories...
especially ones that seem to cause so much trouble.
"Third, I'm not asking you to try to see this from my perspective, but
I just wanted to say this as a Christian and (I hope) a fairly
intelligent person who respects the knowledge that science has to
offer. Questions about God's motivation which originate from our
expectations as humans seem in themselves anthropocentric and ignore
the radical freedom of God. I think that most Christians would agree
that God is free to act in ways that we don't understand. Just look at
the book of Job. Also, Walter Bruggemann's book "The Prophetic
Imagination" discusses what happens when Christians ignore God's
freedom in favour of emphasis on how He can serve the state (it's a
really good book, for anyone who's interested in that kind of thing,
so I thought I'd give it a shout-out). In this case, your aquarium
analogy wouldn't be very convincing for someone who already had these
beliefs."
If we believe in an omnipotent and benevolent God then you are
certainly correct that "Questions about God's motivation which
that it is a bit foolish for me to say what would and would not make
sense for God to do given the fact that I've proclaimed how clueless
humans are (which includes me, *sigh*). However, this seems to be a
good question to ask before you read the Bible. Wouldn't you say that
this is the theme of the Bible - to answer questions about God....
guess on second thought the Bible may not say much about God's
MOTIVATION, per se, but I don't think I did either. The point I was
trying to make that it would be foolish on God's part to create a
universe for humans (or create a universe in the interest of humans,
or create a universe with the goal of creating humans) and then
creating a universe that contained no life for 10 billion years, and
no humans for 13.999 billion years, and then finally creating humans
about 250,000 - 150,000 years ago. It may be silly of to say that God
is "foolish", because what do I know right? But then it must be
equally as silly to say that God is "good"... which is where the Bible
comes in.
This reminds me of when people say "God works in mysterious ways".
Well if he works in mysterious ways then how do you know that he
doesn't like condoms? or that he's omnipotent and benevolent? or that
he works in mysterious ways for that matter. This argument, while
convenient, really doesn't say anything at all. It can be translated
to: "When things happen that make it seem like there is no God it is
only because we, as humans, are too simple to know why God does the
things he does (i.e., his motivation)". But then, if we humans are too
simple how do we know that there is a God in the first place? or that
this God works in mysterious ways? or that this God has an
understanding of things that is greater than us? I think that if we
are to believe that humans are "simple" then we really shouldn't be
saying anything about God (including whether he/she/it exists or not).
Thanks for responding. I wasn't really planning on posting anymore
because I'm a bit busy, but you've compelled me. Although, I'm not
sure how to go about responding because I don't want to seem
combative.. since I'm glad you responded. Having said that, I'm going
to address your points one-by-one because I don't really know how else
to do it.
"First, regarding the time span before the creation of the universe
and the creation of man- just because we as humans exist within time,
there's no reason why God would have to operate within the same
constraints. If God exists in eternity rather than time, it's not like
he was waiting around before humans were created."
time itself) - would surely have known that humans operate within the
constraint of time. The point that I was trying to make was that,
given the relative 'newness' of humankind, the assertion that humanity
is God's great creation makes little sense. So, in other words, the
point is not that God was waiting around before humans were created,
but that the universe was waiting around before humans were "created".
If humans are the point of creation then it doesn't reflect
"intelligent" design for humans to only only occupy a tiny portion of
that which was created (both spatially and temporally). And if humans
AREN'T the point of creation then it seems to be quite foolish for
humans to assert a special place in the proverbial "eyes" of God. With
respect to the aquarium example, the second case would be like if on
the last day it was the "human" fish that proclaimed that the tank was
bought for them, and not the actual buyer of the tank (i.e., God).
Which is equally as silly.
"Second, as Andrei already mentioned, there could be lots of different
stories, but the ones which are relevant to us center around humans."
and therefore don't necessarily reflect reality? After all, stories
are created by humans... and we're clueless - especially with respect
to things that we can not perceive (in other words, we're less
clueless about trees than we are about God). Perhaps these stories are
"inspired by divine revelation", but that would seem to be placing
humans at the center of the universe again. If humans are such an
afterthought to creation why would God care to inspire stories...
especially ones that seem to cause so much trouble.
"Third, I'm not asking you to try to see this from my perspective, but
I just wanted to say this as a Christian and (I hope) a fairly
intelligent person who respects the knowledge that science has to
offer. Questions about God's motivation which originate from our
expectations as humans seem in themselves anthropocentric and ignore
the radical freedom of God. I think that most Christians would agree
that God is free to act in ways that we don't understand. Just look at
the book of Job. Also, Walter Bruggemann's book "The Prophetic
Imagination" discusses what happens when Christians ignore God's
freedom in favour of emphasis on how He can serve the state (it's a
really good book, for anyone who's interested in that kind of thing,
so I thought I'd give it a shout-out). In this case, your aquarium
analogy wouldn't be very convincing for someone who already had these
beliefs."
certainly correct that "Questions about God's motivation which
originate from our expectations as humans seem in themselves
anthropocentric and ignore the radical freedom of God". I'll admit
that it is a bit foolish for me to say what would and would not make
sense for God to do given the fact that I've proclaimed how clueless
humans are (which includes me, *sigh*). However, this seems to be a
good question to ask before you read the Bible. Wouldn't you say that
this is the theme of the Bible - to answer questions about God....
guess on second thought the Bible may not say much about God's
MOTIVATION, per se, but I don't think I did either. The point I was
trying to make that it would be foolish on God's part to create a
universe for humans (or create a universe in the interest of humans,
or create a universe with the goal of creating humans) and then
creating a universe that contained no life for 10 billion years, and
no humans for 13.999 billion years, and then finally creating humans
about 250,000 - 150,000 years ago. It may be silly of to say that God
is "foolish", because what do I know right? But then it must be
equally as silly to say that God is "good"... which is where the Bible
comes in.
This reminds me of when people say "God works in mysterious ways".
Well if he works in mysterious ways then how do you know that he
doesn't like condoms? or that he's omnipotent and benevolent? or that
he works in mysterious ways for that matter. This argument, while
convenient, really doesn't say anything at all. It can be translated
to: "When things happen that make it seem like there is no God it is
only because we, as humans, are too simple to know why God does the
things he does (i.e., his motivation)". But then, if we humans are too
simple how do we know that there is a God in the first place? or that
this God works in mysterious ways? or that this God has an
understanding of things that is greater than us? I think that if we
are to believe that humans are "simple" then we really shouldn't be
saying anything about God (including whether he/she/it exists or not).
Gord
Dec 12, 2008, 12:26:13 PM12/12/08
to aboriginal mind and mental health
Hi Lewis,
Unfortunately I don't know much about astrophysics. Why is it that it
is improbable for cosmological constants to maintain at the same
level? One thing that I remember hearing about is the idea that there
could be an infinite number of universes, all with different laws and
such. I think one thing people can't get over is how "lucky" we are,
in that, life can only exist in such minute circumstances. For me, if
there were an infinite number of universes - each with billions of
planets - it would make us seem less lucky. Haha, but who knows.
But anyways, you said that "the spirits could hardly trouble
themselves to be bothered by our affairs". My question is, then how
did we find out about them in the first place? There must be a story
about this.
Unfortunately I don't know much about astrophysics. Why is it that it
is improbable for cosmological constants to maintain at the same
level? One thing that I remember hearing about is the idea that there
could be an infinite number of universes, all with different laws and
such. I think one thing people can't get over is how "lucky" we are,
in that, life can only exist in such minute circumstances. For me, if
there were an infinite number of universes - each with billions of
planets - it would make us seem less lucky. Haha, but who knows.
But anyways, you said that "the spirits could hardly trouble
themselves to be bothered by our affairs". My question is, then how
did we find out about them in the first place? There must be a story
about this.
Melissa
Dec 13, 2008, 1:57:41 PM12/13/08
to aboriginal mind and mental health
Hey Gord,
I'm glad you responded to my post, and of course I'm not going to
think that you're being "combative" haha. I've got a paper to write
and a final on Monday, but after that, if you care to still check out
the board, I'll try to answer to some of the counterpoints you made.
Could be interesting.
I'm glad you responded to my post, and of course I'm not going to
think that you're being "combative" haha. I've got a paper to write
and a final on Monday, but after that, if you care to still check out
the board, I'll try to answer to some of the counterpoints you made.
Could be interesting.
Lewis MehlMadrona
Dec 13, 2008, 3:23:16 PM12/13/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com, coyotewisdom, coyotem...@googlegroups.com
Dear Gord,
I'm sharing this post with my other discussion group cause I hope we'll all read Max Tegmark. Now that the class is ending if you wish to continue insane and interesting discussions, you're welcome to join us at coyote...@googlegroups.com. Unfortunately, we're probably not as interesting as Andrei. I hope he'll join us soon. (P.S. All students welcome).
Here's Max Tegmark's quote of the day:
According to the authoritative text on the subject, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, humans are the 3rd most intelligent species on Earth, superceded not only by dolphins but also by mice. This page provides evidence supporting that hypothesis, although it can be debated whether it mainly demonstrates the intelligence of mice or my own lack thereof.
And here's his website link:
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/index.html
Here's the info on cosmological constants from his website:
Max is my hero. I hope to meet him some day. Anyway, I think the spirits that are interested in us are mostly our recently departed relatives. The others are too busy to be bothered unless we piss them off or something and then they can hit with a vengeance. So don't piss off the spirits. Best advice I've given all year.
I think we're extraordinarily insignificant as far as the Universe (Multi-verse if you count all the parallel universes) goes, so it's a good thing we've got dead relatives who care.
And, I'm with you. God, or All That Is, or Everything, is so big that I'm just a mitochondria. And yes, I do care about every single mitochondria in my body (I think there are 2000 per cell and one rumor has it that they came from outer space), but if I lost one, I'm sure I wouldn't notice. But theoretically they're important to me. I love them and try to take good care of them by exercising and eating well and not getting too fat and not drinking too much wine, etc. Does that track? I might even sing to them from time to time and I hope it makes them happy. That's sort of how I think God feels about me.
However, my ancestors -- that's a whole different matter. Those guys have a vested interest in taking care of me and they've saved my butt a few times.
Let me know what you think about Tegmark.
You can click on them for details. So far, I've worked mainly on CMB and LSS, with some papers involving lensing, SN 1a and LyAF as well.
Since our atmosphere messes up most electromagnetic waves coming from space
(the main exceptions being radio waves and visible light), the advent of
satellites has revolutionized our ability to photograph the Universe in
microwaves, infrared light, ultraviolet light, X-rays and gamma rays. New
low-temperature detectors have greatly improved what can be done from the
ground as well, and the the computer revolution has enabled us to gather
and process huge data quantities, doing research that would have been unthinkable
twenty years ago. This data avalanche has transformed cosmology from being
a mainly theoretical field, occasionally ridiculed as speculative and flaky,
into a data-driven quantitative field where competing theories can be tested
with ever-increasing precision. I find CMB, LSS, lensing, SN 1a, LyAF, clusters and BBN
to be very exciting
areas, since they are all being transformed by new high-precision measurements
as described below. Since each of them measures different but related aspects
of the Universe, they both complement each other and allow lots of cross-checks.
In our standard cosmological model, the Universe was once in an extremely
dense and hot state, where things were essentially the same everywhere
in space, with only tiny fluctuations (at the level of 0.00001)
in the density. As the Universe expanded and cooled, gravitational instability
caused these these fluctuations to grow into the galaxies and the large-scale
structure that we observe in the Universe today. To calculate the details
of this, we need to know about a dozen numbers, so-called cosmological
parameters. Most of these parameters specify the cosmic matter budget, i.e.,
what the density of the Universe is made up of - the amounts of the following ingredients:
One of the main
challenges in modern cosmology is to quantify how small density fluctuations
at the recombination epoch at redshift around z=1000 evolved into the galaxies
and the large-scale structure we observe in the universe today. My Ph.D.
thesis with Joe Silk focused on ways of probing the interesting intermediate
epoch. The emphasis was on the role played by non-linear feedback, where
a small fraction of matter forming luminous objects such as stars or QSO's
can inject enough energy into their surrounding to radically alter subsequent
events. We know that the intergalactic medium (IGM)
was reionized at some point, but the details of when and how this occurred
remain open. The absence of a Gunn-Peterson trough in the spectra of high-redshift
quasars suggests that it happened before z=5, which could be achieved through
supernova driven winds from early galaxies.
Photoionization was thought to be able to
partially reionize the IGM much earlier, perhaps early enough to
affect the cosmic microwave background (CMB) fluctuations, especially in
an open universe. However, extremely early
reionization is ruled out by the COBE FIRAS constraints on the Compton
y-distortion. To make predictions for when the first objects formed and how big they were,
you need to worry about something I hate: molecules.
Although I was so fed up with rate discrepancies in the molecule literature
that I verged on making myself a Ghostbuster-style
T-shirt reading "MOLECULES - JUST SAY NO", the
irony is that my
molecule paper that I hated so much ended up being one of my most
cited ones. Whereas others that I had lots of fun with went largely unnoticed...
Like most
everybody else, I'm mystified and intrigued by the origin of gamma-ray
bursts. Applying some of my power-spectrum related data analysis techniques
to the new BATSE 3B data set, I have helped sharpen previous upper limits
on anisotropy on all angular scales as well as
tighten the previous best limits on burst repetition.
Since these new limits were quite difficult to accommodate in models with
a galactic halo origin, I firmly believed that gamma-ray bursts originated
at cosmologically large distances from us - and I'm glad that I believed
this before May 1997, when the halo camp finally
conceded defeat! (Absorption lines with redshift 0.8 were detected in the
afterglow of a gamma-ray burst.)
I have a side interest
in quantum decoherence - if you'd like to know more about what this is,
check out my recent article in with John Archibald Wheeler
in Scientific American here.
I'm interested in decoherence both
for its quantitative implications for quantum computing etc
and for its philosophical implications for the interpretation
of quantum mechanics. Since macroscopic systems are virtually impossible
to isolate from their surroundings, a number of quantitative predictions
can be made for how their wavefunction will appear
to collapse, in good agreement with what we in fact observe. Similar
quantitative predictions can be made for models of heat
baths, showing how the effects of the environment cause the familiar
entropy increase and apparent directionality of time. Intriguingly, decoherence
can also be shown to produce generalized coherent
states, indicating that these are not merely a useful approximation,
but indeed a type of quantum states that we should expect nature to be
full of. All these changes in the quantum density matrix can in principle
be measured experimentally, with phases and all.
Every time I've
written ten mainstream papers, I allow myself to indulge in writing one
wacky one, like my
Scientific American article about
parallel universes.
If you don't mind really crazy ideas, check out my bananas
theory of everything. This includes
musings on the dimensionality of space and time
and on the universe containing virtually no information.
If things anthropic make you foam at the mouth,
try this.
You might enjoy this trialog
if you're interested in the question of life, the universe and everything without the equations.
I've given birth to three Ph.D.'s at Penn: from left to right, they are Xiaomin Wang (left for postdoc at Chicago in 2004), Yongzhong Xu (left for postdoc at LANL in 2003) and David Rusin (left for postdoc at Harvard in 2001). I still haven't extorted photos from my two postdocs Havard Sandvik and Jose-Maria "Chema" Diego. Here are my astro colleagues at MIT and Penn.
By clicking here, you can browse a few hundred pictures from my photo album. If you know me, you might find yourself here!
By clicking here, you can participate in my ``virtual wedding'', hear the story and look at the pictures. My long-term goal is to become a virtual person, with all my worldly possessions (not just my photos) on my laptop. Unfortunately, my wife thinks shopping is a better idea...
Here's info about
how you will die.
Read about the
stinkymeat project or the
tragic death of
Tycho
Brahe
or experience Fred's
virtual day. Or better yet; write me an email
by clicking here.
After growing up in the Viking capital
Stockholm
and abandoning my parents and my brother
to go do a Ph.D. in Berzerkeley
and postdocs in
Munich/Garching
and Princeton,
I married
this woman and
moved to Narberth and
this infinite corridor
at Penn.
I then moved here:
Prof. Max Tegmark
Dept. of Physics, MIT
70 Vassar Street Rm. 37-626B
Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: (617) 452-4627
Fax: (617) 253-9798
teg...@mit.edu
I'm sharing this post with my other discussion group cause I hope we'll all read Max Tegmark. Now that the class is ending if you wish to continue insane and interesting discussions, you're welcome to join us at coyote...@googlegroups.com. Unfortunately, we're probably not as interesting as Andrei. I hope he'll join us soon. (P.S. All students welcome).
Here's Max Tegmark's quote of the day:
According to the authoritative text on the subject, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, humans are the 3rd most intelligent species on Earth, superceded not only by dolphins but also by mice. This page provides evidence supporting that hypothesis, although it can be debated whether it mainly demonstrates the intelligence of mice or my own lack thereof.
And here's his website link:
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/index.html
Here's the info on cosmological constants from his website:
Max is my hero. I hope to meet him some day. Anyway, I think the spirits that are interested in us are mostly our recently departed relatives. The others are too busy to be bothered unless we piss them off or something and then they can hit with a vengeance. So don't piss off the spirits. Best advice I've given all year.
I think we're extraordinarily insignificant as far as the Universe (Multi-verse if you count all the parallel universes) goes, so it's a good thing we've got dead relatives who care.
And, I'm with you. God, or All That Is, or Everything, is so big that I'm just a mitochondria. And yes, I do care about every single mitochondria in my body (I think there are 2000 per cell and one rumor has it that they came from outer space), but if I lost one, I'm sure I wouldn't notice. But theoretically they're important to me. I love them and try to take good care of them by exercising and eating well and not getting too fat and not drinking too much wine, etc. Does that track? I might even sing to them from time to time and I hope it makes them happy. That's sort of how I think God feels about me.
However, my ancestors -- that's a whole different matter. Those guys have a vested interest in taking care of me and they've saved my butt a few times.
Let me know what you think about Tegmark.
MY RESEARCH: PRECISION COSMOLOGY
My research is focused on precision cosmology, e.g., combining theoretical work with new measurements to place sharp constraints on cosmological models and their free parameters. (Skip to here if you already know all this.) Spectacular new measurements are providing powerful tools for this:
You can click on them for details. So far, I've worked mainly on CMB and LSS, with some papers involving lensing, SN 1a and LyAF as well.
Why do I find cosmology exciting?
(Even if you don't find cosmology exciting, there are good reasons why you should support physics research.)- There are some very basic questions that still haven't been answered. For instance,
- Is the Universe full of weird dark matter? So it seems, but what precisely is "dark matter" and "dark energy"?
- Will the Universe expand forever or end in a cataclysmic crunch? The smart money is now on the former, but the jury is still out.
- How did it all begin? This is linked to particle phyiscs and unifying gravity with quantum theory.
- Are there infinitely many other stars, or does space curve back on itself? Our Universe seems to be right on the dividing line, and it's still too close to call.
- Thanks to an avalanche of great new data, driven by advances in satellite, detector and computer technology, we may be only years away from answering some of these questions.
Since our atmosphere messes up most electromagnetic waves coming from space
(the main exceptions being radio waves and visible light), the advent of
satellites has revolutionized our ability to photograph the Universe in
microwaves, infrared light, ultraviolet light, X-rays and gamma rays. New
low-temperature detectors have greatly improved what can be done from the
ground as well, and the the computer revolution has enabled us to gather
and process huge data quantities, doing research that would have been unthinkable
twenty years ago. This data avalanche has transformed cosmology from being
a mainly theoretical field, occasionally ridiculed as speculative and flaky,
into a data-driven quantitative field where competing theories can be tested
with ever-increasing precision. I find CMB, LSS, lensing, SN 1a, LyAF, clusters and BBN
to be very exciting
areas, since they are all being transformed by new high-precision measurements
as described below. Since each of them measures different but related aspects
of the Universe, they both complement each other and allow lots of cross-checks.
What are these cosmological parameters?
In our standard cosmological model, the Universe was once in an extremely
dense and hot state, where things were essentially the same everywhere
in space, with only tiny fluctuations (at the level of 0.00001)
in the density. As the Universe expanded and cooled, gravitational instability
caused these these fluctuations to grow into the galaxies and the large-scale
structure that we observe in the Universe today. To calculate the details
of this, we need to know about a dozen numbers, so-called cosmological
parameters. Most of these parameters specify the cosmic matter budget, i.e.,
what the density of the Universe is made up of - the amounts of the following ingredients:
- Baryons - the kind of particles that you and I and all the chemical elements we learned about in school are made of: protons & neutrons. Baryons appear to make up only about 5% of all stuff in the Universe.
- Photons - the particles that make up light. Their density is the best measured one on this list.
- Massive neutrinos - neutrinos are very shy particles. They are known to exist, and now at least two of the three or more kinds are known to have mass.
- Cold dark matter - unseen mystery particles widely believed to exist. There seems to be about six times more of this strange stuff than baryons, making us a minority in the Universe.
- Curvature - if the total density differs from a certain critical value, space will be curved. Sufficiently high density would make space be finite, curving back on itself like the 3D surface of a 4D hypersphere.
- Dark energy - little more than a fancy name our ignorance of what seems to make up about two thirds of the matter budget. One popular candidates is a "Cosmological constant", a.k.a. Lambda, which Einstein invented and then later called his greatest blunder. Other candidates are more complicated modifications to Einsteins theory of Gravity as well as energy fields known as "quintessence". Dark energy causes gravitational repulsion in place of attraction. Einstein invented it and called it his greatest mistake, but combining new SN 1a and CMB data indicates that we might be living with Lambda after all.
One of my main current interests is using the avalanche of new data to raise the ambition level beyond cosmological parameters, testing rather than assuming the underlying physics. My battle cry is published here with nuts and bolts details here and here.
The cosmic toolbox
Here is a brief summary of some key cosmological observables and what they can teach us about cosmological parameters.
Photos of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation like the one to the left
show us the most distant object we can see: a hot, opaque wall of glowing hydrogen plasma about
14 billion light years away.
Why is it there? Well, as we look further away, we're seeing things that happened longer ago, since
it's taken the light a long time to get here. We see the Sun as it was eight minutes ago,
the Andromeda galaxy the way it was a few million years ago and this glowing surface as
it was just 400,000 years after the Big Bang. We can see that far back since the hydrogen gas that
fills intergalactic space is transparent, but we can't see further, since earlier the
hydrogen was so hot that it was an ionized plasma, opaque to light, looking like
a hot glowing wall just like the surface of the Sun.
The detailed patterns of hotter and colder spots on this wall constitute a goldmine of
information about the cosmological parameters mentioned above.
If you are a newcomer and want an introduction to CMB
fluctuations and what we can learn from them, I've written a review
here. If you don't have a physics background,
I recommend the on-line tutorials by
Wayne Hu and
Ned Wright.
If you already work on CMB, visit my
experiment compilation or
my data analysis center.
CMB experiments have already revolutionized
cosmology, but I think the best is yet to come. For instance,
NASA's
MAP satellite
will publicly release measurements of unprecedented
quality in December 2002.
Two new promising CMB fronts are opening up
--- CMB polarization and arcminute scale CMB, and are likely to keep the CMB field
lively for another decade.
Large-scale structure:
3D mapping of the Universe with galaxy redshift surveys offers another window on
dark matter properties, through its gravitational effects on galaxy clustering.
This field is currently being transformed by the
2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey
and the
Sloan Digital Sky Survey
(SDSS). The SDSS, where I am part of the large-scale structure
analysis team, will finish mapping a million galaxies in the nearby Universe over the next few years,
and complementary surveys such as DEEP and VIRMOS will map high redshifts and
the evolution of clustering.
The abundance of galaxy clusters, the largest gravitationally bound and equilibrated
blobs of stuff in the Universe, is a very sensitive probe of both the cosmic expansion history
and the growth of matter clustering. Many powerful cluster finding techniques are contributing
to rapid growth in the number of known clusters and our knowledge of their properties: identifying
them in 3D galaxy surveys, seeing their hot gas as hot spots in X-ray maps or cold spots
in microwave maps (the so-called SZ-effect) or spotting their gravitational effects with
gravitational lensing.
Yet another probe of dark matter is offered by gravitational lensing, whereby
its gravitational pull bends light rays and distorts images of distant objects.
The first large-scale detections of this effect were reported
by four groups
(astro-ph/0002500,
0003008,
0003014,
0003338)
in the year 2000, and
I anticipate making heavy use of such measurements as they continue to improve,
partly in collaboration with
Bhuvnesh Jain here at Penn.
Lensing is ultimately
as promising as CMB
and is free from the murky bias issues
plaguing LSS and LyAF measurements, since it probes the matter density directly via
its gravitational pull. I've also
dabbled some
in the stronger lensing effects caused by galaxy cores,
which offer additional insights into the detailed nature of the
dark matter.
Supernovae 1a:
If a white dwarf (the corpse of a burned-out low-mass star like our Sun) orbits another dying
star, it may gradually steal its gas and exceed the maximum mass with which it can be stable.
This makes it collapse under its own weight and blow up in a cataclysmic explosion called
a supernova of type Ia. Since all of these cosmic bombs weigh the same when they go off
(about 1.4 solar masses, the so-called Chandrasekhar mass), they all release roughly
the same amount of energy - and a more detailed calibration of this energy is possible by measuring
how fast it dims, making it the best "standard candle" visible at cosmological distances.
The supernova cosmology project
and the
high z
SN search team
mapped out how bright SN 1a looked at different redshifts found the first evidence in 1998 that
the expansion of the Universe was accelerating.
This approach can ultimately provide a direct
measurement of the
density of the Universe as a function of time,
helping unravel the nature of dark energy - I hope the
SNAP project gets funded.
The image to the left resulted from a different
type of supernova, but I couldn't resist showing it anyway...
The so-called Lyman Alpha Forest, cosmic gas clouds backlit by quasars, offers yet
another new and exciting probe of how dark has clumped ordinary matter together, and is sensitive
to an epoch when the Universe was merely 10-20% of
its present age. Although relating the measured absorption to the densities of
gas and dark matter involves
some complications,
it completely circumvents the Pandora's of galaxy biasing.
Cosmic observations are rapidly advancing on many other fronts as well,
e.g., with direct measurements of the cosmic expansion rate and the cosmic baryon fraction.
Summary of my past and current cosmology research
I used to have a description of each of my papers on this page, but it got very boring to read as the numbers grew, so I moved most of it to here, at the bottom of the page that has my list of publications. After graduate work on the role of atomic and molecular chemistry in cosmic reionization, I have mainly focused my research on issues related to constraining cosmological models. A suite of papers developed methods for analyzing cosmological data sets and applied them to various CMB experiments and galaxy redshift surveys, often in collaboration with the experimentalists who had taken the data. Another series of papers tackled various ``dirty laundry'' issues such as microwave foregrounds and mass-to-light bias. Other papers like this one develop and apply techniques for clarifying the big picture in cosmology: comparing and combining diverse cosmological probes, cross-checking for consistency and constraining cosmological models and their free parameters. (The difference between cosmology and ice hockey is that I don't get penalized for cross-checking...) My main current research interest is cosmology theory and phenomenology. I'm particularly enthusiastic about the prospects of comparing and combining current and upcoming data on CMB, LSS, galaxy clusters, lensing, LyA forest clustering, SN 1, etc. to raise the ambition level beyond the current cosmological parameter game, testing rather than assuming the underlying physics. This paper contains my battle cry. I also retain a strong interest in low-level nuts-and-bolts analysis and interpretation of data, firmly believing that the devil is in the details, and am actively working on analysis involving SDSS, WMAP and Boomerang (a CMB polarization experiment that I'm a member of).OTHER RESEARCH: SIDE INTERESTS
Early galaxy formation and the end of the cosmic dark ages
One of the main
challenges in modern cosmology is to quantify how small density fluctuations
at the recombination epoch at redshift around z=1000 evolved into the galaxies
and the large-scale structure we observe in the universe today. My Ph.D.
thesis with Joe Silk focused on ways of probing the interesting intermediate
epoch. The emphasis was on the role played by non-linear feedback, where
a small fraction of matter forming luminous objects such as stars or QSO's
can inject enough energy into their surrounding to radically alter subsequent
events. We know that the intergalactic medium (IGM)
was reionized at some point, but the details of when and how this occurred
remain open. The absence of a Gunn-Peterson trough in the spectra of high-redshift
quasars suggests that it happened before z=5, which could be achieved through
supernova driven winds from early galaxies.
Photoionization was thought to be able to
partially reionize the IGM much earlier, perhaps early enough to
affect the cosmic microwave background (CMB) fluctuations, especially in
an open universe. However, extremely early
reionization is ruled out by the COBE FIRAS constraints on the Compton
y-distortion. To make predictions for when the first objects formed and how big they were,
you need to worry about something I hate: molecules.
Although I was so fed up with rate discrepancies in the molecule literature
that I verged on making myself a Ghostbuster-style
T-shirt reading "MOLECULES - JUST SAY NO", the
irony is that my
molecule paper that I hated so much ended up being one of my most
cited ones. Whereas others that I had lots of fun with went largely unnoticed...
Gamma-ray bursts
Like most
everybody else, I'm mystified and intrigued by the origin of gamma-ray
bursts. Applying some of my power-spectrum related data analysis techniques
to the new BATSE 3B data set, I have helped sharpen previous upper limits
on anisotropy on all angular scales as well as
tighten the previous best limits on burst repetition.
Since these new limits were quite difficult to accommodate in models with
a galactic halo origin, I firmly believed that gamma-ray bursts originated
at cosmologically large distances from us - and I'm glad that I believed
this before May 1997, when the halo camp finally
conceded defeat! (Absorption lines with redshift 0.8 were detected in the
afterglow of a gamma-ray burst.)
Quantum decoherence
I have a side interest
in quantum decoherence - if you'd like to know more about what this is,
check out my recent article in with John Archibald Wheeler
in Scientific American here.
I'm interested in decoherence both
for its quantitative implications for quantum computing etc
and for its philosophical implications for the interpretation
of quantum mechanics. Since macroscopic systems are virtually impossible
to isolate from their surroundings, a number of quantitative predictions
can be made for how their wavefunction will appear
to collapse, in good agreement with what we in fact observe. Similar
quantitative predictions can be made for models of heat
baths, showing how the effects of the environment cause the familiar
entropy increase and apparent directionality of time. Intriguingly, decoherence
can also be shown to produce generalized coherent
states, indicating that these are not merely a useful approximation,
but indeed a type of quantum states that we should expect nature to be
full of. All these changes in the quantum density matrix can in principle
be measured experimentally, with phases and all.
Math problems
I'm also interested in physics-related mathematics problems in general. For instance, if you don't believe that part of a constrained elliptic metal sheet may bend towards you if you try to push it away, you are making the same mistake that the famous mathematician Hadamard once did.Crazy stuff
Every time I've
written ten mainstream papers, I allow myself to indulge in writing one
wacky one, like my
Scientific American article about
parallel universes.
If you don't mind really crazy ideas, check out my bananas
theory of everything. This includes
musings on the dimensionality of space and time
and on the universe containing virtually no information.
If things anthropic make you foam at the mouth,
try this.
You might enjoy this trialog
if you're interested in the question of life, the universe and everything without the equations.
MY PUBLICATIONS
By clicking here, you'll get a complete list of my publications and a brief summary of how the different papers fit together.RESEARCH GROUP
I've given birth to three Ph.D.'s at Penn: from left to right, they are Xiaomin Wang (left for postdoc at Chicago in 2004), Yongzhong Xu (left for postdoc at LANL in 2003) and David Rusin (left for postdoc at Harvard in 2001). I still haven't extorted photos from my two postdocs Havard Sandvik and Jose-Maria "Chema" Diego. Here are my astro colleagues at MIT and Penn.
MY MAILING LIST
By clicking here, you can join my mailing list, to be sent abstracts of future papers of mine on the topics you select.
MY PHOTO ALBUM
By clicking here, you can browse a few hundred pictures from my photo album. If you know me, you might find yourself here!
By clicking here, you can participate in my ``virtual wedding'', hear the story and look at the pictures. My long-term goal is to become a virtual person, with all my worldly possessions (not just my photos) on my laptop. Unfortunately, my wife thinks shopping is a better idea...
PROCRASTINATION TIPS
Feeling morbid?
Here's info about
how you will die.
Read about the
stinkymeat project or the
tragic death of
Tycho
Brahe
or experience Fred's
virtual day. Or better yet; write me an email
by clicking here.
MY ADDRESS
After growing up in the Viking capital
Stockholm
and abandoning my parents and my brother
to go do a Ph.D. in Berzerkeley
and postdocs in
Munich/Garching
and Princeton,
I married
this woman and
moved to Narberth and
this infinite corridor
at Penn.
I then moved here:
Prof. Max Tegmark
Dept. of Physics, MIT
70 Vassar Street Rm. 37-626B
Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone: (617) 452-4627
Fax: (617) 253-9798
teg...@mit.eduGord
Dec 15, 2008, 3:48:59 PM12/15/08
to aboriginal mind and mental health
Hi Lewis, thanks for the invite. I liked your mitochondria example.
Although, you need your mitochondria to function properly.. and I
don't think that if there was a God then I doubt that we'd play as
important of a role. I think we'd be more like some sort of bacteria
that doesn't hurt or help in any way, haha. But I get your point
nonetheless.
This Tegmark seems like an interesting guy. I googled cosmological
constants and found a very helpful article that outlines the
implications for the conversation about God:
http://tuquoque.blogspot.com/2006/07/universe-by-design-god-and.html
Also note the comments at the bottom of the article. Someone calling
themselves Dr. Logic makes a very good counter-argument. Personally,
I'm with the doctor.. but they are both good arguments. Although I
suspect it would take me years of reading to actually understand this
stuff.
Although, you need your mitochondria to function properly.. and I
don't think that if there was a God then I doubt that we'd play as
important of a role. I think we'd be more like some sort of bacteria
that doesn't hurt or help in any way, haha. But I get your point
nonetheless.
This Tegmark seems like an interesting guy. I googled cosmological
constants and found a very helpful article that outlines the
implications for the conversation about God:
http://tuquoque.blogspot.com/2006/07/universe-by-design-god-and.html
Also note the comments at the bottom of the article. Someone calling
themselves Dr. Logic makes a very good counter-argument. Personally,
I'm with the doctor.. but they are both good arguments. Although I
suspect it would take me years of reading to actually understand this
stuff.
Lewis MehlMadrona
Dec 16, 2008, 6:55:26 AM12/16/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com
That's my point. God wouldn't miss one mitochondria, but if all of them died, it might collapse. However, the probability of all matter disappearing in an infinite universe is rather slim. I'll look at this website you mentioned. It's a fun debate, though, and I rather think God would enjoy it if God could notice it.
Lewis
Lewis
Andrei Vinogradov
Dec 16, 2008, 3:58:45 PM12/16/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com
I think that question of "reality" and "unreality"
of god(s), spirits and such is not so much the question of inference (as in that
neo-Thomist site). I mean, it is an interesting game, but an idle one. I
like William James' approach, combined of
a) pragmatism (in this case, the thesis would be
"My interest in existence or non-existence of god(s) and spirits is proportional
to the USEFULLNESS of this knowledge in my life/death"), and b) radical
empiricism. Sakyamuni, when he set out to become Buddha, was driven by these two
concerns. Unlike Aquinas, he was not so much concerned about
physics.
Sakyamuni believed in gods' existence, but he did
not trust them as being the ultimate solutions (for no better word) to human
problems and concerns. He set out to speak to them personally.
----- Original Message -----From: Lewis MehlMadronaSent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 5:55 AMSubject: Re: I ain't afraid of no ghost
Andrei Vinogradov
Dec 17, 2008, 2:33:10 AM12/17/08
to aborigi...@googlegroups.com
Those hoaxes!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW6pVFOpE6Q&feature=related
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gord" <grp...@mail.usask.ca>
To: "aboriginal mind and mental health" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: I ain't afraid of no ghost
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW6pVFOpE6Q&feature=related
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gord" <grp...@mail.usask.ca>
To: "aboriginal mind and mental health" <aborigi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: I ain't afraid of no ghost
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages