HAPPY BIRTHDAY JARED!

posted by Tae-Yeoun Keum   [3:22 AM]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY AIMEE!

posted by Tae-Yeoun Keum   [1:33 AM]

Last Thursday I asked Zhou Laoshi (Chinese teacher) what he thought of the whole Falun Gong thing, and he very tactfully explained to us how the Chinese consider it a silly cult just as we consider Scientology a silly cult. He talked about some of their less credible beliefs about higher heavens and gears/wheels inside of us, and then preceded to expound the virtues of the communist state (seriously). He defended the decision to make Falun dafu illegal because higher ranking people in the party were beginning to convert, and in remarkably simple words explained that the party was afraid of the power that the movement was gaining. He then said plenty of people practice Taiqichuan and nothing ever happens to them, it was the organization of Falun Gong that frightened the government.

Let me play the devil. Is organ harvesting really inexcusable?
Granted the most fundamental thing you can own is your body and the most fundamental right you should have is that of self control, but prisoners (especially beneath the world’s less fair governments) lose their rights. Organ harvesting is inexcusable to someone who believes in ‘Rights’ and in ‘Ownership of Yourself,’ but think of it this way—the government was going to kill these people anyway because they refused to let go of their beliefs. Their families weren’t going to be told anyway (and aren’t). If 4,000 people have been killed for their kidneys and retinas and so on, 4000 others have been given a second shot at a tainted life. I think the real problem isn’t in taking the organs of the executed, which in theory I would agree with, but in the fact that they’re executing at all. The problem isn’t that they are taking people’s organs, but that “freedom of belief and expression” is not a reality in China and such a situation arises at all. I feel the dead should save the living from death, but feel too that the living should not be killed in the first place.

The Communist Party relies on mobilizing part of the population against another part every 7 or 8 years (there’s a Mao quote about why this is necessary that I’ve forgotten); on the one hand to give people something to do and on the other hand to give people something to fear. Nothing creates unity in a society like having a common enemy, except perhaps terror. fear. Uncertainty about the safety of your own skin. Most people will join a group of people that does horrible things if it assures them that horrible things will not be done unto them.

Get this: in China it is actually illegal to take someone’s organs unless they or their family volunteers the body for harvesting—however, since 1999, the deaths of any Falun dafu practitioners while in prison are recorded as “suicides” (presidential orders after several self immolation protests) bypassing what on the books is a complicated and humane legal code that has “sworn off the atrocities of the last century”-

A surprising number of people around the world know exactly what’s happening and feel its wrong, but don’t feel like doing anything about it. I’d like to ask everyone here what he or she thinks is an appropriate personal response—what should each of us actually do? …its not an easy question I feel.

posted by Adrian   [6:13 PM]

Ack, in the midst of procrastinating two papers, both of which I have open on my computer. I was hoping someone happened to be a Falun gong expert but I guess we're all in the same boat here. That is, however, telling in its own way. Regardless of whatever opinions we might hold about their persecution, a lot of us (a lot of us being, like, three people) don't seem to have a clear idea of even why they're being persecuted in the first place.

For the moment I want to leave organ harvesting out of the discussion, because when we start talking about human atrocities there's no end to it. I remember we had a particularly heated and unconstructive seminar on it once over TASP, actually. What I do propose provisionally now, is that human rights are universal constructs, which anyone will agree to as good ideas when external contexts are ignored. No sane person is about to claim that killing people is good in itself, and although some will claim it an inevitable necessity in many cases, they will do so with the belief that it ought to be avoided when it can.

So when individual rights are being infringed, it must begin with some call for necessity, whether this call is proportional to the threat or not. Something's got to be in it for the majority, or the supposed public good or at least the public order. Who benefits, or at least feels more secure, from even the imprisonment of the members of a religion and/or cult? Does the distinction between religion and cult actually have to do with whether or not it potentially threatens the established social order? Does a cult promise a revolution?

Going back to Bryan's point, about how the early churches shouldn't have had any validity as religion if the the validity of a religion is independent of how long it's been around - maybe the early churches were regarded as cults. If we think of the the Roman persecution of the early Christians, it doesn't seem too distant a reaction from, say, the mass purgings of the Catholics in Japan, Korea, and China during the 18th and 19th centuries. Moreover, at least the Romans had a 'cult leader' to point at. Is 'religion' a compromise between 'cult' and the socially acceptable? And if so, is it ultimately up to the holders of political power to dole out these labels?

Right, back to paper writing.
Jacob, if you're reading this from a New Haven computer, call 203.606.6685.

posted by Tae-Yeoun Keum   [5:20 PM]

I don't know any more about the Falun Gong than you do, Bryan, except that they occasionally put up posters with rather morbid pictures in the Square. Additionally, I think they deny being a religion or a cult, but instead, call themselves "a network for transmitting information and practices, in which people may dip on an incidental basis or more regularly." As for the difference between religion and cult, the only difference I can provide is the distinction on "what degree" an individual has to be associated with the movement/idea/following. While the definition of a religion is more formalized than that of a cult, the boundaries at which religion and cult define their members seem to be the other way around. For example, if I believe in God, pray occasionally, but never attend church services, I could be considered Christian because there are no definite boundaries. In contrast, someone could have done all the TASP readings, talked to the professors, and written all the papers, but they would still never be considered TASPers, right? (I'm not trying to imply anything...)

Having said this, Olga's friend just introduced me to the Wittgenstein's Family Resemblance, which renders the distinction I've made inconsequential.

posted by Eunice   [5:22 PM]

for some reason... my computer posted the stupid thing i wrote like 4 days ago under the 22nd or something... ill try to fix it, but i have no idea how. hopefully ill figure this thing out.

in any case, speaking of our love jacob, i was reading the "current," a nation-wide college publication, which had an article about deep springs in it. There was some mention of a person named jacob although i'm not sure if this is our jacob. :P Perhaps jacob could let us know whether he's the one passing out on the library floor reading Vico (it sounds very jacobish).

posted by Bryan Lee   [3:15 PM]

so something i found interesting while scouring the internet to see what other people have said about the difference between religion and cults...

"I think Michael Foucault may have something to say about this, in a sideways way: Foucault said that the difference between a real science and a pseudoscience is that a real science is not afraid of its history; he points out that chemists are willing to discuss the emergence of chemistry from alchemy, but that he caused a perfect storm of controversy in analyzing the historical origins of psychiatry. It seems to me that this applies accurately to churches and cults, and perhaps individual members as well."

Secondly, I would just like to say that distinct parallels could be drawn between the power struggle of the early churches and the Roman empire with the power struggle between Falun Gong and the Chinese government. All I have to say about this is we are assuming that Falun Gong is a cult when we don't even know what it is.

Thirdly, I believe that we are getting the idea that cults somehow are insidious in their nature. Is it fair to assume this when we haven't even defined what cults are (unless we are defining cults as insidious)? Just because something is painted as insidious (and I would agree if you were to say that the early churches were believed to be insidious and described as such) doesn't make it a cult. If that's the case, it turns out that anything that is not part of the governing structure (by this, I mean anything that can constitute a power relationship over an individual whether it be government or culture) is inherently a cult, because if it's not part of the system, it's endangering the system. Does that mean that Christianity is not a cult in America because Christian beliefs and doctrines are the prevailing underlying foundation for societal structure? If we went elsewhere in the world where Christianity is the minority, would it be a cult?

I have to say that while it might be tempting to simply say that it all depends on cultural constructs, it's too easy an answer and doesn't actually explore the finer details of why... say Christianity is not persecuted (although controlled) in China while Falun Gong is? (Not that Falun Gong is a cult. But if we are accepting the cultural construct argument, then Falun Gong is a cult - but so should Christianity). Arguing that Christianity is somehow controllable while Falun Gong isn't is a ridiculous argument. Arguing so would be saying that thought can be controlled in certain forms but not others (even if that's the case, who's going to judge that? the Chinese government?)

Fourthly, you can't argue that the difference between religion and cults is simply time. What about witchcraft? There have been cults of witchcraft that have existed for centuries. No one claims that they are religions. (And don't make some half-assed remark that witchcraft doesn't happen today.)

sigh. i'm still thinking about this one. i think it's hard but incredibly important. argh, im gonna go to bed. i hope you all are faring well.

posted by Bryan Lee   [3:15 PM]

my response to those two quotes is this:
1) religion doesn't attain validity according to how long it's been around. If that were the case, then the early churches shouldn't have had any validity as religion.
2) it is my belief (and mine only) that religion and politics are two different things. Call it the process of rationalization but to separate religion and cults by the characteristics of politics means that politics is an inherent quality of religion. I don't believe that to be true for a second (although I won't dispute the opinion that politics have become a quality of religion - or vice-versa).

I can't make any comment on the falun gong movement because I don't know anything about it. (although my suitemate from China insists that it's a terrible thing) :P
Perhaps someone does know more about it? Could you let me know more about what it is?
thanks

posted by Bryan Lee   [3:15 PM]

The president of China came to speak at Yale yesterday. Yalies had the choice of watching the live broadcast of the speech, or watching the protests outside. From the conversations that ran through the rest of that day, I'm guessing people found the protests a lot more exciting.

While we’re on the topic of what counts as religion and what doesn't, I'd be eager to listen in on a discussion on the falun gong movement. Is it a religious movement? A cult? And what's the difference between the two? Does either, if there is a difference, threaten social order and/or the existing political system?

Here are two starting quotes off the top of my head:

"Any religion that’s not at least two thousand years old is a cult."
- Louis, in Tony Kushner’s Angels in America

"A cult is a religion without political power."
- Tom Wolfe

posted by Tae-Yeoun Keum   [1:54 PM]

Brilliant point about the sacred.
If there's one things that drugs seem to blur, its the idea of the sacred, the "do not touch" and the "separate." If Everything and nothing are sacred, how could any one thing be different. It does seem that religions all make something sacred. Perhaps its more of cultural process?

There was a strong movement to create a collective drug culture in the 60's, but it wasn't allowed to mature into its own system of ritual and belief, I feel, because it was cut short by the governments of the developed world. There's always the future.

As far as the Christian Mystics being completely drug free, there may be room to question this claim, but I'm underinformed, so don't want to speak with any authority on a subject I don't understand. There are a few books floating around that claim that Amanita muscaria and a couple of other mushrooms were used by early mystics and that there has been a recent "drug purge." This summer I'll do some reading about and hopefully will have better things to say in the future.
...
The question I asked, Bryan, wasn't meant to be too complicated, though I'd value any answer. Clearly I'll drop when I get the chance and Brian won't (ironically for very similar reasons). Looking back though, I realize that I was a silly way to ask.

at least the blotter art is nice (pink elephants on parade)

posted by Adrian   [6:13 PM]

I don't think I quite understand Adrian's question. Are you speaking about the legal issues surrounding drugs, the cultural stigma of drugs, or the "spiritual" experience of drugs (in juxtaposition to religious experiences)?

To be fair, all of these questions are inherently tied together. But I think it's too broad to know exactly what the focus of your question is. If you are talking about the moral underpinnings of these three questions and whether it is 'bad' to take drugs, then I think it's quite different from asking about the 'spiritual' experience.

I think there needs to be some clarification here however. There are spiritual experiences. There are experiences people think are spiritual and are drug-induced. I am unable to comment on either and I am also unable to say which is more 'valid' than the other. Don't think for a moment that I am saying this diminishes the validity of religion. Religion is different from spirituality (although it is impossible to have religion without spirituality). If we are to define religion, what are we really talking about? In this point, I am defining religion in the social theory definition of Durkheim. (I choose Durkheim, because I think he encompasses our contemporary understanding of religion as well as Freud's and Weber's. My own footnote on this is that Freud and Weber are on two different planes of discussing social theory and reconciling the two with one coherent definition is the one that I am choosing) In any case, religion is 1) a system of beliefs and practices that create this idea of sacredness, the quality of things being set aside and forbidden and 2) these beliefs and practices unite all its believers into one corporate body.

Hence, religion implies a community. I don't think that I am wrong to believe that drug-induced spirituality is an entirely individualistic experience and cannot be religion. I don't believe that spirituality has any more legitimacy. My point about this is that plenty of people can be spiritual without actually believing anything at all. A person who tells me that they are a 'spiritual being' isn't really telling me anything. Moreover, spirituality encompasses the supernatural that I am not going to talk about here but which I sincerely believe exists and is nothing to be trifled with. In any case, regardless of what I believe, drug-induced behavior cannot be a religion.

At this point, I realize that you are thinking about the example of soma. First, if one is to count sexual behavior as a unifying activity, then I will point out that soma does not create any idea of sacredness, which I believe is one of Huxley's point of how easy it is to lose this quality and continue with some shell of a religion. While they might hold up soma and Ford and the industrial process and consequently, worshipping their societal reflection, nothing about this society is sacred. At no point is any character talking about whether something is good or bad behavior (other than the 'savage') and rather they are talking about practicality (aka. society wouldn't work without these practices). This is the loss of sacredness.

I hope that clarifies this whole drug - spirituality - religion mess.

posted by Bryan Lee   [6:54 AM]

I don't think this will surprise too many, but I'll say no. I don't really care one way or the other, people will do what they will. However, it seems to me that heirs of the christian tradition ought to seek transcendant experience through prayer, fasting and contemplation instead of through psychotropic drugs. This was the way of the mystics and saints. Their experiences were as vivid as those induced by acid. Most remarkably they are much more difficult to explain, making them more valid in a religious sense if not on a personal or psychological level.

This harks back to our TASP discussion of the role of drugs in artistic production, specifically in the case of Adrian's beloved Kubla Khan. I think that there is no real usefulness in calling art more or less valid because drugs were involved in its production. When I assign a greater validity to mystic experience sans drugs I do so only because there seems a greater likelihood that one is experiencing a god independent of oneself instead of one created by and thus mirroring one's desires. Despite its uselessness for the study of literature, I think this distinction is legitimate for those mystics who belive in a god outside themselves. This is because while we know some visions to be caused by LSD, it is difficult to assign a cause to the visions of, say, Joan of Arc. She may have been mad, yes, but she may also have spoken with angels. At least we know it was not LSD.

posted by Matthew Schmitz   [1:17 PM]

I ask the questions because I think about them and I value the thoughts and opinions of my fellow TASPers. You guys are great and I haven't seen most of you in a very long time (and the rest a lesser-long time). As far as the acid question goes, I’m sure you could guess my answer, but these days the stuff is extremely difficult to get. You literally need to have a Ph.D in chemistry to make it, and since all of the precursor chemicals are illegal, have to go through a lot of hoops to make it. The DEA looks into people when they let their wheat fields grow too much ergot let alone when they buy the lab equipment necessary for lsd production. Thanks to supply and demand, the acid drought since 2000 the price per tap (if you can find them) has rocketed from $1-$5 to an average of $12. The DEA claims it reduced the LSD supply by "95 percent" with two arrests in rural Kansas in November 2000.
"Clyde Apperson and William Leonard Pickard were charged with and eventually convicted of possession and conspiracy to distribute LSD. According to court testimony, the DEA seized the largest operable LSD laboratory in agency history, as well as 91 pounds of LSD and precursor compounds for the potential manufacture of nearly 27 pounds more. [Addendum, March 21: The 91-pound figure appears to be a myth of the government's making. See this follow-up story.] If you define a dose of LSD as 100 micrograms, Apperson and Pickard had around 400 million hits in stock. At the more common dosage level of 20 micrograms, the two were sitting on 2 billion hits. Apperson got 30 years in prison, and Pickard got two life sentences. The Kansas bust marked the third time in four years that the DEA had arrested Apperson and Pickard on LSD lab charges. The LSD market took an earlier blow in 1995, when Grateful Dead frontman Jerry Garcia died and the band stopped touring. For 30 years, Dead tours were essential in keeping many LSD users and dealers connected, a correlation confirmed by the DEA in a divisional field assessment from the mid-'90s."

anyway I've been doing a lot of reading recently; almost all the crap they told us in 8th grade about acid causing brain damage and chromosomal anomalies is bunk. It is one of the most benign drugs in the world (and when I use drugs here, I include things like caffeine and aspirin) and a lot of the studies that fueld the 1967 acid panic were based on unscientific reporting and politics. For example, the "many acid related deaths" quote you find is never ever cited to any actual statistics, the real number of associated deaths is 5, with only 2 due to the substance itself (this is lower than most of today’s prescription medications) and the rumor that lsd causes chromosomal abnormalities is based on a study where they essentially poured acid on dividing cells. That same study also showed that caffeine and aspirin caused chromosomal breaks at a much higher rate, but that part is never mentioned.
...

"For a long time I took it to be the great experience of my life," says Metcalfe, who later became one of the founding members of Greenpeace, then a Zen monk, and now is 82 and living on Vancouver Island. "Then I woke up again to the fact that life itself is a great experience. And that includes the LSD experience."

For 12 straight hours, Metcalfe was thrust into "the blast furnace of truth," as he described it in a series of articles for The Province - weeping at the beauty of his hands, replaying every memory of his life, wading into the Milky Way and measuring his own insignificance against the infinite majesty of the cosmos. "Then I became part of men again and joined their quarrels, not as a so-called civilized man, but as a frightened, primitive thing looking into the faces of all the gods," he wrote. As he discovered, LSD therapy forced patients to realize that they were utterly alone, and responsible for their fate. It packed years of psychoanalysis into a single day."

...

Anyway, I have great hope that some of the recent conferences among psychiatrists and politicians may allow the drug to make a come back in controlled settings. If any of you get a chance, read the lsd article on wikipedia, its pretty good.

posted by Adrian   [7:46 AM]

adrian, what's the source of these questions?

i'm beginning to feel like if the US actually did want to make unbreakable codes, they would just assign topics numerical values and have adrian ask questions.

:P just poking fun. no harm meant.

posted by Bryan Lee   [8:32 AM]

given the opportunity, would you drop acid?

posted by Adrian   [7:20 PM]

[ website ] :: [ contact ] :: [ home ]

XML