On Kris Nelson's "3 Myths"

I was recently linked to this article by a close friend of mine, and she asked for my thoughts. I have too many thoughts I think for a Facebook comment, so I thought I'd try to tackle it here.

The Article

(A short summary for those without context, and for me to try organizing my brainz)

In their article (I think this is the preferred pronoun), Nelson recollects their experiences in radical left groups and how these groups tend to strongly oppose the idea of anyone within their circle being of a faith. Nelson tells of a comrade who stated "you can't be a radical if you are not a devout atheist." Nelson found this to be somewhat shocking, as it flew against Nelson's personal experiences with faith, who found that their own faith fed their radicalism (Nelson is a practicing pagan). In response to this exclusionary attitude, Nelson notes the harms that atheism's critique of imperialistic Christianity has rendered against less mainstream religious groups, and also lists what they believe to be three myths about religion that many far lefters hold: 1) Spirituality and Politics Don't Mix, 2) Spirituality is Inherently Irrational, and 3) Being Spiritual Means Your Against Science.

Initial thoughts

My first thoughts on this article were of general agreement, especially with Nelson's conclusion that "radicals of faith are still radicals." And I can certainly understand Nelson's frustration at leftist circles dismissing religion (and people with religions) out of hand. In my time at my university's philosophy club, I witnessed a couple instances of people becoming excluded because they held a faith. It was never anything particularly nefarious, and the exclusion was never intentional as far as I could tell, but I did note that members of faith would simply stop coming to the meetings over time. Surprise, surprise -- it turns out that people don't want to hang around people who belittle some of their most personal beliefs. There is certainly this idea in much of the academic world that faith no longer has a place at the table, and I think that this idea is hasty at best and exclusionary at worst.

Some personal feelings

I've wavered back and forth on this topic myself. I can say for sure that I don't like the assumption that people of faith cannot engage rationally. On the other hand, I understand the atheist's general claim: a person of faith holds beliefs that are not rationally grounded. Philosophy (and other academic fields) are supposed to be grounded in reality, and so if one is an atheist, it seems like a person's religious experiences are not grounded in that reality.

I've been on both sides of this. I myself once stood semi-proudly under the pagan label. I don't think I do anymore (at least not this month). Before I compressed into my current agnosticism, I kept compartments in my mind: one for reason, and one for faith. I think it worked rather well for me for a time, and I certainly feel as if I was capable of engaging rationally. Eventually (and recently) my inclination towards internal consistency won out and I had to give up that part of myself. Despite this, I still don't regret my faith. It gently nudged me into my interests in the environment and towards exploring ethics. When my world was filled with magick, there was a kind of wonder and awe that I haven't (yet) been able to recapture.

To exclude people of faith from the left, or from academia seems an awful shame, and a loss of opportunity. Regardless of their reasons for religion, people of faith often come with interesting new perspectives and can really shake up our thinking on a lot of subjects. They often come with specific passions in areas that are regretfully thought of as boring/not-worth-the-time. This isn't to say that atheists don't have their own unique ways see the world, but merely to note that their perspective isn't the only one at play in the world.

Some annoyances and a critique

As I said, I can see where leftist atheists are coming from, but there is something about the attitude of rule-laying that really bothers me and not just from this group. It seems that for every label, that members of it make up these bizarre exclusionary rules. In this case it was "you can't be radical if you have a faith," as if it were so clear that the two were mutually exclusive. Why can't people simply state that it seems "less likely?" Nelson themselves commits a similar act in their preamble to the article: "you can't be a white pagan and use non-white traditional elements." I get the reasoning here, cultural appropriation is less than desirable, but I can't help but feel that this is just another rule can only be mouth service. Somewhere there is a white pagan who pulls from non-white traditions and does so sincerely. So say that you cannot do this if you want to be part of the "club" is a fruitless effort in my opinion. Especially when it comes to faith: most people feel called to their faith, they don't choose it in a rational sense. (I think I'm digressing.)

One critique I have against this article is that it doesn't actually seem to make an argument against the  alleged myths, but simply calls them myths and moves on. Telling us about how people see pagans as hippies, and the connotation that drums up doesn't make a case for why "Spirituality and Politics Don't Mix"is in fact a myth. Similarly, the other two myths are not really shown as such. I've already rambled on here for too long, so I'm not going to try and argue them as myths. In fact, I'm not certain, in my current state of agnosticism, that I could.

Too long, didn't read

People of faith should not have their ideas excluded simply because they are people of faith. 

Stop making up rules for your label(s); you will find someone who doesn't conform to it. 

If you call something a myth, you should probably show us why.

On Hiding

If I had to list my talents, one of the top contenders would have to be hiding. I don't mean the hide-and-seek variety, although I seem to recall being fairly skilled at that too. I am a genius at hiding from my problems--or anything that might be associated with said problems. 

In fact, this blog is an excellent example of this skill. I failed to meet my deadline for reading the Illiad. Someone who was less skilled at hiding might have simply continued to read the book and wrote the post a bit late. I however, am a master-level hider. I hid from my blog; I actually didn't even come to the site to follow up on the blogs I read. I hid from the topic and the people who were interested in the blog. I hid from the library (and accrued quite the late fee). I'm still hiding from going to library to pay that fee. 

For some reason, when things aren't going well I take the opinion: "if I ignore it, maybe it will ignore me." I don't know why I do this, maybe I'm part ostrich. I know that hiding from the bank doesn't actually make my debts go away; regardless, I feel a type of terror every time I even think about going in to do anything about it. 

The point of this is confession is simply to say that I'm going to try to not hide from this blog. Even when I'm not meeting my deadlines and accomplishing project goals, I have to use this space, or I might hide from those projects forever. Hiding from monsters does nothing to the monsters themselves.

On the bright side, when I do decide to stop hiding from the Illiad, I should be able to pick up where I left off: I took very thorough notes. 

On Second Tries

So, you (and by "you" I mean whichever friends I've managed to bully into reading this) may have noticed that I never posted a review on The Iliad on Friday. I have an excuse! Not a good one, but one nonetheless. My library card had expired, so I really only got two days with the book. I got through half of it in those two days (over 300 pages), but half a book does not a good review make. I'll have it in this Friday. Promise.

My first week of the project was okay (unsuccessful, but good). When I was on my game, I was really on my game. I mean, I spent two whole days just reading and taking notes! Notes! I was less successful this weekend, when I had my book but didn't go to the library. I think I need to arrange a spot in my house where I can gather my focus as well as I can at the library.

Also today instead of reading (or cleaning) I made a pie. Its pear/apple.

Yum

On Lawncare

I've never really understood the purpose of the lawn. I bring this up after a lost battle with lawncare I had on Monday evening, so you'll have to forgive me if I sound a bit spiteful, because I really am. After posting on Monday, I decided to tackle my lawn, mostly out of guilt and because my its become one of my family's greatest weapons of mockery against me. It was wild looking, I'll give them that.

So I had David help me take the big gas mower off the porch (and forced him to fill it up), and resolved that I couldn't use my little reel mower given the lawn's latest growth achievements. Then we duct-taped up a little remair becuase some godless plastic bit decided to go rogue and break off as soon as I tried to start the thing. Dandy. Halfway through mowing my side boulevard it died. Puttered out a cloud of black smoke and refused to go on. I almost understand; the side boulevard was a great enemy - it was its first time mowed this year because very little of it consists of "actual" lawn at this point (I'm rather proud to say), and looks more like a forest floor than anything else. Regardless, I wish I didn't tackle the side boulevard until I had done the rest of the manageable lawn, for now I was left alone in battle and only parts of the rest of the lawn were done. I never wanted to mow the side, but I've been berated over it for quite some time. I think it looks just fine on its own.

Anyways, one small mental breakdown later and there I was, desperately pushing on my little reel mower to try to get it done. It was a losing battle. Its still not done. Ugh.

The Importance of Being Mowed

Like I said, I never really understood the purpose of lawns. Apparently, in North America (as my wiki-researching goes) we grown more "lawn" then any other "crop," including corn. We also use more pesticides per square foot then we do on any other crop. Gas mowers have actually become a contender that contributes to summer smog. Why do we do this? What's the point in growing something that just for the sake of having to cut it? Why not grow something that stays close to the earth to begin with. Get this, I don't know if you've heard, but some people actually water their lawns. It seems almost insane: water the lawn so we can cut the lawn, wash, rinse, repeat. If it were not for other people I would NEVER even consider growing a lawn just to cut it. I'd let it grow. I'd let native plants move in and do whatever they wanted to my yard.

So the history of the lawn as we know it isn't that long. Apparently in the 20s the growing middle class of America wanted to feel more like British aristocracy and have lawns, and thanks to the invention of the mower, they could manage to do so without and army of servants or sheep. During the wars, hot and cold, people were encouraged to keep tidy lawns to show how resilient and okay we were. Imagine that: lawn care proving our mental fortitude. 

Regardless, I know I'll be out there again this week with my rusted and dulled reel mower... proving my sanity... crumbling before social norms... mowing my lawn.

On Nobel First Steps

I'm using that gigantic translation near the right.

Okay, so despite when I manage to upload this, I'm currently writing this at round 3 o’clock in the afternoon. I’ve been at the library since 9 trying to get started with The Iliad. Whether or not you've ever spent an entire day reading, I’m sure you can appreciate the power of the 3 o’clock lull. I decided to take a break and write simply because I figure it will be harder for me to fall asleep while typing.

This project is very daunting. The translation I’m using is nearly 600 pages long and I have only just gotten past the introduction to the text. Normally I would just skip the intro, but Mr Adler insists that it will be of great use to me in coming to understand the text itself, even though he doesn't seem to usually accept pre-digested material. Further I’m finding (at least today) that the library atmosphere isn't as silent as one could hope for. Right now I have a man next to me reading the newspaper (somewhat) out loud. He mutters all the words to himself under his breath. Across the way there is an extremely enlightening (and loud) conversation going on regarding this girls latest American Eagle finds and her comments on her friend’s tanning progress. I’m learning so much. Ah! And now someone is vacuuming behind me. Wonderful.

My Week

Its been a trip. Although, I think its fairly useful as a cross-section of my life right now. If I continue with this project, it’ll be interesting to read back and see how my life has changed in the next three years. Hopefully it has an for the better.

Right before I managed to post on Friday my credit union called because my student line of credit had (once again) gone wild. I haven’t been able to make the payments that I wish I could. So as usual, they immediately called my grandparents (who are my cosigners) to threaten legal action. Its very sweet of them, I think. I was very rude with the woman who called me. I might call and apologise -- not because I think they’re completely innocent or anything, but because the woman who calls isn’t really the driving force behind the capitalist monster. She’s just a cog, and it can’t be easy calling people to ruin their day all day. I’m sure I wasn't the only snotty person she had to deal with that day.

Nothing else of particular interest happened. I did some dog-sitting with David, and went to my parents for Father’s day. My life feels very transient right now, like I’m just waiting in between my studenthood and my adult life. I probably need a proper full-time job, but I think I also need to figure out some meaning for myself. Until I know what I want to do, I think I’ll just keep feeling like I’m waiting. This blog certainly provides me with some structure, so there’s that.

Back to the book I suppose.

On "How to Read a Book"

The source material for this madness. 

Mortimer J. Adler's How to Read a Book first attracted my eye because I found the concept amusing. I mean, a book about how to read books? Its so meta that the little philosopher inside me couldn't resist picking it up. Adler's concern is not only that people aren't reading enough, but that the way they read is insufficient. At best, Adler figures that the average reader only reads for information, not understanding. As a professor, he found that even when his students could recall the words of a text, they failed to grasp the meaning of those words on any significant level. Adler believes that that the reason for this is that they simply were never taught (properly) how to read past a 3rd or 4th grade level; they could read words, but they couldn't really read books. In addition, Adler was concerned that academic culture has stopped valuing the properly liberal education, in which students read the great works in order to become thoroughly educated citizens. Instead of learning the foundations of history, science, philosophy, and literature, the modern student (rather arbitrarily) chooses a subject to specialise in and memorises the factoids necessary to pass exams. Mr. Adler finds this system to be thoroughly flawed. Firstly, students of this system are left with major gaps in their education: The engineer doesn't understand the political system she's ruled by, the philosopher fails to grasp the biology of life he's bound to, and the historian cannot know much about the psychologies that compel herself (or the subjects of her history). Secondly, Adler is concerned that the lack of reading skill in students means that they barely have any understanding of even their own chosen subjects.

The System

So, we don't know how to read, great. What do we do? How do we read a book? Adler comes up with a way to read in order to train oneself to read habitually well. To read not just for amusement or basic information, but for understanding, even enlightenment. To do this at first (before the method becomes ingrained into a habit), Adler demands that a work be read three times (yikes!). The first to Analyse the book: to figure out its type and genre, to know its major parts and the parts of those parts, and to determine what problems the text is trying to solve. The second is to Interpret the book: to learn the vital terms the author uses, the important propositions, and their arguments, and to determine which problems the author has succeeded in solving. And the third to Criticise the book: to show where the author may be uniformend, misinformed, illogical, or incomplete.

Mr. Adler looking stately.
I'd wear those glasses.

To do all this requires focused, active reading. And piles of notes and summations. So, the question for me becomes: what do I post here? If (IF!) I dare to make these notes, I doubt they'd be very interesting to read for you, the illustrious blog-reader; therefore, I doubt I'd post them directly to this blog. Possibly I could link the notes in Google Drive format for those masochistic types who would want to read them (again, if I actually attempt to make such thorough notes).

For the sake of this blog, I'm going to read the books as best as I can each week and then comment on them here. Perhaps I'll try to cover the "critisism" phase of the reading here. I'll run through how I felt by what was said, what significance the ideas might have, and how they relate to me.  Thoughts and feelings, and what-not. Thoughts and Feelings.

Yup.

So that's the Friday plan. The first proper book will be Homer's Iliad, which should be fun because as a work of fiction, Mr. Adler's system doesn't fully apply. He does make some notations on what to do in fiction's case though, so I'll work it out.

Monday's post will be a week review, and perhaps the always dramatic story of the relationship I have with my credit union. Unclear about Wednesday. Stay tuned.

On the State of the Blog 2014

Okay, so I promised myself I'd post today, so despite how late it is, it is still Wednesday and therefore I've been a good human being (at least in the blogging department). I finally have a plan(ish) for this blog! I'm sure I'll fail almost instantly, but its nice to dream.

My favourite blogs are the ones where you really get a sense of the person who is writing them whilst they embark on some semi-ludicrous goal; think Julie & Julia, or Green as a Thistle. I also have a soft spot for mommy blogs, particularity Raising my Rainbow, but for obvious reasons I can't mommy blog (damn gender constraints!). The former blog-type will have to do.

The Semi-Ludicrous Goal.

I want to do book reviews/discussions/something. I hear you already, "What's so special about that, people do that all the time, what's almost ludicrous about that?" Ah! You forget that this is Kayle, and no plan of mine could be that easy. I want to "intensely" read the Great Books of the Western tradition as suggested by Mortimer J. Alder's How to Read a Book. This list includes 137 authors, many of which involve reading multiple texts. I want to read one a week, starting with Homer's Iliad and ending with Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn's Cancer Ward. Over 2000 years (YEARS!) of great (and difficult) literature. I haven't done all the math yet (read: none), but I guess this task will take at least three years. This coming from someone who can't manage to do a few pushups every other day. 

I'll try to explain the why of this goal on Friday when I go over some of the finer points of How to Read a Book. I'll also try to figure out what those posts should even look like.

The Schedule

I don't want this blog to only be book reviews though, because that could get boring, also (and try to imagine me as a stereotypical high-school art teacher when I say this,) I wouldn't be able to express myself as a person. Towards that end I think I'll schedule in one or two days dedicated to how my life's going and what I'm thinking about. My hope is that my goal will improve me as a human being and that this will somehow show in my personal posts. (Ha.)

My thoughts are thus:

• Mondays - Week Review. Things that I saw and thought were interesting/amusing. Miscellany.
• Wednesdays - Opinion Pieces. Thoughts and Rambles. Rants. Miscellany.
• Fridays - Book Review or Discussion or Something. (I really don't know how in depth I want to make these posts yet. I'll figure it out along the way I guess).

Alright, see you Friday when I cover How to Read a Book.

(Affirmation style: I will absolutely post on Friday)