Rhetoric 3302 Questions

Afterword: I don't believe that people should mix science and God together like some people are doing in this reading. They say stuff that people now a days don't think about God they think about mankind and how we are going to get through todday and tomorrow. Then there are those few people that believe in there faith more then they believe in mankind so those people are more willing to see God in the future then those who dwell on mankind. Those people don't see God in the near future or really at all. I like how Darwin calls us animals. I believe we are animals we are just like any other thing out there we were all made from the same stuff. Why do people insist that we are not animals when we act like animals sometimes? I believe that fundamantalists are dangerous to have in any country because you don't really know what there going to do or whether or not there going to backlash at someone. It is quite scary to think of that if the world was filled with fundamentalists what would happen? Around this time also the religions began to see the difference between scientific concept and religion and how they should not be explained together. But then the fundamentalists wanted God introduced in the political realm. I like the ending of this article or book it is pretty interesting that findamentalists feel that way.

Psychedelics and Religious Experience: I really agree with the beginning of this article saying that if you are high or drunk you shouldn't run a vehicle or a machine that you can die if you are not concious enough to realize what you are doing. It starts talking about essential ingredients that attracks people to the drug they also start talking about what people do while they are on it or how they feel when they are on it. One drug in particular was said to be ok to use because it does not have the side effects of LSD. In the article it talks about him experimenting with the drugs to see which ones he can be himself with that wouldn't be dangerous to be on while doing things that are dangerous or that puts your life into danger. The first thing that usually happens is that everything slows down so you look at things longer and notice things you would not normally see. This opens your eyes to look into the future and plan it all out without getting stressed out and exploding. I like the fact that they think that we shouldn't get the policemen involved in kids druguse, but get people who are knowledgeable about the drugs and have the kids talk to them or listen to them about what the drug is doing. Not having them get arressted for just doing something crazy like sky diving. That's all I have to say about these readings this week.

The Watts article seemed to make some good points. I enjoyed the point about the rift between the United States as a republic and its religious influence based on hierarchy. These attributes of the United States cause inter conflict and also don’t allow the possibility that individuals have the ability to become manifested by God. Most of his points seemed to ring true with Buddhist teachings, and other non-western spiritual thought. I don’t know if I agree that drugs are a good thing for the religious populous, but I do believe it can be beneficial to certain individuals, who may be lost on their spiritual path. The Anishinabe, if they have a large question or philosophical problem, go fasting for four days to search for an answer. This fasting causes an altered state. This altered states causes you to think differently that your usual conditioned day-to-day life. This difference in thought and perspective can possibly allow you to see what was previously hidden. So many religious experiences are based on altered states, meditation, fasting, dreams, visions, powerful group and individual experiences, and also being on a drug. All of these things initial being in a different mind state than your day-to-day mindset. I find drug use for a spiritual reason to be completely expectable, but it must be done wisely and responsibly. Even if it is not done responsibly one still learns something about themselves and the world around them and that is also quite valuable.

I enjoyed Armstrong’s point that fundamentalism is not a revival of ancient religions, but a strange breed of old trying to fit into the new causing some key morals to be left behind. This concept can explain the violence of fundamental Islam, the intolerance of fundamental Christianity, the pompousness of the atheist scientific community, and other international conflicts all over the globe. I enjoyed her point to attempt to make bridges between fundamentalism and the mainstream. This will derail future conflicts. I found her article to be quite logical and unbiased.

"psychedelics"
this was a good read. i basically agreed with everything that the author had to say. i do however believe that you have to have a prior interest or desire to feel some sort of spirituality when doing drugs to get any spiritual reaction from doing them. i've experimented to some extent and found that much of how he described it was accurate, mostly the first one. there is a definate focus that comes out of what is happening in the present. you can analyze a pencil for 2 hours and be satisfied and genuinely interested. but i don't think that this feeling invokes any sort of spiritual connection, unless you want it to. i also enjoyed the second half of the article in its description of a kingly christian god. i do think that its all true, and its kind of depressing at the same time. its easy to see why myself and many others would be turned off by a frightened, angry god. but again, i don't put very much importance or interest in discovering one's spirituality through the use of drugs. i wouldn't completely dismiss the thought that i didn't believe in it because of the culture i live in, though.

"afterword"
this reading deals with the dying effect of religion on our society. i think that the resurgence of fundementalism in our society is probably a good thing for those who feel that they need it. even though i myself do not accept a belief in any religion, at least for any factual information, i can understand its importance to a society. this comes from a very obvious observation which is how all societies around the world, past and present, have created some sort of religion for themselves. i don't believe any one to be superior over the other, and i think that much of the world needs religion to live a comfortable life. what i don't understand is religion and secularism constantly imposing upon each other. there will always be people out there who feel the need to exploit their beliefs and harm others in the process.

Afterword: I don't know if I can agree with Armstrong on all of her points. I will recognize that there has been a resurgence of fundamentalism in society, but when she says that it’s not archaic, but rather a modern and innovative approach to religion seems contradictory to me. Using the only example I know, how is a Christian fundamentalist view on creation any different than as she puts it, the “mystical, allegorical approach of premodern spirituality”? Maybe I’m missing her point, but I don’t necessarily see how a strict fundamentalist approach to religion qualifies as modern. However, I do agree that for some people, maybe a fundamentalist view is best for them. If it works, it works. It’s when people start imposing their beliefs on others or for politics to get wrapped up in religion do things get messy.

Psychedelics: I will say, I thought the second half was pretty interesting, comparing the idea of a republic and a monarchical God. In that context it makes a lot of sense that the Western world in particular would have such a strong negative reaction when it comes to the use of drugs and religion. But I don’t think I can buy this as a major reason to why psychedelics are currently banned. I do think that it’s possible for some people to use psychedelics in a responsible and beneficial manner. But for the vast majority of people, I don’t think it’s possible. Watts argues that while most people might view the drug as dangerous, any worth-while exploration is dangerous, such as climbing mountains, testing aircraft, going into space or skin diving, so psychedelics are no different. Sure those things are also dangerous, but who’s at risk? There’s no danger to me if some guy is out climbing mountains, but you can’t say the same thing about my safety if my neighbor is having a bad trip on LSD. Psychedelics are banned for a reason. While I’m sure that there are people who could benefit from responsible use, I can’t agree with Watts’ idea of a psychedelic free-for-all.

Psychedelics: I found Watts 4 characteristics of psychedelic drugs interesting and the end of his article interesting. The first characteristic struck me the most. Yes, (most) people are always running around and stressing about the future. Watt talks about how the drug helps slow life down, in almost appreciation of everything in life around you. I find that this is particularly true, that people need to slow down in life. However, in the end of the article, he talks about making these drugs a free-for-all. I believe that people should be able to find ways to slow down in life other than needing to be on drugs. And yes, mountain climbing can be dangerous, but not in the same way as acid. At least when mountain climbing, a person is in a clear state of mind. They know the dangers, and hopefully have taken all precautions before climbing. And I am not so sure what to say about Armstrong’s article.

Afterward:

I think I get Armstrong’s point, that today’s fundamentalism is quite unlike the ‘fundamentalism’ of times past. Rather than being a ‘fundamentalism’ based on sincere faith in the messages of the Bible and spirituality-based compassion for others in the world, is today’s fundamentalism focused instead on a harsh, strict, intolerant literal interpretation of religious texts as scientific reality? Have fundamentalists, in trying to redefine the nature of their beliefs within the context of a society that demands absolutes (i.e., less room for unsupported belief or reliance on mystic interpretations?), possibly lost sight of the original purpose of religion and replaced it with a lot of ‘supporting evidence’, arguments, and strict rules and practices? It seems that in trying to defend religion against the constant onslaught of scientific thought, fundamentalism strives to defend religion—not necessarily by generating scientific conclusions—but by re-framing religion within intellectual debate (like one might find in science or law) rather than with the mystical interpretations once relied upon.

I was interested in Armstrong’s discussion of different views of sacred vs. demonic and positive vs. deranged. Is the idea that some see today’s world as liberating and healthier than in the past, while others see it as meaningless, depressing, and corrupted, kind of tragic? The idea that one's absolute truth is another one's definition of insanity? Such different outlooks on the same world means we aren’t looking at the same world, and the happiness within one’s life certainly depends on which reality they understand to be true.

Psychedelics and Religious Experience:

The author’s experimentation with drugs and changing mental states was interesting to read about, but I have a difficult time to relate his observations to religion. (I suppose I would have greater insight into his statements if I actually tried some of the drugs has mentioned…). I found his observations on awareness of polarity to be the most interesting, as he said that, “If the universe is doing me, how can I be sure that, two seconds hence, I will still remember the English language? If I am doing it, how can I be sure that, two seconds hence, my brain will know how to turn the sun into light?” He means that two things seemingly quite opposite—a lowly individual on a continent on earth in one of many solar systems in one of many galaxies in an infinite universe, versus the universe itself—are actually integrally related, one lacking meaning or description without the other. He definitely understands that people define the universe just as much as they are defined by it. (for example, what is light without a corresponding sensory organ—that is, if no one is around to ‘interpret light’, is there really any light present at all?)

Afterward: It can easily be stated that our modern world is not the same it was several years ago. New views of war and crimes, I imagine, have probably disgruntled people from attending church on a weekly basis. Although I agree that modernization is sometimes a good thing ( like the article says, ‘it has opened new worlds and broadened our horizons’ ) but reducing our faith in God would be like giving up on the meaning of life. Although scientific endeavors would continue to explore, religion has an established sense of an afterlife that can describe how things balance out in the universe.

Psychedelics and Religious Experience: It is obviously noted that drugs can give you the “awe-inspiring” sense of spiritual bliss – but it is not the same as truly having a religious insight. Feeling the presence of God, in my opinion, should be something that you feel when you are in a normal state – without any drugs or influences that may distort your mind. Although different substances may help you “think outside of the box,” I don’t believe that they help you experience anything other than a weird sense of “awe.”

I found the Watts article to be very intriguing--he makes it very clear why drug use is frowned upon in our society. Rarely do we consider the benefits when we are constantly learning about the hazards. We associate a cause and effect relationship that is not entirely accurate. It’s like saying that a teenager behaves poorly because he listens to violent music. It is my understanding that countries with less severe drug enforcement have lower usage rates. Learning about different cultures and making comparisons to our own is also something interesting that we have not touchd on much.
He also reminds us to take pleasure in the present instead of worrying about the future, which is pretty cliché, but tends to slip our minds quite often. Watts sees the need to connect with our environment and how technology has interfered with this connection. Our lives are very high paced and dependant on technologies. We do not dedicate enough time to relaxation and observation. I’ve been starting to ride the bus more and have noticed what seems to be a whole new world. It is amazing what we miss when we are driving in our cars.
As far as needing drugs for religious experiences, I don’t see the appeal. That might even imply that someone has to be ‘on drugs’ or under some sort of influence to be devout.

Watts- This article was interesting only I didn't really relate. I believe that in 5th grade DARE, the whole concept that drugs are bad really made me not think like this article. I thought it was interesting that the author said that the police shouldn't be involved with these cases and someone who is an expert in drugs should talk to them. This I think is really weird idea, considering many of the drug people I see on COPS, they are violent that I think trained police should handle it. I really don't agree with the view that the drugs are just like mountain climbing, that the person doing the action is the only one in danger. I don't think that anyone climbing a mountain is going to harm anyone else, but that is not the same for drugs. Everyone reacts to drugs different, so whose to say they won't be violent.
Armstrong- I really didn't understand this article that much. I think that is was true that many people over time dealing with losing their faith. I think that the most religions have to be flexible over time. The views of people change and things become acceptable so the church must append little things in order to hold on to its congregation. I also think that is good that some people found their own religion, it is important that people have faith. This is one of the constants of people's life. Most people need to have something they believe in, so the world doesn't get overwhelming.

I found these articles to be interesting, but a little crazy and confusing. First of all, we do have "drugs" that are very benificial to us. But, if I understood correctly, the drugs these articles talked about were the kind that make you feel differnt and can make you see things that aren't there, and things such as that. Those kinds of drugs do not even belong in the same sentance of religion, especially if you are talking of something similar to Christianity. I don't really understand what the point of the studies were, as mentioned in the second article. It sounded as the the auther came to appreciate the drugs, or possibly religion more, which was it? And also that he could bring on the same feelings without the drugs. Why would you want to experiment with drugs like that in the first place? I realize the things they talked about and studied went much deeper than I am able to understand, but my mind keeps coming back to this: drugs are bad for you!

Armstrong: I understand her comments on fundamentalism, but I think that she is being a tad bit forgetful of the "traditional" religious views. Her implication that new views "have neglected the more tolerant, inclusive, and compassionate teachings and have cultivated theologies of rage, resentment, and revenge" distorts history and religion in a major way. The LONG history of violence, revenge, etc in the name of religion or sponsored by religion is not some rosy picture which seems better than today's practices. Crusades, enslavement, heretic burning, witch hunts, exorcisms, intolerance, pogroms, etc are ALL examples of the naive and frankly untrue assertions of the author. If her fundamental argument is that the new, religion-challenging world somehow causes or enables violence, then she is not a history student, because that is NOT a new phenomenon.

Psychedelics: Clearly this guy dropped too much acid back in the day! Seriously, how can one compare "playing a violin" to being high on LSD? I am pretty sure that musical instruments don't make you think you can fly and that the ceiling is on fire, or that the car you are in will eat you. This author missed the "drugs are bad, m'kay" message at school. Mind-altering substances which have both negative physical effects on your body (especially your brain) and with social relationships are not the way to "reach God" or develop a higher plane of consciousness. To paraphrase a Paul McCartney quote: 'We smoked marijuana and dropped acid to expand our minds and our music, but we just ended up writing the same songs over and over...'. Drugs don't get you anywhere new that you cannot reach within yourself with your own abilities.
People that take drugs do so invariably for selfish reasons, generally for a temporary pleasure it creates. Drug use rips apart families, marriages, parents and children, and destroy many individual lives. I personally find this author's entire premise to be one long dogmatic speech about the selfish behaviors of people who take drugs by choice. I wonder what his wife, mom or kids thought of his experiments. I wonder what THEY would have written on this subject. I'd bet it would be an entirely different perspective.
I do not advocate that one cannot "reach god" or expand one's mind, but you can do that without drugs. He mentioned fasting, prayer, meditaion, etc. Those are all sucessful ways of achieving nirvana. Why use LSD or smoke crack when you can meditate? Why fry your brain when you can actually EXPAND it or seek knowledge?

Afterword
This article talked about how religion has changed from the pre modern conservative world era. Religious fundamentalists have manipulated religious teachings and formed their own sects within religion that often shows hostility to other believers. As we see today with the violence in the Middle-East caused by Muslim extremists, there is no rational in killing senselessly and proclaiming that it is in the name of God. Even if it is not murder, many fundamentalist religious believers can only tolerate their own views and opinions, and this kills rationality because all other thoughts and opinions are blocked out. I believe that religion should never lead to violence no matter what the outcome. The whole point of religion is to praise God and receive His blessings, not to fight over truth. I am an open minded person and I feel sorry for people that believe they have all the answers because once you think like that you stop learning. Something else that interested me in the article was talk about Zionist Jews and them being in political power. I have heard a lot of conspiracies about this, but I don’t know for sure.

Psychedelics and Religious Experience
This essay is truly marvelous! It was fun to read a paper like this because it talked about things we don’t hear everyday. The author made a terrific point about organism and environment and I thought it was cool. It does seem that we were already in this world, like the apple that comes from the tree, and we were not born or sent here. Many people have experienced realizations by taking hallucinogenic drugs and in a way this can be classified as a religious experience. I’m not sure how credible a religion could be if it was based on acid though. However, the author made a great point about how important it is to enjoy the moment of life we have right now. A lot of times we make all these plans for tomorrow, but who’s to say if tomorrow is always going to be there?

The Armstrong reading was interesting, but it was the article on psychedelics which has occupied the majority of my thinking. As I see it, there seem to be basically two general explanations for experiences people have while under psychedelic drugs:

1) Psychedelic drugs, as the article claims, genuinely allow for an expanded consciousness and greater awareness of the nature of the universe and/or God. Experiences with psychedelic drugs are genuine and reflect a reality which we are generally unable to appreciate except in certain instances with religious exploration, psychedelics, etc.

2) Our perception of reality is a model assembled by our brain out of incoming sensory stimulus. Psychedelic drugs temporarily alter the chemical makeup of our brains and thus play havoc with our perception of reality, causing us to, among other things, experience what feel like religious experiences but are actually hallucinations entirely in our heads.

Of course, those two aren’t necessarily totally exclusive. There is no doubt at all that psychedelic drugs physically affect what‘s going on inside our brains and that these sort of alterations influence our perceptions. The question seems to be if a mystical experience can simultaneously be a genuine connection with the divine AND have a connection with a physical, neurological factor in the “real” world. There is plenty of research going on working on connecting religious experiences with neurobiological causes, and while no definitive link has been found yet, the trends seem to suggest that one (or many) exist and will eventually be discovered.

The sticking point seems to be that if you accepted that there is both a biological connection and that religious experiences reflect a greater truth, then the implication is that scientists poking and prodding the brain scientifically or giving it brain altering psychedelics are able to induce “true religious experiences,” which seems somehow inauthentic -- shouldn’t there be a some line between true religious experience and neurological fiddling? And yet, if you don’t accept that a true religious experience can be induced this way, how do you account for the effects of psychedelics?

The easiest answer is that religious and psychedelic experiences are biologically based perceptual delusions and mean nothing. Another possible answer is that putting these sort of experiences on the pedestal of religion introduces all sorts of unnecessary problems and that there is only a conflict if we view the divine as somehow unapproachable and different from our real lives. Maybe it is only a problem from a Christian perspective. If we instead look at these sort of experiences as glimpses of an overall truth which expanded consciousness is able to appreciate, then we can view religion not as an ultimate truth in itself, but an attempt to reach this expanded consciousness, with psychedelics being another legitimate pathway towards it. Then it becomes less an issue of God and more an issue of the possibilities of consciousness.

Armstrong raises an important point in this afterward. That fundamentalists have a genuine fear of the modern world. They see a world that has no time for God, or morality, or any of the things that are so important to them, and they react to it. Not as some vast conspiracy to destroy modernity, which is the way many modern people think about it, myself included, but more like a trapped animal. Some react violently, without reason, striking at the people who might aid them. Others cower, hiding from modernity. Her point raises a question, how does a modern, a-religious world react to fundamentalism? How do you include extremists in a conversation about modernity when they refuse to listen, or worse yet, respond with violence?

There are ways to shift your perception of reality in the way Watts describes without the use of chemicals. The problem is that learning to meditate, learning to slow down, and learning to accept duality are very hard things to do. It requires a discipline that most people don't have time for. It isn't scientific at all, something Watts addresses directly and tries to compensate for by using chemicals. At this I don't think he does a very good job, he describes four components of mystical experience, but does little to explain them scientifically, there is no analysis of the changes in brain chemistry for instance. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, mysticism and science don't mix.

The Psychedelics article from Alan Watts was very interesting. We can live now and value this moment. Watts makes a significant point about someone working their entire life hoping to retire at sixty five. But, by then, their entire life will have passed. In essence, explaining we don't have all the time in the world and only value the time we have now.

A second interesting point is made about elements of life. Watts focused on a fruitfly, mapping a fruitfly's existence, and inferring that we all have concious energy and every creature is aware of all.

You need it. Believe me.
http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/
buy generic biagra [url=http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/]buy generic biagra[/url]

You need it. Believe me.
http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/
buy generic biagra [url=http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/]buy generic biagra[/url]

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! nbvfkdajqgh

I know that is the best.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy biagra[/url]