like a treasure box

freedom is
a journal
like a treasure box
the fantasies tucked away


desires restrained
to the pages of your heart

the I love you's
never whispered

anger released
in an inky blaze

the I hate you's
never bellowed

loneliness rewritten
on a bed of broken prose

the I need you's
never spoken


we hide in our pages
lost loves and unfulfilled passions

we hide in our pages
the forgotten troubles and the endless fears

we hide in our pages
our fantasies safely tucked away


like a treasure box
my journal
is my freedom

initial thoughts for the week

Larissa poses the question,

"Sociologists describe science as a 'human activity.' For some, science is nothing more than what scientists do. What do you think about this idea?"

I don't think I could ever see science as 'nothing more' than just a person's job. It's like you're writing them off, when really, everything happens for a reason (surely), and a scientist works in the hope that he or she will find answers, or better answers, to the worldly mysteries that remain unsolved.

Reading through the week's material, I can't help but agree with the idea that 'When you're at the cutting edge, you don't know which facts are the good ones (etc)'.

Also what springs to mind is that people will believe if it makes sense to them. And with everybody being subject to different influences.. of course there's going to be a variety of beliefs and belief systems.

I also like this statement in the readings-

"Notice that it only takes one observation to disprove a theory while 100 observations in favour do not prove a theory. They strengthen its believability but never prove it. Notice the fundamental asymmetry here."

It's curious how 'darkness' and negativity seem to bear more substance, more depth, and more weight, than 'lightness' and all things positive and happy. It's easy to wallow in self-pity and depression and it's also harder to break out of that negative cycle, but it's so easy for somebody to bring you down from a cloud of happiness. I find that a little odd, and also a little sad.

The week also provides an audio clip of Bob Russell:

"The only statements that can be meaningful are those which can be proven true or false by science. The problem with that is, that statement itself cannot be proven true or false by science. In fact, that statement has to be taken on faith."

It's nuts, but it's true. Or at least, I believe it to be true.. (argh, this is messing with my head! Hehe)

Continuing on with the week's lecture, and on the topic of 'How does Religion develop?',

"In primitive religions there are all kinds of fetishes, taboos, superstitions and sacrifices... For example the Mayans used to worship the rain god Chaak because rainfall was uncertain in their area. They used to perform human sacrifices by throwing young maidens into holes which developed in the ground called cenotes."

What gets to me is that humans used to sacrifice other humans to their gods, and by that I don't just mean the Mayans. I mean, if you think about it, and you assume that God created everything, least of all humans, would he really want his creation returned to him in a state of rigor mortis, or smoked on a fire, or diced up into lots of little pieces?

Surely not.

Which then brings up the topic of war, in a way. Because you have all these people killing each other to uphold their own beliefs and values, and from my understanding most of the big wars in history are religiously/politically driven, and taking the viewpoint of religion being the driver, nobody's God would want them to kill one of their own, would they? Even if they did have a different religious belief. If God really wanted people to have one faith, then wouldn't He have created us so that it wasn't possible for us to 'create' any other faiths for ourselves?

Apparently (according to my friend), there's a new religion emerging which seeks to combine all the major religions into one, and as a result they go through the religious rites of all the different religions... I couldn't help but be amazed, and also comment that it would take them all day to perform the rites for each religion being accepted into this new combination. I'm curious to find out more about this supposedly emerging belief system.

week 2 discussion post #1

On the topic of Doing Science & Doing Theology


Reading through everybody's comments, and some of the longer posts on the discussion board, makes me wish I had more of a religious background or wealth of knowledge about religion to make use of in this discussion. As it stands, I'm fairly ignorant about both science and religion (imho), so its really enjoyable to read everybody's perspectives on the topics raised.

Anyways, as this subject is about questioning not only others', but your own beliefs, this post does not necessarily reflect my own personal beliefs, but is more of a "What happens if I take this attitude?" kind of post.

On Larissa's comment:
"Sociologists describe science as a 'human activity.' For some, science is nothing more than what scientists do. What do you think about this idea?"

If science can be defined as a human activity, so can religion. If humans didn't exist, would religion exist? Or even science for that matter?

Science and religion, like "gravity", are merely terms for an idea or system of ideas that we have come to develop or learn about, aren't they? This week's lecture suggests to me that the two approach both categories in a similar manner - they believe something exists, then go about trying to prove that it exists, so they can 'educate' or inspire others to believe as well.

So maybe religion is just a branch of science. A branch that has developed so far into itself that it's now its own tree. Like the first audio clip mentions "When you're at the cutting edge [of science], you don't know which facts are the good ones.." - and that's true. If you've only just discovered something, you play around with many theories in your head, and you stick with what appears to make the most sense.

The foundation of all this is that people will believe in because it makes sense to them.

Atheists don't have faith in God because they can't believe that there's a higher power out there. Christians don't accept the beliefs of (for e.g.) Hindus because they can't believe that there can be more than one all-powerful God (which, as far as I'm aware, is not Hinduism - there's one God but He appears in many many forms, yes? Somebody to confirm pls? :) )

Maybe that's what happened thousands of years ago with religious beliefs. People experienced strange phenomena - or perhaps it wasn't *strange*, it was just *new* experiences - and then they began to hypothesise. Somebody came up with a theory that made sense to the majority, so they ran with it, and now it's spread all over the world, albeit in a variety of forms.

And a small repsonse to Ariella's last post, about how:

"new paradigms can be added to the old ones, so that religion can still be something ancient and passed down, but can also be something which is rendered meaningful in today’s world of modernity."

Maybe our problem is that we view religion as an 'ancient' object, just because it hasn't changed much over time - or rather, our concept of 'ancient' and 'modern'. I mean, when I was 12, the 1990's were 'modern'. Now at 19, the 2000's are my current 'modern'.

I'll end my post with a question(s) that may or may not make sense - but if the world viewed both Religion and Science as 'modern' belief systems, do you think there would be less conflict between the two? Is it even possible to think of religion as a 'modern' concept?

on the unusual behaviour of whales

Perhaps they want to be beached.

Maybe they get stressed and agitated because the vets try to get them back to their pod, when really, they never want to see their pod again.

Maybe they just don't want to live anymore, and they just want to be left alone in peace, to pass away peacefully on a pleasant shore, their last memory being that of the blinding sun beating down on them as they drift away from this world to horizons far and beyond our own reach.

After all, don't humans get like that too, sometimes?


A response to the article "Lost and stranded whale put down"

a rift between science and hinduism

This is perhaps an example of a conflict between science and religion, in albeit a more unusual manner.

In the UK, a six year old bull who goes by the name of Shambo, has tested positive to bovine tuberculosis (or BT). Going by 'the rules', the solution appears simple enough - slaughter the animal. However! Shambo resides in a monastery as he is considered to be a sacred animal (in Hinduism).

Why do I think this is a conflict between science & religion?

Because the scientific facts provide a diagnosis, that the bull is carrier of BT. Yet from the religious perspective, this scientific evidence doesn't really bother them - BT or no BT, Shambo is still a sacred bull, and therefore should not be murdered.

I've just run a search on Wikipedia, to better understand the importance of the bovine in Hindu religious beliefs, and this is the paragraph that I took in, it may or may not be entirely complete or correct:

"In Hinduism, the cow is considered sacred and its protection is a recurrent theme in which she is symbolic of abundance, of the sanctity of all life and of the earth that gives much while asking nothing in return. Most Hindus respect the cow as a matriarchal figure for her gentle qualities and providing nurturing milk and its products for a largely vegetarian diet. Hindus do not worship the cow, yet it holds an honoured place in society, and it is part of Hindu tradition to avoid the consumption of beef." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_cow)

And so a dilemma occurs, because you have two conflicting perspectives.
1. Who in their right mind would destroy a sacred being. If this sacred bull was a human being who was diagnosed with a serious illness, the first recommendation would not be to 'put them out of their misery' and kill them. You would analyse the symptoms and do whatever is possible to try and cure the human. As a human life is precious, so this cow's life is precious to us also.

2. It's just another farm animal. Animals are subject to diseases, and infected animals pose a threat to fellow animals as well as humans. This cow is a ruminating health hazard as it has tested positive to a disease. There are hundreds upon thousands of cows in the world today. Pick another and let it be your sacred cow - we want to do away with this one.

Perhaps we should also include a third perspective, that of the in-between, the fence-sitter who understands the health risks posed by the animal, and yet respects the religious beliefs of the people who are willing to do all they can to prevent the slaughter of Shambo.

Or a fourth, who may ask

"But Shambo is a BULL. Isn't is the COW who is the sacred being?"

and

"Why is the word 'sacred' so similar to 'scared'?

The answers to these questions, I do not know.


A response to the article "Legal setback for sacred bull"

week 1 discussion post #2

On the topic of Ways of relating Science & Religion
Discussion post below altered slightly for the purposes of this blog

(Disclaimer: I'm not well-versed on religion nor science; my posts are just a collection of personal experiences and thoughts developed on bits and pieces of reading/media/et al.)

In response to a recent post by another, I agree with them when they say that "the relationship of a person to religion in this world becomes complicated". People can 'subscribe' to a general form of belief/religion, e.g. Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism et al - but to say that you're a Buddhist or that you're a Hindu or whatever, the listener can't help but generalise. And even the generalisation will differ from person to person, depending on their personal experiences with people of that particular religion (whether it's a lot, a little, or no contact at all), and the surrounding influences they choose (consciously or no) to absorb.

Every single individual will indeed be different in terms of their level of faith, and how literally they interpret a holy text or commandment, amongst other things - and I guess that in a sense, this is a kind of human 'corruption' of religion in its purest form. What the purest form of religion is, I wouldn't be able to say. But one thing's for sure, religion is definitely very subjective, not only on an individual basis but also on a congregational basis.

Different congregations have different leaders, who in turn present their own viewpoints and sway their 'sheep' (to take a Christian term) with their preaching to share a common perspective of the faith. For example - there are so many Christian denominations out there its almost ridiculous! Some focus only on Jesus, others on Mary, and others still on Mary and Jesus (and God, i.e. the Trinity?).

I can't help but use Christianity as an example in most cases, as it's the one religion I probably know the most about, having been personally involved in one of its streams for a short while. That said, I'm hoping to learn more about Judaism, Buddhism and the Hindu and Muslim faiths - I guess they're the other main religions, but more importantly they're also well-established faiths, i.e. they've been around for a while; like Christianity there must be some element of truth to them, yes?

Buddhism (and Hinduism to a lesser extent) seems a bit 'earthier' to me.. while Judaism seems more 'pure' than Christianity (even the word "Christianity" sounds commercialised! Probably because you hear it so often). And I know the least about Muslim religion - so for me it has a general air of mysteriousness and curiosity. I'm sure I could talk to at least 10 different people for each religion and get 10 similar yet significantly different viewpoints/interpretations of their faith.

I'm bit of an old-school person, I enjoy things the way they 'used to be' and can be pretty stubborn to changes (sometimes). So the concept of religion changing with the times, just doesn't seem right in a way. That said, there's no way we could continue to interpret religious texts in the same way humans were doing it say, 100 years ago, right? And surely religion can never be 'out-dated' and therefore obsolete.. that doesn't make sense either.

I suppose that if you were to treat science and religion as being of similar 'personalities', so to speak, it would make sense that religion can change with the times. After all, people used to believe the world was flat, but now we know its not. What I mean to say is that maybe what we once thought was a certain message in a religious text, really doesn't mean that at all, and the words have been misinterpreted for a long time, so changes must be made to the way people preach and believe.

Curious how it's easy to see science as an everchanging object, but the stereotype of religion (for me) is that it's the one rock-steady foundation in people's lives, its constancy calms people and helps them believe. Perhaps. :)

on religions, and the existence of a greater being

Considering just how many religions there are all over the world (I don't actually know how many there are, I should look it up), and the vast number of people that adhere to some kind of belief or faith or religion, whether it's with a group of people, a whole congregation or just even within themselves..

Surely there must be a God out there?

Some kind of greater power or being at the very least.

Surely people would not have made something out of nothing.

But assuming that God exists. How did He make something out of nothing?

Where the hell did He come from?

The concept of the creation of the world as we know it, and the incomprehensibility of the question that seems to keep asking itself in my head - "What's outside all of this? Outside of all that we know and are able to comprehend, outside of all existence?"

I seem to believe that such a place exists, a place outside of existence - if you can call it a 'place'.

Trying to understand it all brings up a curious emotion within - I can't pinpoint it, but it doesn't stop me from thinking about the impossible.

Curious!

week 1 discussion post #1

On the topic of Ways of relating Science & Religion


I was brought up as a Jehovah's Witness; however, my parents (and as a result, I) had stopped attending meetings by the time I finished primary school, and since then not only have I discovered that being a Jehovah's Witness made me part of a Christian denomination (when I was a lot younger, I always thought we were different to Christians mostly because we didn't go to 'church', we went to Kingdom Halls), but there are so many religions, beliefs, faiths out there, and it's always really interesting to learn about them.

But I digress (bad habit of mine). I have to say that my mode of thought mostly aligns with #7: Religion & Science give Complementary Insights. I can see how both scientific and religious people could provide two different explanations for the same object, or event, etc. One would be more theoretical and technical in their description, while the other would be more emotive and perhaps Romantic in their approach.

Another thought that enters my mind is, that perhaps, if God really did create the entire universe etc, then he must have created the ability for humans to create/explore/believe in Science.. in which case, theology MUST exist for science to exist.. right?

But if you argue it another way.. well, perhaps science has created a God instead. Since science is an ever-expanding school of knowledge, there are still so many things we don't have the answers for, perhaps somebody decided to create an entity, a being that we are capable of comprehending, but only just.

Not sure where I'm going with that train of thought, so I'll stop there for now :)

When asking my friends about their religious beliefs (if they have any), a few of my friends have mentioned that they believe that religion in its purest form is a great thing, but mankind has warped it and corrupted it over the years; maybe they mean to say that religion has been 'commercialised' in a way.

I don't adhere to any particular religion, and although I can get pretty wordy at times, I don't know a great deal about any religion, but am very willing for somebody to tell me more about their religion and why they believe in it - it's always a fascinating window into their lives and the strength of human faith in general.

This subject is going to be great fun.. will cause massive headspins, but will keep my mind more than occupied, which is what I need right now.

ponderments - a rambling

Consciousness. So what is it?

Reading a Time magazine a while back, it pointed out and made me think things like "Hey, we have a narrow range of vision", and "How do we know that everything outside of our vision exists while we aren't looking?"

Of course, that probably seems like a very stupid question to ask. I will most likely never, ever see the back of my head, or even the centremost part of my back, without the aid of a mirror.. and yet I know it's there, and I know it's not an illusion presented by the mirror itself.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this. There's a certain illogic to this thought process which is appealing somewhat.. But I couldn't tell you why. Maybe it's because you don't really talk about stuff like the way I am now.. not often, anyways.

I like the headspin you can get from trying to comprehend that "my red may be your blue", and how there's absolutely no way you can prove or disprove this notion, until human science figures out a way to tap into somebody else's brain & borrow their eyes and mine for a while too (sounds almost Harry Potter like, doesn't it..). Now that would be some crazy science.

I wonder if science has any boundaries. Whether humans will one day think that they've possibly been messing around with 'nature' a little too much.

Then again - one could ask, what is the concept of 'nature' and 'natural'? Is it defined as anything that hasn't been permanently altered or modified by the homo sapiens? Perhaps the continual exploration and expansion of the boundaries of science is in fact a 'natural' progression of the abilities of the human race, therefore what humans are doing in the name of science is not an 'unnatural' occurrence or mode of behaviour.

Maybe I just need some sleep (and less quotation marks).

untitled

and the dogs spray graffiti on the walls

olfactory abuse

such as

PISS OFF

YOU WIZZ WIZ

and

WEE DON'T APPRECIATE YOUR PIDDLE

movies and magic

Being the craze that it is, I guess a post on Harry Potter is inevitable, hey?

Just saw the movie with my parents - and I thought it was a great film. Yes, it was darker than the previous films (although they've just been getting darker and darker), and there weren't many humourous moments, but I liked how the characters were really developed throughout the film, and the way the three leads stepped up to their roles. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint - a great trio. And all the actors surrounding them in their respective roles, they too are excellent and well suited to their roles. Whoever did the casting on this project did a great job in selecting their team, that's for sure!

And the special effects were amazing, as expected. The creatures are always so fun to watch, and the battle scenes at the end of the film were spectacular. Also of note is the fireworks display during an exam, proudly presented by the Weasley twins.. loved the firework dragon that concluded the dazzling piece.

I can't help but think of the cast and crew both on and behind the scenes, what a lucky group of people, to be involved in such a popular and marvellous expedition that is the Harry Potter film series.

infatuations

I can't help but pick up vibes,

and feel them,

and wander after them,

trying not to be too eager,

but ending up too eager to be too aloof..

---

You can't help but be attracted to somebody when they somehow manage to bring back your spirit without you knowing when or how they did it.

When somebody unknowingly lifts you up after you've been feeling a little down or a little drained, or just plain lost, and they revive a little piece of you, because you find you have a common interest or passion, and you'd forgotten all about that feeling inside you because it had been so long since you'd talked to someone of the same emotion..

you can't help but be thankful, because another soul has gently woken a little part of yours.

it has been said

Jules Renard - "It is not how old you are, but how you are old."

So true. Age is merely a number after all, and in many cases not a true reflection of a person's intelligence or maturity. One may often come across a young adult or teen who presents a certain wisdom beyond their years, while also discovering that their older counterparts are uncannily experienced at throwing tantrums for no good reason.

I suppose that in the end, it is the environment in which you are nutured, your surroundings as well as your genes that mould and shape your core being.

I like to think that your immediate environment has a greater influence on your development than the hereditary traits that you are born with. Or perhaps we aren't really born with many (if any) hereditary traits, we just think we are because we spend the greater part of our early years with our parents (unless you had a nanny, in which case my argument possibly falls through the floor), who ultimately influence us in both a conscious and subconscious way.

I'm sure there is no such thing as a 'perfect habitat', and like the (other) animals, we all have our own personal preferences for ideal environments, and I guess that's what inevitably leads to the myriad of personalities, attitudes, opinions, and such, in societies all over the world.

The world's not perfect, and neither are we. But it's certainly an interesting place to be..

my own worst enemy

femme fa·tale [fem fuh-tal, -tahl, fey-; Fr. fam fa-tal]
an irresistibly attractive woman, esp. one who leads men into difficult, dangerous, or disastrous situations; siren.

femme fa·tale (fěm' fə-tāl', -täl', fām')
1. A woman of great seductive charm who leads men into compromising or dangerous situations.
2. An alluring, mysterious woman.

---

But it would seem that I create my own difficult, perhaps disastrous (maybe even dangerous, but only emotionally, not physically risky) situations.. and sometimes step into them after testing the waters.

Or if I'm feeling particularly crazy, I might just fling myself head first into a ridiculous situation, making the moment wonderfully awkward for all involved.

I am a most curious girl, to say the least.

love and friendship

Love is such a subjective term.

Then again, anything could be a 'subjective term'. A word has a general meaning, which most people will grasp. But a single word, no matter how common, can easily provoke emotions and memories in a person, if they have had some kind of particular or especial experience which has led them to attach a personal significance to that word.
Sometimes the word is not a real word; sometimes it is an imaginative extension of an existing word. Oftentimes it is a word not commonly used, but not an elaborate one either.

But I digress.

I ask a question, to myself, to everyone, to no-one:

What is it, to love?

Why do my emotions rise and fall like the tides, dancing a slow waltz in time with a turning moon? I have friends, the bond grows stronger, Love escalates, and yet It must hide in a smile and a warm embrace. Nothing more, nothing more. To risk more is to risk a friendship. Perhaps Love lives in the mind and not the soul.

stan getz

There's something about his musicianship that makes me feel the music. The way he plays, the texture of the sound he creates..

It's magic.

It's a gentle wail, emotive and passionate. The melody grows and falls, and the saxophone is humble, unassuming.

The songs are blessed with a reincarnation like no other.

If I had a saxophone..

spirit & soul

Listening to the Soweto Gospel Choir's Voices From Heaven album makes me re-realise why I fell in love with Africa so deeply.

Not long ago, I believed that we were all African on the inside. Born of the land, with the pulse of the earth coursing through our veins.

As I listen to the opening track, Jikela Emaweni, it's like I'm being reborn.

Like a phoenix rising from its ashes, so my spirit heals, and blooms into the rhythm of the drums.

I am lifted by the choir of voices, away from my fears, my sadnesses, my worries..

This is the refreshment my soul has been thirsting for.

Deep down, we are all children of Africa.

I still believe.

natural fear

We, as humans, are so fragile.. both physically, and emotionally.

Life is a fragile existence. We know nothing outside our own consciousness, and the universe that we live in.

Where did we come from? Where are we going?

What does this all mean?