Adagia pt. 1

There are so many short phrases and thoughts that fill the last few pages of our Steven Wallace readings that stand out to me. I don't know exactly where to begin. I think I will just comment on a few of them.

"There is nothing in life except what one thinks of it"
This phrase really began to make me think. At first read, it sounds like a wishy-washy quote from a transcendentalist writer. But as I began to think on it, I guess there is some truth to this for a artist rooted in secular expression. Secular artists are not inspired by a deity or a higher being or a greater power. They are merely inspired by themselves. They are inspired by human existence, by experience and by what they observe. We spend so much of our time during the day thinking and pondering, or at least my day is filled with this. To relate it back to our discussion of "big frame arches" in class, I guess I would say that in the case of this quote, the biggest frame arch for Stevens is himself. The individual is the big thing that controls all else. The quote is very humanist in this way. The Humanist belief is that we are what we make of ourselves. We are in control of our own destiny and how we live our lives. Therefore, our lives are what we think of them. We control our opinions, and our viewpoints and our own outlooks on the world. Although many of these things are controlled by the environment/society that we live in, it is what we think of these influences that makes life what it is for us.

Response to Sunday Morning

As I was browsing through people's posts and blogs, I came across Carissa's blogs on the poetry of Wallace Stevens and in particular, Sunday Morning. She brought up a lot of ideas that connected with my own opinions on Steven's secular work. Carissa mentions that she thinks that stevens is not "worshipping nature" but is instead "enjoying the feeling of peace". I would agree with this point. I don't really see Steven's descriptions and embellishments on the beauty of nature as worship or as his own form of religion, as was discussed in class. I don't see his poetry to be religious poetry at all. I think he uses religious images and references to juxtapose his own personal opinions of how one should live their life. I would even go as far to say that Stevens thinks that religious thoughts disrupt the natural peace and serenity that he feels in everyday life. For example, as the speaker of the poem relaxes on a sunday morning, she is surrounded by serene images, such as a "Coffee and oranges in a sunny chair". These peaceful and lovely thought seem to be rudely interupted by the thought of "Palestine, Dominion of Blood and sepulchre". The mood of the poem abruptly shifts from being relaxed and happy to darker and troubled. This pattern continues throughout the poem, with nature images and references being presented in a happier light and religious thoughts interrupting them.
The stanza that stood out to me the most in this beautiful poem was the beginning of the final. The speaker thinks this thought as she gazes upon the water: "The tomb in Palestine/ Is not the porch of spirits lingering. It is the grave of Jesus, where he lay". The quotation suggests that the speaker of the poem is not moved and spiritually inspired by the thought of the tomb of Jesus. To her, it is merely the tomb and nothing more. Instead, she points to real natural images and experiences that she has had that are more tangible and moving to her. She seems to be saying that she is so moved by the nature around her that she need not look anything farther to any metaphysical ideas. She would much rather just "be" and exist.

response to Just Thinking

I would like to further discuss some of the ideas the Oliver brought up in his post "Just Thinking". I think he touched on some topics and general ideas that have been kind of fuzzy in the past few class discussions. First of all, he questions "Is one of [religion's] major functions to create community?". I wouldn't say that creating a community is religion's main purpose. I think it's an incredibley prevalent biproduct of what a religious group offers. People bond over similar interests and beliefs, particularly when it is such a personal decision as religion. I think that religion's main purpose in most cases is to give an individual explaination, reason and comfort. I think a community is built from these common explainations and ideals within a religious faith.

Now, this may be a biased opinion because of my own convictions on religion and the role it plays in my own life, but I don't think that religion is truly that "biggest arch" in one's life. If it were, it would dictate every decision we make, every moment of our lives. I think there are more influencial things in one's life that effect their ways of living to a greater extent, such as personality, social/familial influence or even general, religiously unaffliated morality. One might say that all morality is tied back to a religion, but I don't think this is true. I think there are general morals that are ingrained in our society, religious or not. A good example is the "Golden Rule". This is not a particularly religious motto, but it definitley moral and indicative of how we should live our lives as human beings. I think religion can be the "wrapping" in which these morals are given to us. Certain religions teach these morals in particular ways. But at the same time, I know many people that are not very religious or completley apathetic, who are also morally sound and good human beings. So, I think it is incorrect to say that religion is the most important "arch" in everyone's life. It has the potential to be, but I think there are other aspects of one's life that are more influencial for the general population. It also could be that I took the entire "arch" metaphor the wrong way. :)

A very "religious" weekend

I am currently sitting in the living room of my cousin's house in New York, gorging myself on bagels and lox and pretty much any other food you could possibly think of, all in the name of the Jewish tradition called a "Bar Mitzvah". While sitting in synagogue bright and early this morning, wrapped in my prayer shawl (tallit) and holding a Hebrew prayer book, I found my mind wandering to our discussions of religion in our class. I began to look around at the 100 faces in the sanctuary, some who hadn't been in a synagogue since our last Jewish family event, my own sister's Bat Mitzvah last fall. Why were we all here? And why did I feel so comforted as I glanced around the room at people I knew, and many that I didn't? I reflected back to our idea of community and social identity that religious groups create. Many of the short sermons that were given in the 2 hour service focused on this particular synagogue's quest to create a comfortable relgious family for members. There were many references to the specific role that my uncle, aunt and cousins have played in the community. It seems like each of my relatives have found a place in this community and in particular, my cousin's really identify with this group of people. The walk around the synagogue like it is their own home. I think this is a really great example of how we as human beings strive to find this sense of identity in a community and many find it in their religious group, as my relatives have.

I also noticed that there was a very strong emphasis on the Jewish community as a whole, not just the individual synagogue you are affiliated with. One of the big ideas of the Bar Mitzvah celebration is the pre-teens transition to an adult member of the Jewish community. After your bar mitzvah, you are considered an adult in the eyes of the Jewish religion and you take on new responsibilities, as well as privileges. There was a lot of discussion of how to become this "good" jewish community member, which basically focuses on your sense of helping/giving to others (mitzvot). I really began to see how much religion in general focuses on finding your identity within your specific religion this weekend.

Inspiration for Hull House

As I have been reading Jane Addam's account of her life as the creator of Chicago's Hull House at the turn of the century, I began questioning whether or not religion itself is the main inspiration for the way she lived her life. As we see in the first few chapters, equality is a concept that was deeply engrained in her upbringing by her Father, who I would say is the main inspirational force in her life. The early grasp Addams had on the sense of what equality means within a society and culture is one of the main moral backbones to her Hull House projects. Whether it was through her Father's insistence on their humility with their wealthier upbringing, or his fervent love of the work of Abraham Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclaimation, Jane Addams was surrounded by the equality message throughout her childhood. This liberal and progressive outlook that her Father held may have been influenced by his religious beliefs, Quakerism, which Jane followed as well. Yet I have yet to see many references to God, or any other religious figure that serves as her foundation/inspiration for Hull House. She does not directly connect her work to the message and/or will of God, as we see with religious missionaries. I truly think it was a combination of Addam's upbringing and own approach to her own life style and education (she attended college and recieved a B.A. degree, which was very uncommon of anyone at the time, especially women) that lead her to make the social changes in Urban Chicago that she did. She was progressive in her approach to her own education, and wanted to bring this level of education and progressive thinking to the places that needed it most, poverty stricken city slums. I personally think that Jane Addam's work was incredibly inspiring and innovative for her time. Whether or not her work was an act of religion is very much debatable. I don't see much evidence of it being anything more than moral and ideological.

Response to Religious Expression

"While my background has led me to respect various traditions and institutions set up by organized churches, I find that when these institutions become so prominent the initial belief is lost..."

I felt inclined to respond to Oliver's post entitled 'Religious Expression'. I empathize with some of the frustrations he experiences in common day religious institutions. I often think that different religious sects and institutions become so engrossed in promoting their own individual "message" that they lose sight of what the real purpose of their institution is. In my own personal experience, some of the most religious, devout individuals that I know are also the most hyppocritical and narrow-minded. I really think this is due largely to the focus that the organized religious groups take. I believe that this really relates to Oliver's point that often times people are "unable to separate their theology and the traditions instituted by their organized religious body". They become lost in their emphasized goal to prove that their religion or "way" is the correct, superior way that they act contradicts the morals and lessons taught to them within the ideology of the religion they are preaching. I also think it's interesting that two people from very different religious backgrounds agree and are frustrated with similar things that affect organized religion today. I really think that this overbearing "we are right" mentality is what drives many people away from certain religious groups and also affects devout follower's personalities long term.

Margaret Fell

I think that this excerpt from the writings of "Women Speaking Justified" fits in very well with previous discussions we have had in class about the different ways to read and interpret religious doctrines. In order to best suit a culture, society, time period, or in this case gender, the religious document is revisited and reinterpreted. This is a contributing factor in how religions have evolved over time. In the case of Margaret Fell's work with the Quaker religion back in the 1600's, she argues for the equality of women and how they should be viewed in the church. In this way, she is way ahead of her time. She argues that the Bible never states that women are inferior outright, and in fact there are many passages in which woman are glorified. The example that stood out to me was the reference to the Church of Christ being referred to as a "woman" in the scriptures. Fell points out that the "Church of Christ is represented as a woman; and those that speak against this Woman speaking, speak against the church of Christ, and the Seed of Woman, which is the seed of Christ". Now, this connection does seem a little far stretched to me. But just like in any attempt to interpret the Bible and it's scripture, certain passages are stretched to their breaking point and others are completley ignored. In reality, it depends on the way that you look at the conception of the Bible. If one were to think of it as a document written by a human being, specifically a male, it would make sense to interpret males as the dominant sex and females as the weaker one. Since the writing would be reflective of the times, and they were times where woman were looked down upon and seen as inferior, then it makes sense to interpret the actual text this way. But if a religious person were to assume that the words of the bible were the exact words of God, then it is more up to interpretation. Fell makes a good point that God would not have and doesn't seem to make a definitive statement in terms of the hierarchy of the sexes. There are passages that can be interpreted both ways in terms of the place of woman in society. In general, I do believe that Fell is correct in saying that woman should be able to have a place in the church according to scripture. According to the text, God wants anyone and everyone to follow in him and look to him for comfort, hope and faith. There is no section that restricts this active approach to religion to males only.