metapunk

I just saw this TED Talk by Karen Armstrong about re-establishing compassion and the golden rule, which exists in all faiths, and many non-faiths, as a central feature of our lives; no matter what country we happen to live in, or what religion or worldview we happen to subscribe to. She calls on us to practice compassion, and to challenge uncompassionate speech wherever it arises.

Some people may feel this is unrealistic, but all I would say to them is that we have to try anyway, and keep trying until we get it… I mean, can you think of a better way to make the world a happier place for all? And what else are you going to do? Keep your head down and hope the forces of intolerance don’t start looking in your direction?

Anyway, the TED Talk led me to http://charterforcompassion.org/, and made me believe there’s still hope for us yet.

Religion is one of those words that means pretty much whatever the speaker wants it to mean. It symbolizes different things to different people, and people end up fighting about it when they’re really talking about entirely different experiences that each of them labels “religion.”

To strict believers, the word summons the rich symbolism and way of life of their own particular tradition. To religious moderates, religion can mean anything from interpretations of scripture which fit liberal politics to more individualistic understandings of spirituality. To critics of religion, the word evokes all the ways in which religion has failed or been misused—holy wars, bigotry, anti-science; abuse of people and ideas.

So if I say the word “religion” to you, chances are you think of all sorts of things that I didn’t intend to evoke. It makes it very difficult to talk about. All I can do is tell you how I personally define the word, and hope that you’ll set aside all those other images long enough to catch my meaning. (continue reading…)

One of my most interesting teachers in university was anthropologist David Turner. After bringing convocation hall to order with a Didgeridoo, he and three other teachers began the first day of my first year anthropology class, describing the four branches of anthropological science (physical, linguistic, archaeology, and socio-cultural). Later that year, Turner taught the socio-cultural portion and I think for the first time in my life I realized that indigenous people really don’t think like us “civilized” folk at all. I mean, like night and day.  As someone who has been dissatisfied with the conventional thinking of Western Civilization all of his life—well, I took that realization to be a sign that there may, in fact, be some intelligent life still left on Earth. (continue reading…)

What is it?  The short answer is: taking a wide view of human experience. Holodoxy is Greek for “whole thinking,” a name intended to contrast with various concepts of orthodoxy (“straight thinking”). Where orthodoxies represent traditional, hierarchically organized dogmas, both religious and secular; holodoxy is heterarchical (distributed, democratic) and fluid. Holodoxy means a global perspective, but one rooted in individual experience. Whether or not it achieves this I will leave to you to decide.

In any case, giving your philosophy a fancy Greek name is a little pretentious, so I often just call it the wide view; or more accurately “a” wide view—one of many possible wide views. (continue reading…)

Albert Camus said*:

“You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.”

I disagree. Sometimes you have to look long and hard to understand what happiness is before you can pursue it. And the meaning of life… well… If you’re always looking for a purpose, it certainly is hard to live—but if you don’t have one at all, living is even harder.

I’ve created the Holodoxy category to summarize the results of my own fumbling search for the meaning of life.  Take from it what you will—it’s a work in progress.  If you’re feeling brave, maybe you can help me refine it.  Constructive criticism is always welcome.

*I’m only joshing—I’ve never read Camus—I just found that quote on the Internet.  When it came down to a choice of which existentialist philosopher to explore for further reading, I picked Buber.  If it helps, I plan to read Camus…