Gilgamesh and Gandhi

 

How does ”wrestling with the stranger” function as an ethical theme in the story of Gilgamesh, so as to illustrate the positive side of “doubling”?
         
           Fasching and deChant claim that doubling most likely first occurred during humanity’s move from tribal communities to urban civilizations because of the extreme changes in social environment that went on during that time.  The Epic of Gilgamesh provides an example of a person who no longer identifies with the tribal collective, but is finding himself as an individual among other individuals and
coming to grips with mortality.        
          Gilgamesh embarks on an ethical journey when instead of understanding his identity from his perspective as a prince, he views himself with the eyes of his double, Enkidu.  Enkido becomes the ‘mirror for Gilgamesh’s soul’ and his reflection through Enkido allows him to “see and understand himself and his relationships to others”.  Through this relationship, Gilgamesh attains what Fasching and deChant call ‘reflexive self-awareness’ which allows him to obtain much needed humility and wisdom.     
          Gilgamesh’s doubling is thought to be positive because it permits him to reflect upon himself honestly through the eyes of another.  Fasching and deChant state, “doubling becomes demonic only when this capacity for self-reflection is avoided through self-deception, so that responsibility for the actions of the self in particular circumstances are denied”.  Gilgamesh’s doubling led to the transformation of an individual from egocentric to compassionate.  In losing his arrogance, he was motivated to pursue justice not only for himself, but for his kingdom as well.      

In what ways does the story of Socrates express an ethic of the holy?

          Socrates resided within the ‘holy community,’ though, he passed back and forth from the sacred to the holy because he also identified as a citizen of Athens.  He resided within the holy community because of his belief that recognizing ignorance is the beginning of wisdom, this being a characteristic of the ‘holy’.  Socrates’ teaching his students to question everything created a feeling of discomfort within the citizens of Athens because they felt he was threatening their sacred order.  
          The Athenians’ focus on the ‘cosmos writ small’ had them caged within the ‘little picture’.  They desired to maintain order as they knew it because they valued what was familiar and of ‘this world’.  They had all the answers they needed and were comfortable with the way things were because they believed it
was the way things should be.  Their understanding was sacred because the knowledge was passed on through customs and traditions and anyone who questioned it received a hostile reaction and became the ‘enemy’.  This is what eventually happened to Socrates.  He was accused of being an atheist because
Athenians were blinded by their sacred-centric views in such a way that they could not fathom the idea of an internal god because it was too different and other worldly.  As Fasching and deChant claim, “[Socrates] invented ethics as we now understand it, namely, ethics not as observance of the ”sacred customs” but rather as the questioning of sacred customs and sacred order”.

In what ways does Gandhi’s ethic violate the modernist paradigm of the privatization of religion?  
          
           With the emergence of secularization brought about by the Enlightenment, western civilization put God on the back burner to make way for scientific explanation.  Religion’s answers were no longer satisfactory in comparison to the scientific method’s appeal to reason and logic.  This event downgraded religion for westerners—their beliefs were removed from the holy sphere and placed within a sacred sphere.  Those who chose to maintain their beliefs had to do so within a private realm.            
          When Western society was promoting the marginalization of religion, Gandhi instead promoted his belief that religion and politics are intertwined:  “I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means”.  Religion and politics were one and the same for Gandhi.
          The merging of politics and religion Fasching and deChant state as follows, “For Gandhi, religion and politics became one through the practice of brahmacharya.  For only selfless compassion for the well-being of others can inspire the trust that makes political leadership possible”.  Gandhi’s aim was to
be selfless and live life for others.  He was not satisfied with the ‘cynicism of politics-as-usual;’ he desires to turn politics into a ‘spiritual and ethical enterprise’.  Gandhi found his ethics through his religion and believed if politics was to truly be honest and ethical as well, it would have to do it with the involvement of religion.  

Does the concept of human dignity play a role in Gandhi’s thought?  If so, how?
         
          The concept of human dignity does play a role in Gandhi’s thought because his drive for justice was sparked by experiences of humiliation that compromised his human dignity.  “Any conduct that is contrary to truth and ahimsa is to be eschewed and any book that violates these principles is not a shastra [sacred scripture]“.  
          The two experiences that changed Gandhi’s direction in life occurred when he was fresh out of law school.  They both involve him being physically thrown out of a place because of prejudice.  In the first situation, he tried to use his weight as a British-trained attorney with a British political agent, but it failed him, and in the second, he attempted to ride first-class in a train and was ordered to the baggage compartment, but when he refused he was thrown off the train.  
          These experiences coupled with his interpretation of the Gita allowed for Gandhi to move forward with his teachings of non-violence through soul force.  It was those brushes with humiliation that led him to understand the plight of the ‘untouchable’ or the ‘other’.  Because of this knowledge, he came to a new
understanding of what his life objective would be—to seek justice for all people through non-violent means.  His promotion of self-suffering over inflicting suffering on others was the way he believed justice could be reached.  

Organized Chaos

Upon the cessation of a private review session I had with a fellow classmate before World Religions class, I realized I was really pumped for the midterm we were going to have.  I walked into the auditorium thinking “I’m totally going to ace this!”  Around question 61 I realized the GTA lied when I specifically asked if there would be questions that weren’t covered on the crib/review sheet.  Fortunately, those incredibly specific questions regarding obscure passages in the readings were quite limited, so I have no excuse for not receiving an A.  The first 90 questions were multiple choice and the last 10 were short answer.  I left one answer out of 102 blank because I couldn’t for the life of me recall what important figure brought communism to China.  It was not on my review sheet and it was part of a reading that was not mentioned in class.  I sat in my chair for 5 minutes mentally scanning names of important figures we learned about and couldn’t even conjure up some semblence of a good guess.  I was quite ashamed for leaving an answer blank, but, I had to get over it.  So, I attempted the bonus questions.  Of course, one just had to ask what family Ganesha was a part of.  Since I know Brahma is generally overlooked, I narrowed it down to Vishnu and Shiva in the Trimurti.  And being such a fan of the counter-culture, I chose Vishnu because Shiva is so blasted popular.  Curses! I was wrong.  I could have hung myself, but the second bonus question asked to explain how Buddhism rejected Upanishadic and Vedic Hinduism.  Thankfully, I knew that answer.  I just hope it was what they were looking for.  I found myself trembling whilst testing and at some points I thought I’d go mad.  At first I thought it was just my desperation for the grade, but several hours later I remembered I had about 18 ounces of coffee earlier in the morning. 

I walked out of the exam with a lot less arrogance, realizing the exam had humbled me.  But I respect DeChant more for it.  This class is not an ‘easy A’ and if I eventually attain it, it will because I put forth the effort.  At best, I’ll find out my grade on Thursday, but most likely it’ll be Tuesday before I know. 

I walked my anxious self to the library after class, as I regularly do and worked on some Anthropology homework.  I completed my readings for tomorrow but have yet to complete my project.  It shouldn’t take too long.  A 3 to 5 page essay and a kindship chart should take but 2 or 3 hours of my time? 

On my drive home my head swirled with what I still have to accomplish before this week is over: a kinship project, Russian homework, completion of the eastern religions reading, and a couple poems for a certain Poetry Jam to be had on Thursday evening.  My mind wandered from school to recreation and contemplated what my compositions’ focii would be.  I thought of incorporating my studies into the poems.  And an idea to express music as a religion was born.   I hope to work on this tomorrow after classes.  But it, of course, will take a backseat to my studies.  And with all that I still have to make it to the nearest computer with a decent internet connection and headset tomorrow by 5PM BST to hear Shardcore’s interview.

I <3 USF’s Bull Market

I have never held/seen up close/read a copy of L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics until yesterday afternoon.  Though, I certainly didn’t read it all yesterday afternoon.

I was walking through the Bull Market yesterday and stopping at several booths and learning what their representatives had to say about their organizations.  I enjoyed it but mostly brushed off a lot of the religious hogwash and took to the ‘atheist/humanist’ booth.  We both let out our religious frustrations and even did some debating but then our Rabbi neighbor decided to join in on the conversation.  Mr. Humanist/atheist was going on about how he thinks women should have two husbands so that if one fucks up she will have a back-up.  I expressed my belief in monogamous relationships when considering offspring and how it is beneficial to the offspring to have two stable figures (Ideally yin and yang) in their lives.  I began to provide some examples of such relationships in nature and how I think it is more nurturing to the offspring than to have fleeting parents.  The rabbi liked my example and mentioned we should look to nature to find ourselves, probably thinking I’d side with him.  But instead I decided to go on about homosexuality in nature and how it seems absurd for humans to debase a person for taking part in such things.  He of course was turned off once I gave examples of the Bonobos, which he considered a poor example.  He said, “What about regular animals like cows and sheep? Are they gay?”  Uh…How is the Bonobo not a regular animal?  They’re our closest relative!  He kept asking me if cows and sheep participated in same sex sex.  As if I fucking know.  I told him I had no source and that I couldn’t provide an argument on it so he took that as my admitting defeat.  Which seems ridiculous to me because sheep and cows have been domesticated for fucking ever and shouldn’t even be taken into consideration in my opinion.  They’ve been tampered with.  If you can find me a band of wild cows or sheep and present some research study on their purely hetero lifestyles, I may consider it.  He also kept going on and on about cows and sheep being hetero and wouldn’t allow me a word in edgewise.  I was even planning on stopping at his booth afterward but not after that!  I’m sure he’d think I was only there to give him a hard time.  So eff him!
So then I walked over to the Scientology booth disguised as a Dianetics booth offering a FREE STRESS TEST.  One guy who happened to be foreign with incredibly bad breath said “open your hands and hold this”.  I held two tubes (one in each hand) that looked like they could have been made out of aluminum.  They were attached by some cable to some sort of meter that supposedly measured “upsets in my life”.  First he asked me my name and then asked me to visualize something from my past.  I decided I would make this easy on him and just divulged stressful occurances in my life.  But I also made sure to mention many pleasant things in my life so that I could watch the meter and test how consistent it was.  The wand was going crazy back and forth.  Everytime I projected my voice it would shoot to the stressed side of the meter.  I would mention the stress of tests at school and homework and balancing my life then how fruitful it is to receive an education.  The wand was bouncing to the stressed area the entire time I talked.  I thought it was full of crap, but the Dianetics fellows kept insuring me that it was measuring my stress.  And that it was bad stress it was measuring.  I said, “There’s positive stress and negative stress. How can this primitive piece of technology tell the difference?”  They assured me that it was measuring what has upset me.  Which is crap because the wand shot to ‘STRESS’ everytime I got excited whether or not I was happy or upset. 

After the test, the guy who conducted it showed me a copy of Dianetics and said the answers to my problems are in this book, and this book costs $35.  Do I look like I carry wads of cash around between classes?  This isn’t Cornell or Harvard.  My filthy rich parents (or not) haven’t sent me to school with a couple of Benjamins as my lunch money.   I don’t have $35 to throw away on 1,000 sheets of paper when I can go to the library and check out whatever I please for free.  $35 might be what the messiah of Scientology accidentally finds under his car seat when looking for a tube of Astroglide, but I am paranoid about carrying cash on my person after having my pocketbook stolen in the past and $35 is a full tank of gas.  And I’m sorry, but I find a full tank of gas a hell of a lot more useful than Dianetics. 

He flipped through some pages for me rather quickly but my eyes caught on to the term “Nirvana”, probably because it was recently covered in my World Religions class.  Once I had possession of the book again I went to the glossary to find it again and read the definition.  “The goal of Hindus is Nirvana”.  Uh..What?  Nirvana’s a Buddhist term and Buddhists aim to reach Nirvana.  Hindus aim to reach Moksha.  That’s a grave error in my opinion and this was my first impression of Dianetics.  The man tried to argue this and said I wasn’t reading it in its correct context. Well, yeah, I can pick out a word and create a context for it and that’d be right too, but that doesn’t mean the word is being used correctly.  So then another male chose another angle and decided to blame the error on the editors who wrote the glossary.  So, I had nothing else to say other than that was my first impression and that I’d mostly like spend the rest of the time reading it looking for errors.  So I managed to get away. 

My brain was fairly exhausted by that point and I decided to wind down at the library.  I had Russian club to attend within an hour. 

Thankfully, it wasn’t about anything profound; we just watched a Russian film which was incredibly Americanized.  It was just like American action films – Filler.  But at least the leads actors were hot and spoke in Russian, so I was pretty much mentally masturbating throughout the 2 hours and 11 minutes we watched it. 

It – Shadowboxer – is about a young Russian boxer who loses his eyesight during a fight and falls in love with his doctor who permitted him to fight even though she knew he had torn retina only because he said ‘pretty please.’ She is an ex drug junky that was once involved with a major drug trafficker.  She witnessed his murder and has to run from the law because she has been framed.  Uh, this isn’t meant to be a synopsis.  I am stopping there before I go on for another half hour.  But my favorite part in the film is where she sits on his  lap after they escape from the hospital and he says “I can feel your smell.”  And she replies, “How awful! Like animals!” And then they make out, like, super hard. It made me chuckle.  Still does. 

I spent 10 hours on campus yesterday.  I got home exhausted.

Now I have to attend World Religions – my favorite class.