The Mystery is at once the reason for and the bane of our existence. It can be defined as many things. For some, it is the question of life after death: where do we go after we die? And to many, the answer can be found in religion. In the Christian faith, for instance, practicing individuals believe that after they die they ascend to heaven to be with God; some say this occurs immediately, others at the end of days, but the eventual result is the same. Heaven for many is a kind of paradise, free from violence and earthly constraints. "They shall not hurt and destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea . . ." (Isaiah 11:9, Anthology 709) To ancient civilizations such as the Greeks, the Mystery resided in the gods and the Underworld. Each civilization has had their own interpretation of this great mystery. But one thing is for sure: there will never be a single answer while on Earth.T
That's the point, though, isn't it? We'll never truly know, because the mystery isn't about where we go after we die, or even necessarily what we believe in. The Mystery envelops our entire existence. Who are we, and why are we here? What is our purpose? The joy is not is finding an answer, but in asking the question. "As long as we go on feeling this mystery we feel free and full and happy and we feel and act free and full and happy to others." (Anthology 730) There is great joy in acknowledging that we don't have all the answers, and are not intended to. There are things we'll never know, and that's a wonderful thing. Believing in the Mystery allows you to be inspired, and to believe in something greater than yourself, whether it is a specific religion, or simply in fighting for a cause for which you feel passionate. The Mystery allows us to go beyond what we believed we could do, to accomplish what before seemed impossible. And its the not knowing that really fuels us. "The need for mystery is greater than the need for an answer." (Anthology 723)
But there's a flip side to all of this. For many of us overachievers out there, knowing is about control. We want to make plans, to accurately predict and map out our future. We simply aren't comfortable with leaving a question unanswered. We realize that when we try, we lose a small piece of joy or contentment each time, but we can't help ourselves. There should not be any mystery we can't solve. "I've never seen anybody really find the answer-- they think they have, so they stop thinking." (Anthology 732) We're eventually left with an empty husk, which is filled up by the perceived expectations of others, or our professional ambitions. We put ourselves above the mystery and try to forget we have no control. How narcissistic.
In realizing this about myself, I've been trying very hard recently to reclaim the joy in life, and not be so dictated by what I want or where I want to get. I'm forcing myself to remember, as much as I can, that I am not the center of the universe. Two experiences this year have really helped me work on my self-destructive nature: this class, and my involvement with Texas 4000. I've learned the value and the joy that comes form service. the feeling of true empathy, and that relinquishing control makes life so much better. I hope I can continue along this track, and one day be an example for others of the contentment the Mystery brings.
p.s. to Professor Bump. I want to make sure you know that while we have recently in this class had issues, that I think we don't yet realize how valuable a class this has been. I will probably never have an experience like this again, and I will be extremely sad when it is over. Thank you for all you've done for us. It has changed us all for the better.
"Do to others what you would have them do to you"(Anthology 679), or the "Golden Rule", was a phrase I heard tossed around repeatedly throughout my childhood. So much, in fact, that the saying had all but lost its meaning to me by the time I was old enough to truly comprehend it. I grew up, as I've stated before, in a largely Christian community and household. Those christian values were equivalent to sum of my family's moral values, and they were all I was ever exposed to. However, around thirteen years of age I had a startling revelation, one that I'm sure many Christian kids experience at some point: Christians do not act like Jesus, or any sort of moral fashion similar to his teachings. Many Christians, in my opinion, act in a way that is precisely opposite from all of the Bible's teachings. Spouting the Bible as reference, we excuse ourselves from acting judgmental, hypocritical, selfish, and apathetic. We assuage our feelings of guilt by showing up to church or Bible study once a week, tossing some cash in the offering plate, and singing a hymn or two under our breath. We say we're not perfect, and as such write off anyone who calls out our hypocrisy, while passing judgement on others from afar.
For a long time this made me very angry. Honestly, it still does. In my opinion, the Bible lays out very clearly the expectations of moral and compassionate living, yet Christianity, almost the entirety of that group, ignores the very book we thump in reference. The largest corporations, most corrupt politicians, all claim to be full of "good Christian men and woman", as my grandfather liked to say. Yet we turn a blind eye because its advantageous. After this revelation, for a while I alienated myself from Christianity altogether. I read the Bible a lot, and took what little faith remained into my own hands. What I realized, in doing so, was that Jesus' teachings were full of love, compassion, and empathy. I gained a respect for his life that previously I'd never felt, even while claiming devotion. I wish terribly that Christians did not conduct themselves so far from their intended behavior. As such, I still do not know whether I qualify myself as one of them. What's more, one should not live compassionately just because of the threat of divine retribution, but because it is the right thing to do. In these readings, I've also realized how similar Christian teachings are to other religions. I'd always seen the connection between it, Judaism, and Islam, but I'd honestly never thought about Buddhism or Jainism. "Compassion is what makes the heart of the good move at the pain of others. . . It is called compassion because it shelters and embraces the distressed." (Anthology 680) So there you have it. Compassionate, the wish to aid those less fortunate than you, altruistic life. Why are we missing this?
One area that I find Christianity lacking, however, is its treatment of animals. Even if one truly lives by that Golden Rule, Christians hardly ever extend "treating others as they wish to be treated" to animals. As such, I was floored by the actions of Jainists. "An equality of all forms of life and reverence for all of them is his central teaching. He taught, 'as you live, do so to other.' In that definition of 'others,' he embraced all living being. . . " (anthology 699) Absolutely incredible. Mahavira lived during his time in a way few Western peoples can even begin to contemplate, much less strive to emulate. We in the West should all take a leaf out of his book. Every being has life, therefore deserves to be treated with compassion. They are equal to us in every way, not matter what we have told ourselves. The torture and death of animals violates our most basic ideals: treat others as you wish to be treated. Yet people rarely extend this compassion to other species. It's not a Western ideal. To truly live a compassionate life, one must extend their empathy and love to all beings. Period. We have of course discussed this many times, but this reading has, more than almost any other, driven that point home. I feel refueled, and newly motivated.
The question of “who do you want to be when you grow up” is one we have been asked—in increasingly serious fashion—since we were old enough to answer. At first our responses made our parents laugh, as we professed a desire to become a baker, football star, or in my case, an archaeologist. Yet as we grew, the question became more difficult to answer. We came home for Christmas break and found ourselves dreading that family member we haven’t seen in six months, asking what we plan to do with our major, or for that matter, what our major is this time around. I think about it all the time, more than is healthy, and I usually have a different answer prepared every time I am asked. But if I were ever asked what type of person I wanted to become, or how I wanted to be remembered, I would be brought up short. At this point, I can only answer in abstractions. My hopes for my future self have changed drastically since coming to college. I think, like everyone else, I became so exposed to the plethora of points of view and ways of life that it was impossible for some not to sink in. What’s more, my experiences in this class have altered my outlook on life and the future drastically. Before, any goals for my future state of being were so rooted in my career plans as to be indistinguishable. For a very long time, I wanted nothing more than to be a musician, or otherwise become successful monetarily. I never gave any thought to my future beyond my plans for a job. It was a selfish outlook, one that I tried to mask behind a belief that somehow these dreams were unselfish. I see life a bit differently now. My future is defined less in terms of career, as how that career will help benefit others. I simply, somehow, want to make a difference in the lives of the people around me. I can attain this ultimate goal through almost any career, great or small. If I can leave this world knowing I made a positive difference in the lives around me, I can leave fulfilled. That sounds like such a cliché remark. Who doesn’t want to make a difference? Sadly, few people ever get around to it. Hopefully I’ll be an exception.
One area in which I hope to elicit change is in our tendency to pass judgment or hold some form of prejudice against others. I feel that society, as a whole, tends to be unaccepting of those mindsets or lifestyles they find alien. Especially in the South, where I was raised, the “Christian” community is generally close-minded and judgmental. Growing up in an environment such as this, I feel drawn to combat these habits. Judgment from a community that by nature should be accepting infuriates me. I do not know how my career or life can help to end this specifically within Christians, but I hope to be an example of acceptance and love to those around me, and maybe even to elicit change on a large scale. This could mean working in policy or law to help end inequality, or becoming a leader in whatever community I find myself a part: leading by example. Another area in which I feel a strong pull to change is within the cancer community. Due to a few very personal experiences with cancer throughout my life, I’ve felt for a long time a desire to do something. There is no arguing that people are aware of cancer, yet it feels as if we are no closer to curing the disease than we were 20 years ago. I am no doctor or researcher, nor do I plan to be. So how can I help? I have chosen to do so, for now, through the Texas 4000 organization. I’ve chosen to raise awareness, funds, and knowledge for cancer research by riding form Austin to Anchorage, Alaska the summer after my sophomore year. Such a feat from this side of the ride seems insurmountable, but I feel extremely excited and blessed to be a part of the process, and to in my own way fight back. I feel as though I am standing up for those who cannot do so themselves, because they’re currently battling, or are already gone. I don’t yet know specifically how I will continue this fight once my ride is over, but I’m confidant an opportunity will present itself.
Although I feel that these goals are worthy, at times I lose sight of them altogether. I experience regularly what I felt the most after seeing Earthlings, a certain sense of helplessness. How can I in any way change the status quo, or benefit society? I’m one person. I can’t cure cancer or fight prejudice on my own. This is why the starfish story spoke to me so strongly, and gave me clear and strong motivation for my future. I had heard it from my mother a few times before, yet hearing it at this time in my life carried a weight that previously hadn’t been present. I suppose it’s because the telling was no longer just theoretical: some distant future where I will make all the right choices. “Don’t you there are miles and miles of beach and hundreds of starfish? You can’t make a difference! . . Then, smiling at the man, he said . . . ‘I made a difference for that one.’” (Anthology 246)
All of these personal goals for my future have seemed, for the past few years, to be leading me toward the study of law. I feel that through the obtaining of a law degree, I can achieve a vision for my future that would help me make a difference, fight judgment and prejudice, and aid those afflicted with cancer and other diseases. I could represent the interests of those afflicted, lobby for more medical subsidization of terminally ill patients. I could help end prejudice by working toward legislation legalizing gay marriage. I could fight for those who cannot do so otherwise. As is apparent, this dream leans toward law in a political sense. That may be in the cards, but I hope to elicit change either way.
With such an ambitious dream in mind, my decisions academically will play a major role in future success. You must do well in school overall to study law, but I feel that the majors I choose to complete will also impact my success in law radically. The writing classes I have taken and will take, including this class, will be tremendously helpful. Not only will they help me present myself in a sophisticated fashion in essays prior to entering law school, but learning to write effectively is invaluable to the profession. In law, the majority of one’s job lies in successfully making a claim, appealing to someone in a way that brings them to your side. One does this most successfully if they are well versed in rhetorical strategy. Effective writing is arguably one of the most important tools a lawyer possesses. Furthermore, my education through Plan II will broaden my awareness of others’ views, round me out as a student, and overall, teach me how to think. In Music Business, I will learn the ins and outs of the music industry, which will aid me in my goal of starting in copyright law and artistic or intellectual property. Not to mention that I will also be pursuing music, a personal passion. Added together, I hope my education at this University will give me the tools to succeed and set myself apart in the world of law. What’s more, the experiences I have here will help me become a grounded, confident human being, capable of wading through the marsh of modern society with ease. Hopefully, it will even eradicate that pesky perfectionism.
After such an exhaustive explanation of my character and career goals for the future, I feel better equipped to assess my plans for the next three years at UT. Of course I plan to do well in classes, gain fulfillment from various organizations, and take full advantage of all the opportunities provided me here. Hopefully, I can maintain a fairly good GPA; at least well enough to get into law school. I will complete all of my requirements for Texas 4000, and finally get on that bike for Alaska. I know the ride will create countless memories I'll never forget. I'll maybe get cast in a few more plays, and enjoy the creative process with like-minded people. I'll perform in ensembles, pass my juries, and complete my degrees. I will stress, pull all-nighters, and live on caffeine, and ultimately graduate. But this is only half the reason I’m here. If that. College is the time in our lives where we are most free to explore, to lustily devour every challenge presented. It’s where we foster relationships that last a lifetime, and mold ourselves into the kind of person we wish to become. This has absolutely nothing to do with grades. I want to leave behind, for once, my constant, nagging worries for the future, the need to be successful, and truly live. To some, this goal may contradict all the others, but I see it as a requirement along with all the rest. In the past, I’ve forgone making memories for building résumés, and regretted it each and every time. So now, I want to climb a mountain, ride a mountain bike to Alaska, pub hop in London and swim naked in the ocean. Those experiences that make life beautiful and worth living should be my first priority. I will love, hurt, laugh, cry, break bones, and conquer the world. I want to become happy, fulfilled, wise, and learn to love life and its inhabitants. That is why I am here, and that’s my plan. The rest will just be a bonus.
First off, let me say that writing this blog I could barely because I watched the last episodes of How I Met your Mother and I almost physically in pain I'm so upset by that ending. So yeah. Shit. Moving On.
During the reading from Planet of the Apes, I confess it took me a few pages to realize that I was not reading from the point of view of an ape, but an intelligent man. "They were apes, every one of them, gorillas and chimpanzees. They helped our guards unload the carts." (Anthology 635) I was not the captor, but the captive. How telling is this subconscious choice to become the superior creature! I automatically assumed that I myself, through the narrator, was among the chosen few, the privileged. This says a lot about the perceived place humans inhabit within the world. For most, there is no question that our race is superior, that something separates us from animals, whether this be divine or a recognition of our ability to reason. We see everything on our own terms.
These thoughts continued with in "A Report for an Academy". Red Peter, an ape turned "civilized", recognizes that the only way to purchase his "way out" is to become as humanlike as possible. "I imitated them because I was looking for a way out, for no other reason." (Anthology 677) Honestly, Red Peter's story made me incredibly sad and angry. Maybe that's just the How I Met Your Mother talking. He recognized a flaw in all humans better than any human could: a being is only as valuable as it is human-like. Red Peter only became intelligent because he learned the way we did, walked and talked like we do. In doing so, he lost his true nature, his ape-ness. "Nowadays, of course, I can portray those ape-like feelings only in human words." (Anthology 674) Not only that, but he actually seemed to believe we were right to treat him this way. Of course, this may have been just a facade; he was just playing the game. In so doing, we become the ignorant animals, easily deceived, and he becomes our master. We strip of his true self, his heritage, his entire being, and in the end, he gives us exactly what we expected: he thanks us for it. We must learn to respect all life for what it is, and not relative to how closely it may resemble us. Maybe that's really what separates us from the animals: our unflinching belief in the lies we tell ourselves.
In relation to animal experimentation, we allow ourselves to continue due to this inherent belief in superiority. Maybe if we stopped to realize that we are one animal among many, people would see it differently. But I expect, as with Red Peter, that we will continue, at least in the immediate future, to fool ourselves into thinking we're always the intellectually and thus overall superior race, even if evidence directly to the contrary is staring us in the face.
During the reading on "White Coat Welfare", a specific passed jumped out at me. "Money is the reason that animal experimentation exists. Whose money is this? Yours." (Greek 83) Once again I am filled with such a helplessness, and an immense frustration. I've done everything I can, in light of the information this class has given me, to refrain from behavior that would not condone or ignore the animal cruelty that goes on every day. Although I felt powerless at this time to truly make a difference in alleviating these issues, I at least felt that I was doing what I could, when I could. It filled me with a small sense of hope, that maybe some day in the future things will be different. But now I'm told that "We Americans foot the bill for animal experimentation every time we buy a drug, every time we pay our insurance premiums, every time we visit a physician or a hospital or a clinic." (Greek 83) Just like when I learned about the meat industry, I realized I'd honestly never thought about it. A familiar pang of shame and anger welled up inside me. I feel as if I am being forced to accept something I don't agree with. My Insurance premiums? Health insurance is a necessity for my survival. So once again, I am directly choosing to value my life over thousands of other animals', and I can do nothing about it.
But I digress. What I really wanted to talk about, is how these readings have altered my opinion on the necessity for animal testing. Before, I would've said I thought it was a necessary evil. But the more information I'm given, the more I've come to realize that there isn't a lot of data supporting the transferability of the results procured by such means. Animal testing is a legal precedent for human testing, yet its usefulness stops there. It is a security blanket for humans, the knowledge that a lesser being has been subjected to the new drug or cosmetic so that I'll be safe. Seriously? How ludicrous is that? We are comforted by animal cruelty. I feel like no matter what I do, somehow I will be contributing to vivisection, and to cruelty and death in general.
I'm not ordinarily a conspiracy enthusiast, but it feels to me that our social norms are specifically designed to allow the continued use of these tactics. If I were to voice these views to a layperson, someone who didn't have the information I'd been given, they would think I was an extremist and immediately write off anything I had to say. And this is why until now the horrors of vivisections and animal cruelty have hidden in plain site. They're a social taboo, and anyone who voices their concern is ostracized. "Antivivisectionism became a fringe movement, appealing to an assortment of feminists, labor activists, spiritualists, and others who did not fit easily into the established order of society." (611) I've experienced this personally with vegetarianism, and I'm sure animal research opposition would be met with even more disagreement. So what are we to do? I have no idea. I'm angry, helpless, and feel more than anything like throwing my hands up. I think I'll just go live in the wilderness, grow my own food, and pretend society doesn't exist. That's all I've got.
During these readings, I was confronted with images that, for the first time since watching Earthlings, made me sick to my stomach. "Realdo Colombo, cut open a pregnant dog, removed the puppies, and then hurt them in front of the mother. Ignoring her own pain, she tried to comfort the pups." (Guerrini 46) I understand that this experiment was performed a very long time ago, and that ethics regarding animals hadn't traveled as far as it has today. But for one, many scientists didn't agree morally with the practice even then. "Few of them took literally Descarte's argument that if animals were machines, they did not feel pain as humans did." (Guerrini 45) Second, the arguments employed back then to justify animal experimentation are strikingly similar to the ones used today. "Its' necessary for the advancement of medicine, science, and thus humanity as a whole." We think that since the time of those early natural philosophers that we have elevated our state of being, eliminated the cruelty of the past. We look upon their views as at times despicable, as if we have evolved in sensibility. And yet, the experimentation has carried on, most of us purposefully ignorant, with those who aren't crying "necessity!"
This is such a tough subject for me. On the one hand, it plain and simple does seem necessary in certain cases. Emphasis on certain cases. For instance, the study of tumors in rats for cancer research. In fact, I am a part of an organization designed to raise money for research such as this, or at least for the same purposes. But studying brain trauma in apes by throwing their heads in a metal harness at literally breakneck speeds? I'm not so sure. It is necessary and beneficial that we research methods for curing the diseases that ail us. However, it seems incredibly speciesist for me to feel that animal testing in the method for doing so. Believing vivisection is necessary is by nature speciesist, as it is literally valuing your life over an animal's. When it comes down to it, though, what other choice do we have? Should we perform these experiments on willing humans instead? No one would volunteer for such procedures, and the mere mention of such human experimentation sounds despicable. So the argument goes round and round in circles. We are evolutionarily designed to value our species over others, just as they are designed to do the same. I am at a loss. All of this aside, there is no denying that a line must be drawn. In this case, the allusion to Frankenstein is particularly apt. "Victor Frankenstein built his creature of body parts from stolen corpses, but did not then assume responsibility for his creation. His neglect of and cruelty toward the creature leads eventually to his own death." (Guerrini 75) The connotation here is ominous, that if we do not find some way of halting scientific progress, eventually we will be consumed by our own creation. Furthermore, just as the monster is a foil for Frankenstein, animal testing is a self portrait of our inner selves: our capacity to inflict needless pain on others, wrought from the arrogant belief that we can, and therefore should. "The world has seen and tired of the worship of Nature, of Reason, of Humanity; for this nineteenth century has been reserved for the development of the most refined religion of all-- the worship of Self." (Carroll 544) I have no answers, only a visceral feeling that somewhere along the way, animal testing went much further than was ever necessary, and that necessity doesn't make it right. "Let it not be thought that this is an evil that we can hope to see produce the good for which we are asked to tolerate it." (Carroll 544-545) I wish vivisection didn't exist, but what's more, I wish I could believe certain people didn't enjoy it, and that one day it wouldn't come back to bite us in the ass.
A recent production of Frankenstein, in which the two lead actors (Benedict Cumberbatch and Johnny Lee Miller) traded off the role of Frankenstein and his monster each night. Brilliant. I wish I could've seen this so badly it hurts.
So I want this blog to accomplish a couple different thing: 1) To express the opinion that Alice might seem a sadistic character within the context she is written, but that I do not think Dodgson was a sadistic human being, and 2) to make the claim that while emotional appeal is in fact the first step to political or social change, this makes scientific exploration and philosophy more, not less, important. So Without further ado.
Much of the "sadistic" behavior that Alice exhibits to me seems more a sign of the times than actual Sadism. I disagree with Greenacre's belief that "Carroll is 'devastatingly sadistic but in so veiled and hidden a form as to produce tickling sensations rather than clear awareness of attack . . . readers are charmed and comforted rather than stimulated." (Anthology 482) It simply seems like a stretch to me. Of all that we've learned of Carroll, he was an exceedingly gentle, loving creature. In fact, many make the claim that the Alice books were written as a form of release for Dodgson, an escape through fantasy from temptations of the flesh that drove Carroll mad with shame. As a result, his writing may have been inadvertently aggressive, which could explain the Duchess' actions toward the pig-baby, or Alice's mention of her cat Dinah to Mouse. He also could have been vicariously experiencing through Alice the kind of forwardness or courage he wished he could have exhibited in reality. All in all, I see the Alice books as hiding place, an escape into the fantastic for a brilliant but very unhappy man. The use of animals as playthings or objects seems more silly than sadistic, the poems more mathematically nonsensical than speciesist. Carroll may have in fact been speciesist, but as I said before, it was more an attribute of his era and culture than a lack of virtue. He was Western, Victorian, not to mention a devout Christian. As uncommon as animal rights activism is today, it was all but unheard then. I do not believe that Carroll was sadistic in the same way I don't believe all people who eat meat are nazis. The comparison may in some ways be valid, but that doesn't mean it's one-hundred-percent true.
Moving on, I do not agree that we must let go of reason in order to make a connection with other beings and begin on the road for change. It is just the first step. Frankly, art and witness and love and empathy can only get so much done. "Derrida's blow is delivered not by science but by literature, by an amazingly concise yet powerful demonstration of how the verbal imagination invites us to 'see' with our mind's eye. . . awakening in the reader the feeling of unity with all species . . . (Anthology 489) I understand completely that it is emotional, and not necessarily reason, that is the initial driving force behind political movement. It's fairly intuitive that people react more from emotion than reason. However, as I said before, this is just one step along the path to eliciting real change. You cannot take emotion to the House Floor in Congress as the sole basis for a bill proposal. You won't be listened to. So we must employ reason, and facts. And the key here is that those facts must be unemotional in order to be taken seriously. This is where science comes into play. Prove with science that animals think and feel like us, and prove with facts that the atrocities which we have reacted so strongly to actually occur. Pathos absolutely has a place in every claim. It is what initially grabs our our attention, makes us want to know. But next must come logos, the evidence and logic behind that which we want to change. (Yes, I'm using high school English here) So philosophy and science cannot be written off completely. They should not be the only two bases upon which we live, but they have a place.
