Salvia and Religion

For my final paper, ill try and write about something a little less mundane. I recently read an article in Gentleman’s Quarterly on Salvia, a strong (the strongest natural known to man) yet legal hallucinogen that many refer to as “the Jesus drug.” Salvia is plant, found mainly in the forests of Oaxaca Mexico. Traditionally, it is taken along with magical mushrooms and used by shamans for religious purposes.
When I tried the drug, my mind expanded into a different reality. The ceiling of my room was overcome with patterns of a colorful kaleidoscope. I stepped outside my own body, and was able to ask myself (or my mind rather) questions of extreme importance—ex: what is the meaning of life? During the trip, was that I never actually was able to answer any of the important philosophical questions. Salvia makes you aware of an answer, but prevents the mind from articulating it. At one point in my trip, I felt that I knew the meaning of my existence.
In many ways, I feel religion serves a similar purpose as a Salvia trip. Understanding religion is impossible. There are clues (religious texts) that allow one to grasp the most basic aspects of religion, but understanding religion as a whole many times is a mere feeling. For me, Religion (like a Salvia trip) does not provide immediate answers to life’s questions, but reaffirms my belief that the answers exist in many forms.

I enjoyed class, learned a great deal, and enjoyed the way we approached religion as a class.

The Stars of Tallapoosa

The Stars of Tallapoosa gave me an overwhelming religious feeling. Many times I don’t contemplate exactly what constitutes my religion (protestant), but I instead try and internalize it as a feeling. After reading this poem, I just felt religious. When the poem notes that “there is no moon” I pictured a completely different (almost Star Wars like) yet heavenly world. I think the poem illustrates an important point about religion. For me, the poem’s imagery was a key mechanism in conveying a religious aura. Many times, religion is merely a mental image. Despite the fact that we have been studying religion in a broad sense (paying special attention to how religion as a whole provides a framework by which to live), we ignored the idea that sometimes religion is a mere feeling. This was illustrated somewhat by the artwork we studied last week, but I think it comes out most in Stevens’ poetry. I guess I felt an almost magical feeling when reading The Stars of Tallapoosa. Magic (in my opinion) would be one of the broadest concepts that relates to religion, but nevertheless magic relates to the unknown. As I said before, sometimes religious feelings come from the unknown.

Rothko and developing one's own Abstactionist view of Religion

Rothko’s painting Omen of the Eagle says a great deal about the philosophy behind abstractionist art. The picture does not illustrate any particular incident in the [Hellenistic] drama but is “concerned with the spirit of myth which is generic to all myth at all times” I would argue that this concept relates directly to the view we have been discussing in class.
Rather than paying particular attention to the quirks of different religions, we have been developing a sort of ethos/framework that is applicable to a variety of situations. Abstractionist art highlights the idea of religion being in “the unknown.” In Rothko’s response to a New York Times writer who was puzzled by the meaning of his work, he noted, “art is an adventure into an unknown world that can only be explored by those who take risks.” Rather than developing a specific narrative, such as the one developed by Christian Ethiopians, abstractionism presents an alternative framework—a framework that is not exclusive to a specific culture or mindset.
Rothko also says in his letter that “it does not matter what you paint as long as it is well painted.” I believe that the specifics of a certain religion are unimportant compared to the overall mechanism which is developed in order to contribute/encourage a meaningful existence. Just as Rothko defines the world of art as a world exclusive to those who take risks, I believe that taking an abstractionist approach to religion entails equal risk. The generic and ambiguous nature of abstractionism would be incompatible with certain mainstream religions. People enjoy having a set of rules/religious guidelines to follow. If one were to approach religion in an abstractionist manner (defining an individualistic religious mechanism), there would be no assurance about the afterlife, or any other aspects common in organized religion. One would have to live with considerable risk, and be confident that their individual mechanism for living was suitable for the god/gods/deities they believe in. Abstractionism demonstrates that religion is possible in an individualistic sense, rather than the collective approach we have been studying.

The Importance of Interpretation

I really enjoyed what we talked about in class today. I think Pollock’s artwork suggests that religion can be recognized not only through association w/ the common motifs we have discussed in class (social cohesion, narrative), but also through an innate sense. Even without knowing the title of the painting we studied in class, most felt it was related to religion. Pollock’s work resurfaced an issue that was talked about on Monday (in reference to the film). Is it possible to exist without the religiously influenced framework we have developed throughout our course? Pollock’s work does not present a mechanism that an average person can understand or interpret. Despite the ambiguous and undecipherable meanings of many of his paintings, individual interpretation served a marked purpose. Christianity and other organized religions many times construct a black and white philosophy for its followers to uphold. Pollock presents just the opposite.

Pollock’s work reminds me of the music I listen to. James Mercer, the leader singer of The Shins, writes lyrics that are meaningful only to him (someone mentioned in class that Pollock had a special meaning for each painting). Two years ago I met James Mercer, and asked him about his lyrical techniques (which I had been trying to decipher). I was right about some of his influences, but most of the lyrics are relevant to his own life. Ironically enough, each song he writes seems to relate to me in some way. Pollock’s art and the music from the Shins are an example of how common framework is not necessary to understand religion. Sometimes you have to craft your own ideas of spirituality in a way to is most prevalent to your own life. Individual interpretations of art and music lead to different social/cultural groups and fraternity. A set mechanism for existence is not always an initial necessity. Developing individual mechanisms are equally powerful tools for social cohesion. People who share a similar view of Pollock or James Mercer’s song lyrics grow together and work off each others individual interpretations to develop of collective mechanism for understanding. Artwork and music are excellent examples that depict the power of individualistic interpretation.

Pollock, Psychology and Religion

The most interesting part of the article was the references to Jungianism. The ideals behind Jungianism (which are rather cultish but interesting never the less) relate to religion as a whole. As a religion, Jungianism accuses Christianity of causing many of the problems that the western man faces. Jungianism is based around Freudian ideas, and posits that aggression and the libido are the driving forces of man. Christianity (as Jungianism states) has “sex based” laws that prevent man from living in a natural way. Jungianism provides an alternative mechanism by which to live. Unlike Christianity, which promotes self control and a strict moral etiquette, Jungianism embraces/promotes the innate instincts of libido and aggression. In a way, Jungianism provides a framework almost opposite to that of most national religions. Ironically, Freud’s ideas of the unconscious expand into religion (Jungianism), and promote controversial theories, just as they do in psychology.

Hull-House and Religion

Though the formation of the Hull house may have not been specifically influenced by religion, the house bonds cultures together (social cohesion), and in that way, serves a purpose similar to that of most religions. This was especially clear after looking at the website about the urban experience in Chicago. Looking at the photographs on the website, it is apparent that the Hull house was a refuge for many different cultures.





The picture above depicts “Wares from the various art and manual training classes were sold at the annual Hull-House fiesta." The Hull house provided immigrants with the skills they needed to succeed in American (such as manual training skills), but did not deprive them of their traditions. The best way for a culture to acclimate to a new environment is to mix new tradition with old, rather than convert wholly to new. The Hull-house provided an atmosphere where maintaining certain non-American traditions was possible.

If compared to religion in general, the Hull-house would not be “staunch” or “conservative.” In fact, it would be considered quite the contrary-- “tolerant” and “liberal.” Religion, in my opinion, should not provide guidelines so strict that there is no room for innovation or change. The Hull-house was an interesting example, and perhaps one of the first true examples, of an institution that accepted other cultural ideals. It was a place where cultures could mold their own identity by mixing old tradition with new. If the ideals of the Hull house were to be expanded into a spiritual scenario, they would provide a good baseline for a religion—the liberalness would not mold the religion around specific rules but rather a mix of different ideologies.

Exceptions to the Frame

This blog is response to our class discussion yesterday. We determined that most people’s lives are regulated by some sort of religious frame (a frame that deals with social cohesion and explaining aspects of life etc.) Daniel commented that a low-level atheist would not be governed by this frame, and I was about to bring up another idea, but never got the chance to. How does a religious frame govern a person who is completely narcissistic? If someone sees themselves as the center of the world, and pursues every aspect of life in a hedonistic way, they would seemingly not need a framework for their life. They (themselves) serve as their lifes frame, and have no need for social cohesion, or the need to understand why things happen they way they do. The idea of a broad social frame (that follows the basic aspects of religion) to guide everyone’s lives is an interesting idea. I still think there are exceptions to the rule. I would argue that for most people who conform to their societies norms, their lives are regulated by a frame that contains all the aspects of religion.

Religion and the Hull-House

By way of illustration he showed me a beautiful little church which had been built by the last slave-trading merchant in Bristol, who had been much disapproved of by his fellow townsmen and had hoped by this transmutation of ill-gotten money into exquisite Gothic architecture to reconcile himself both to God and man. His impulse to build may have been born from his own scruples or from the quickened consciences of his neighbors who saw that the world-old iniquity of enslaving men must at length come to an end. The Abolitionists may have regarded this beautiful building [Page 140] as the fruit of a contrite heart, or they may have scorned it as an attempt to magnify the goodness of a slave trader and thus perplex the doubting citizens of Bristol in regard to the entire moral issue.

I think this quotation illustrates the two possible ways religion may connect to the formation of the Hull-house. On one hand, Jane Adams may have extended her childhood fears of “entering a fiery hell” into her later life. Like the slaveholder who builds the church, the Hull-house may have been an act of egoistic altruism (as ironic as that sounds). Adams may have empathized with others (empathy is when you place yourself in other people shoes) and formed the house in order to relieve her own pain (that she felt through the psychological connection with others). In psychology, this concept is called oneness. On the other hand, just as the abolitionists may have regarded the church as a beautiful building (or accepted the slave-owners benevolent intentions), Jane Adams may have started the Hull house with purely altruistic intent. Religion as a whole does not play a specific role in the development of the Hull-house, but the intentions Jane Adams had were most likely influenced by her religious background.

The Validity of Fell's Argument in Todays Society

The article on women’s speaking interested me. I think an important aspect to discuss is how valid the argument would be, depending on the period in history. Obviously this article was written some time ago when religion (as we discussed in class) was not passive, but rather a driving factor that affected everyday life. Whereas the article may have provided a convincing argument at the time, because of the use of direct evidence from the bible, I think it would be less valid in today’s society. I say this for a number of reasons. One, culture is not influenced by the bible as much as it once was. Two, interpretation of the bible has become increasingly liberal. What I mean by that is people have learned (perhaps for selfish reasons) that the scriptures of the bible can be manipulated in almost anyway. For example Fell notes that, “when Jesus was risen, the first Day of the Week, he appeared first unto Mary Magdalene” in an attempt to illustrate the importance of Jesus’ mother, and in turn, women in general. One could make multiple arguments to retort Fell’s point. Perhaps Jesus did not return to Mary, and Mary just happened to be around the tomb when Jesus was resurrected. That’s a poor example I admit, but the point is that the bible is used by people who (when making an argument that involves the bible) selectively expose information that seems to support their argument. I agree women should have the right to talk and give sermon in Church (obviously), but Fell’s argument would be somewhat obsolete in today’s society, mainly because it would look (to a critical and modern day citizen) that she used select scriptures from the bible to mold an argument about women’s speaking rights. Since our modern day culture is not driven by the bible, Fell would have better luck constructing an argument that is more applicable to our culture.

Does Religion retard or promote social growth?

I would argue that religion acts as a double edged sword in relation to social growth.

In one respect, religion contributes to the formation of social groups by providing common guidelines/norms the members can unite under. These norms, which in many cases have underlying moral premises, contribute to the formation of common ways of life. People who live similarly bond to form groups, and from an evolutionary perspective, acceptance (and in many cases survival) depends on how well an individual can adapt to the customs associated with the group. Since religion lays down set guidelines for certain customs, it is easy for people to form groups based on these clear and unambiguous customs. In turn, survivial (at least in a social respect) is made easier by the implmentation of religion.

On the other hand, religion also causes social separation. To put it coarsely, participating in the social aspects of religion is many times analogous to being in a cult (or exclusive society). The very customs that help form groups also exclude others from admittance. Even in Christianity, the customs of one denomination may cause a prejudiced view of an almost identical denomination. The degree of social separation has a direct relationship with the degree of difference of religious customs; social separation increases as the difference in religious customs increases. This was especially illustrated in the article about Portugal’s view on Ethiopia. Though both Christian nations, the difference in Ethiopian customs seemed to make Portugal almost unrelated to Ethiopia. Religion may serve as an important evolutionary tool (to unite people over common customs), but it also increases the social gap between societies.

Cross Cultural Smoking

One thing that strikes me as interesting is the marijuana use in Rastafarian religion-- especially how the idea of “the herb” is linked to specific scriptures in the bible. Most of the links between pot and the bible seem rather far fetched, and overly general. For example, in Genesis, marijuana is not the only “herb that yields seed,” and man can eat “many herbs of the field.” An herb serving as “the service of man” could mean many other things besides the pleasant affects of marijuana. Herbs can be used as medical remedies, food, etc. Though the link between marijuana and specific bible scriptures holds little validity, the important role the drug plays in the Rastafarian movement should not be overlooked.

In America, Marijuana is considered a drug, which is usually looked down upon for its immediate “high.” In contrast, the Rasta’s use the “high” as a means to charter religious energy. The different ways of using marijuana cross culturally have created stereotypes about the drug and its users. For example, America has the stigmatized image of a “stoner”—someone who smokes all the time, eats, remains lazy, does poorly in school, and talks in a certain dubbed-down lingo. In Jamaica, smoking is religious, and a rather common occurrence. The image of the Rastafarian differs sharply with that of a typical American “stoner.” The effects of marijuana are the same cross culturally, but the way people act in accordance to those effects determine how pot is portrayed. Perhaps it wouldn’t be illegal to smoke if America was smart enough to treat pot as a positive medium for expression. The American “stoner” image is so ingrained into our culture that it seems impossible to illustrate the positive effects of Marijuana.

The Hakluyt Society and the Heart of Darkness

I would argue that a strong parallel can be drawn between Richard Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and the article written about Portuguese opinion on Christianity—specifically, how the “superior culture” develops ethnography of the “primitive culture” using the comparison of societal norms (some associated with religion.)
When Marlowe is going about his journey, he notices a group of African natives and states, “It was unearthly, and the men were—No, they were not inhuman. Well, you know, that was the worst of it—the suspicion of their not being inhuman. It would come slowly to one. They howled and leaped, and spun, and made horrid faces; but what thrilled you was just the thought of their humanity—like yours—the thought of your remote kinship with this wild and passionate uproar. Ugly. Yes, it was ugly enough; but if you were man enough you would admit to yourself that there was in you just the faintest trace of a response to the terrible frankness of that noise, a dim suspicion of there being a meaning in it which you—you so remote from the night of first ages—could comprehend.” This quotation emphasizes how Marlowe stereotypes the Africans as an “inhuman” species. Only briefly does Marlowe accept the notion that the Africans might have some form of “humanity” or “kinship.” Marlowe develops the barbaric stigmatization about the natives because he compares them to the norms associated with colonialism. The “howling, leaping and horrid faces” of the natives is by no means acceptable in European culture. In many ways, Marlowe’s ethnographic technique is similar to the one used in the article The Hakluyt Society.
The author of The Hakluyt Society develops his view of Ethiopia by comparing their religious traditions to those of his own culture. His biased analysis categorizes certain customs as “strange, novel and peculiar,” and like Marlowe, he casts a negative opinion of any custom that are foreign or irreverent to Portugal. (57) In relation to the big picture, the author of The Hakluyt Society makes the purpose of religion clear. Religion holds the pieces of society together. If someone of a different culture cannot understand the religion of a particular society, they are unable to see how the pieces of society mesh, and many times revert to judging the society like Marlowe or the author of The Hakluyt Society. A true judgment of a society can only come when the observer understands (and more important does not judge) a societies religion or the norms associated with it.