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.