Lights
Darkness
I break through madness
Step
Wept
But incorrect
Never forget
They said to regret
But I left my mind
Corrected in time
What’s mine?
Functioning half blind
Forgetting about mankind
I slip my mind
Calmly through time
Atheism
Theism
Rationalism
Belief in a system
Mocking the living
Thoughts of Gods
I hear in songs
Replay
Or reclaim
The hierarchy game
Raised through hierarchy
When given lemons
We gave it back for free
Never trusted them
Social nepotism
Stuck inside a welfare system
I’ll remain the villain
Chasing valleys of crimson
Success, now we gain acceptance
Subjective relativism in their eyes
Breaking through my flashing lights
But memories are blurring the lines
Inside a melting pot of forged smiles.
Psuedo-philanthropists
Blaming hustlers for their decline
Shallow enteties
I’m patronised by blind minds.
And they’ll never understand
We’re stuck on different sides
She used to be my sole light
Never poor in my eyes
Abused refugee
A burden on society
She put food on my plate
And nurtured me
Now I create just to give back
To the sole entity
That has meaning to me.
What some classify as culture others classify as religion. The two fluid terms are well contested and active subjects of discussion. Some contend that religion is a part of culture, or that all culture exists under the established religions. Some say that religions are merely cultural phenomenons. Could we then conclude that islam is merely cultural and therefore changeable?
Let’s clear up some definitions:
There’s a clear overlap between the two terms ‘religion’ and ‘culture’, culture would be best described as the total set of costums, way of life and belief amongst a set of people, while religions exist as answers to any human existential dilemmas to make life meaningful (Cush, 1999). These are not two clearly defined entities and as I’ve said earlier it’s well disputed, if we were dealing with clear entities it would of course be an easier discussion. However, when religion moves from one location to another it changes and develop.
The argument that religion does not change is usual amongst believers for obvious reasons, but it also exists amongst atheists. Some contend that the ‘original entity’ of a religion can’t be changed due to the fact that it exists in itself and all ”change” is something else. I find this argument as silly as suggesting that technology can’t be developed because some areas deny it, the ”original entity” itself was a change of something before it, just as the new changes of it.
It’s furthermore contradictive to suggest that religions are unchangeable but on the other hand state that the changes are local – which is the point, it changes in different cultural settings. Just like, for example, food cultures change in different settings, does the original setting of this certain food culture make it unchangeable just because it exists? Of course not.
I, for one, believe that religions can still be modified and are modified to fit the culture, the new testaments to name one factor in bigger religions. There’s also smaller religions emerging and changing. Buddhism has adapted itself to different cultural contexts, happily co-existing with indigenous traditions (Cush, 1999).
”In a changing world the only constant is change” – (Carnall, 2003)
Everything else is mere dynamics that can indeed, in any shape, be changed.
I can’t help but view religion from a developing point of view, in science there are no absolute truths, only theories and different speculations/opinions, thus making it open for all sorts of change and criticism. While this is the case in science, religion, in all its forms, is by its believers considered an absolute truth, meaning it’s ”finished” in theory and an absolute knowledge that can not be disputed. This makes religion from a scientifical point of view quite hard to work with because it’s stuck in old truths, making it almost impossible to implement new knowledge on a conscious level of understandment. At the same time I believe, as pointed out earlier, that Islam amongst with other religions are indeed changeable since I consider them cultural phenomenons rather than truths, they have and will change, as different culture adopt different beliefs they change and have changed to adapt. As well as religions affect different cultural settings, whom share its dynamic values (Cush, 1999). This is of course not acknowledged amongst believers, but none the less a reality. This all falls under the category of conservative values which i an overall threat to innovation and progress in society. By trying to emerge and keep a value/truth by claiming it as immortal in a progress chain that is never-stopping you actively deny it the very core value of progress and change.
The phenomen itself (absolute truths) is, in my opinion, the most dangerous of our century. It is used as the main tool of manipulation in our society today. Even if the ”truth” itself may reflect good will and is practiced with good intentions the phenomen has been responsible of deaths of millions. Just as Nazi’s killed for their ”truth” the christians did the crusade, the muslims retaliated as a result of their ”truth”. There are always peaceful people in a set of belief – even nazi’s can be peaceful, but one must be able to see the overall picture. To condone a phenomenon such as absolute truths (in any shape) may be as dangerous as killing another person yourself, and has been manipulated for such use to many times before.
So, how do we solve this puzzle? Is it unsolveable? If I were to discuss this issue with a religion person it would be hard to enhance these arguments because it is his truth, thus making all my arguments invalid to that person. A discussion on this plan can only be condoned with another person who understands the phenomenon and objectively observes – which limits one to a small amount of the population.
Due to the wide radius between different religions and political systems it’s important to state that different set of people may interpret the correlation between religion and politics differently. The discussion can be approached from many angles and I’d like to begin with sorting out my overall view on the question.
In a world where different establishments and different ideologies flourish and fade it’s important to grasp the concept from the outside; mere dynamics such as morals, ethics, beliefs change over time and are all a part of a nihilistic value chain that has been created for the same purpose: To gather humans together on common grounds. This all may sound harmless, if it was done on mutual grounds, but there’s the followers and creators (Nietzsche, 1885). There’s people who destroy old value frames and create new, the creator of religion, capitalism, nationalism were all, in direct quote by Nietzsche; “Übermenschen” – roughly meaning “overhuman”. The rest were referred to as humans, and Nietzsche said that “the human must be conquered”, by those words he meant that old ideas and old value frames must be conquered or “crushed” in order to flourish new ones.
Nietzsche’s terms of expression may seem radical to some but none the less true, we live in an immanent society under the same value frame that works as a never ending cycle. Inside of this cycle exists different “-ism’s”, religion, politics etc. We humans create new ideas and new “-ism’s” under these branches and call it “progress” with a hint of actual transcendence in our environment. When truth is that these changes are going in the same cycle and the cycle isn’t moving forward – just round and round. To really understand our social environment one must first enable oneself to step outside of the immanent and nihilistic cycle that we call society. From there analyzing its interior becomes clearer, the problem is reaching there, one must first denounce everything inside from being absolute truths, which only a few percent of the earth’s population would.
The correlation between religion and politics sparks differently in different establishments. The integration of religion into politics does not work very well in the bigger secular societies such as Sweden; if the Swedish prime minister were to announce himself as Christian he’d lose more votes than he’d win. But not all secular societies are alike. In, for example, USA, a president has to announce himself as Christian to even stand a chance running for office. That gives religion a big affect on politics in America, where countless presidents have praised God in their speeches. If the Swedish prime minister were to praise God in a speech he’d get laughed at, which shows the big psychological diversity even between secular states.
Even though USA may have a lot of religious influence in their politics it does not have any overall affect on their policy, each state has their own right to determine most of their laws. In California gay marriage has been approved even though they have a republican senator, republicans are often associated to conservatism while democrats lean more to liberalism. This shows that the country is secular even though it’s overall religious which could be seen as a paradox. The easiest way to explain it is that religion has been used a tool of manipulation rather than guidance in governing, and the secular society has been accepted due to cultural aspects rather than religious. Liberal ideals are all part of the “American dream”.
In Saudi Arabia which has an Islamic governing under Sharia laws, religion has a great impact on politics; conservative religious values are the foundation of internal politics. The country is ruled by diplomacy and freedom of speech is a myth, some may contend that this has nothing to do with religion itself but through history different religious establishments have had the same democratic problem. History leaves room for skeptics; religious establishments have never worked well in modern history.
It’s all relative; depending on different social environments religion has had and has a different amount of impact on politics. From my point of view religion is a tool of manly made manipulation under Capitalism and is used as such for political gains when possible. So how has religion been a part of politics from a historical point of view? I, personally, see it fade and become more sublime in western countries whilst extremist regimes correlate it with their political agenda openly. Could there be a “good” balance between the two, has there ever been? I doubt it.
Religion in its sole entity has a bigger impact on people than politics if believed in, due to it being viewed as the utmost truth. Thus the question of which one that has the most impact is an easily answered one, but I think the original idea with religion was to use it for political agenda, thus the correlation of the two is more dynamic for affecting people in their lives than one of them alone.
In the question of balance and harmony I believe that there can and is a balance between religion and politics in the sense that they correlate for their purpose well. But I do not believe that there can be a good and peaceful balance for the people living under an establishment with religious political views, at least not all of its citizens.
Varje dag gick han dit, till samma träd, fundersamt hade hon sett ut för fönstret i kafeterian där han varje dag befann sig vid samma exakta tidpunkt. Vad är det för märkvärdigt med den där platsen? Tänkte hon. Kvinnan ägde ett litet kafé på en liten bergstopp i hembyn, varje dag hade hon försökt observera pojken när han gjorde sig synbar. Ingen annan lade till synes märke till honom, hennes två anställda hade hon aldrig nämnt sina observationer inför, i hopp om att inte leda för mycket uppmärksamhet och skrämma iväg eller påverka pojkens beteende.
Pojken gjorde till synes ingenting märkvärdigt vid trädet, han stod bara där och observerade dess grenar i timmar. Pojkens nyfikenhet för trädet fick henne att tänka på en bok hon hittade när hon tog över kafeterian, den gamla ägaren hade försvunnit spårlöst, vissa påstod att han hade blivit galen. Boken var det enda som hade lämnats kvar i fiket. Kvinnan hade burit runt på den i handväskan utan att läsa i flera månader. Den handlade om Yggdrasil, världsträdet ifrån den fornnordiska mytologin. Hon hade ingen intention att läsa den, därför beslutade hon sig då för att göra sig av med boken.
Tiden gick, pojken återkom som vanligt till trädet. Kvinnan hade noterat en successivt ökande uppgivenhet i hans kroppsrörelser och ansiktsuttryck för varje ny dag. Pojken, som nyfiket och med rak rygg brukade stirra upp på trädets alla grenar, hade nu en slapp kroppshållning och ett nedlåtet ansiktsuttryck som stirrade rakt in i grundstommen.
Kvinnan bestämde sig tillslut för att skriva en lapp, på den stod det ”glädj dig”, hon placerade den på den plats dit pojken går.
Dagen efter kom pojken, precis som dagarna innan, till samma plats, samma tid. Hon kollade ivrigt ut för att se hur pojken skulle reagera när han såg lappen. Men pojken lade inte märke till lappen, eller så ignorerade han den. Kvinnan i kafeterian blev ivrig, kanske hade han missat den? Tänkte hon. När pojken plötsligt vände sig om och gick sin väg blev hon ännu ivrigare, irrationellt valde hon att springa ut genom kafédörren och skrika till pojken; ”Hallå, såg du inte lappen!?”. Pojkens stannade upp, vände huvudet mot kvinnan, ansiktet blektes plötsligt helt, ögonen mörknade och lämnande kvinnan paralyserad av skräck. Plötsligt förändrades hennes omgivning, allt omkring mörknade, hon ser på när fyra till synes ruttna grenar tar tag i pojken och drar i honom åt varsitt håll. Pojken ser kraftlös ut, hans bleka huvud tonar bort. Fyra storväxta svarta hästar gestaltas framför kvinnan, hästarna drar i pojken som försvinner in i mörkret. Två grenar växer fram under henne och tar tag i benen, kvinnan försöker skräckslagget – men utan lycka – dra sig loss. Framför kvinnan uppstår ett hav av röda rökmoln som kväver hennes syre, hon faller ner mot marken och försöker fatta andning. Vad är det som händer? Vart är jag? Tänkte hon.
Plötsligt vaknar kvinnan upp, var det en dröm? Hennes puls slog fort och svett rann ner för hennes panna. Det kändes inte som en dröm, tänkte hon. Plötsligt slår alarmet igång, hon hade vaknat precis innan. Hon såg på klockan, datumet var i sin ordning, hon hade drömt. Hon kände hur pulsen lugnades ner, innan hon kunde ta ett nytt andetag såg hon boken hon veckor innan hade slängt. Den stod på nattduksbordet, boken om Yggdrasil, världsträdet. Den var genomblöt och det låg rivna sidor runt om bordet. Vad hade skett, var den en inbrottstjuv? Vem skulle göra inbrott för att lämna en bok? Hon gav sig motvilligt upp för att kolla runt i lägenheten, allt annat var i sin ordning, ingenting hade till synes blivit stulet. Kvinnan tappade reaktionsförmågan, vem skulle hon ringa, vem skulle hon berätta det här för? Folk i hennes omgivning skulle tro att hon var galen – kanske var hon galen? Kanske inbillade hon sig.
Hon bestämde sig till slut, motvilligt, att ge sig av till jobbet. dagen gestaltades precis som i drömmen, dagen börjar likadant, den enda skillnaden är att pojken inte dyker upp. Hon blir nervös, fylld av ångest och rädsla; Vad är det som har skett? Vad hade hon gjort? Vem eller vad var pojken? Tankarna gjorde henne blek, och inte vågade hon berätta någonting för sin omgivning. Hon tar sig raskt in i sitt lilla huvudkontor, där på skrivbordet ser hon en lapp. Kvinnan öppnar den motvilligt och läser; ”Det vars medvetande är starkt nog att bryta kedjorna av immanens bör förgöra oförsiktighet i sitt förgörande; Icke finns det någon återvändo till återvändo”.
Kvinnan blir likblek, släpper allt, återvänder hem, tar tag i boken om Yggdrasil och försöker läsa igenom, nästan alla sidor var bortrivna eller för blöta för att tyda – förutom den sista – där samma citat hon hade läst i kontoret fanns; ”Det vars medvetande är starkt nog att bryta kedjorna av immanens bör förgöra oförsiktighet i sitt förgörande; Icke finns det någon återvändo till återvändo”. Plötsligt gick hon in i chocktillstånd, såg naturkatastrofer i hjärnan, hörde hur någon stod utanför och bankade på ytterdörren. Framför henne gestaltades allt ifrån hennes dröm: Pojken, grenarna, de röda rökmolnen. Rummet mörknar och ett stort, successivt ruttnande, träd uppstår. Pojken ger ifrån sig ett gnisslande skrik av smärta samtidigt som rökmolnen och grenarna växer runt trädet – förgäves.
Kvinnan blir till slut hittad, liggandes i ett hörn, av oroliga familjemedlemmar. Dagar hade gått, hon såg undernärd och blek ut; Ingen kunde tyda hennes ord, hon mumlade en och samma icke-konsistenta mening. Man blev till slut tvungen att spärra in kvinnan på psykhem.
Kafeterian, som hade stått till salu, köptes månader senare upp av en nyinflyttad man. Han hade hört om den förra ägarens sjukdomsproblem, det enda som hade lämnats kvar var en bok.
o Pojken är en metafor för naturens förutsägbarhet inom vårat medvetande, våra sinnen. Vi förväntar oss att morgondagen ser ut på samma sätt som gårdagen, kognitiva scheman.
o Kvinnan symboliserar människans inverkan på naturens statiska förankring innanför våra sinnen. Genom mänsklig påverkan förändras, och förgörs, den immanens vi fått för oss existerar. Snabbare än vi tror. (Växthuseffekten).
o Anledningen till att ingen annan lade märke till pojken var för att pojken enbart existerade innanför hennes sinne, en reflektion av någonting statiskt som plötsligt blev transcendent som ett resultat mänsklig påverkan.
o Alla tre gestalter i drömmen representerar Yggdrasils livskällor. Pojken, rökmolnen och grenarna.
The flow so bright, grief with insight, able to suffocate oxygen while breeding all life,
Half mans appetite, half mans body mass; it’s a fact of life, black at night yet pure at sight,
Masters demise, never asking what’s right, more mass than masses of life, for it the thirsty strives,
Source of common sight, flowing through all life, reflective, retrospective yet prospective,
Not invective yet infective, suasive and shivingly to pensive in rain drops, Ought to never stop,
Drenched in rot cropped drop by drop, unveiled on steel to deflect its unconscious will to kill,
Feel of nihil – thus real, this a needle can’t drill, shaping around obstacles leaving objects full,
A car can’t pull, a war can’t cruel, we’re all its fools; its absent time equals breath roulette,
An addict to it, laughing inside necks while passing through lips, built half the bodies physics,
Other half left scenic, eugenic through un-modified genetics, leaving all mankind schizophrenic
Ted Levitt once proclaimed innovation as the vital spark of all human change, improvement and progress, saying that just as energy is the basis of life itself ideas are the source of innovation. One could only agree, thus accepting innovation as a leading tool for society. I could easily through such measurements localise threats against innovation, and possibilities if you will. I would like to dispute that the most worrying threats occur in a passive form grown into our standard society, such as accepting absolute truths, being locked in a rutine and on the opposite side seeing innovation as a threat towards conservatism. Since innovation itself is about the ability to see change as an oppertunity and not a threat, the two ideals collide. In my first post I gave a short description of innovation, stating it as something new accepted on an existing market, which is not the whole truth, an innovation can create its own market and has no such boundaries but is often described as such. While this is the case innovation itself is growing more and more important to society due to faster and better methods of change.
Bill gates once said, “Never before in history has innovation offered promise of so much to so many in so short time”, while institutes teaching innovation are growing the demand on the market is overflooding for innovative minds, so, how do one teach and nurish a mind towards growing innovative? One of the main tools in teaching innovation is communicating out the fact that failure will occur, if you do not fail you’re probably not doing anything very innovative, it takes time and progress, failure itself is a good experience. Actually, I will claim that innovators who do not allow themselves to fail are bound for failure. Furthermore, an open mind towards different “truths”, knowledges, personalities, experiences will improve chances of innovation from the carrier, an objective mind with different knowledges has a great potential to innovate, with himself or his surroundings, of course preferably a heterogenic surrounding.
Conservative people are often afraid of change, denying new research, science and even new technology. Trying to protect learned but outdated thoughts, methods and ideals by keeping knowledge and progress at a distance. Looking at the innovative people as if they were serial entrepreneurs who has to be stopped before they make another kill. If progress and new methods are seen as murder then indeed they are murderers.
“in a changing society the only constant is change”
I think that I may be one of few who actually always tries to rationalize the music I listen to, the tones have to be original, creative in some sense and the lyrics have to hold a meaning, a message if you will. I don’t mind the genre, as long as the song is good, I have no restrictions and I’m not biased- a phenomenom which many do not carry. I remember a girl at a party, with torn up clothes and headphones around her neck, obviously trying to portray an image as a musician of some sort. We started discussing music and after a while I asked her if she listens to hiphop, her direct answer was “no, I’m picky when it comes to music”. Narcissism towards something a person obviously had no grasp nor understanding of. The overwhelming symmetry between her clothing style and her musical taste left a sign of conformity rather than an original individual. Pseudo-intellectualism inside an image of something else.
Do people really listen? could I blame her for nullifying hiphop when the only thing media shows is the commercial and washed up part of it?
I remember a song from Nasir Jones where he mentions that most intellectuals only half listens to music, so you can’t blame the commercial part which is a natural extract from the industry. The problem appears when people get a tangled view and pulls a whole genre down the same ledge based on what a small part does, presents or might portray. Known best as prejudism, to quote Bob Dylan: “Do not criticize what you do not understand”, music is only a small part to describe this problem through. Give all genres a fair chance, listen and understand the music for what it is before you make your mind up, the conservative behavior towards new things, new thoughts and so on has put its footprint into music where it least belongs.
quae 