A am alive, healthy and all right - just tremendously busy.
I've returned to full-scale martial arts training, including Ist Degree taekwon-do preparation and "hard-core" tai-ji training, which means I am coming home past midnight these days, falling face-down on my bed and not waking until the morning...
Work-wise, I have two books to publish and three conferences to attend this year (one of them on Rhodes, which means SEA), so I've been unable to post at work as well.
I am currently preparing a lecture on the ancient mysteries of Osiris, so that might make an interesting post soon :o)
Finally, we have persuaded our sifu to teach us at leat part of Xin Jia, and I must say it's woderful. It's very powerful, and as our sifu teaches us really slowly, taking casre that we coprehend every single bit, I must say I also feel quite safe in the bit I know now :o)
I think there's still a long way to go before I know the Xin Jia, but the first step has been made.
Btw., I am the only woman in the Xin Jia group -- none of the girls want to learn this form which has overt fighting techniques. I don't understand this in the least - the chose to do martial arts, after all. And already after today's seminar I can see how knowledge of the Xin Jia is influencing the other forms I know... But then, the fewer students, the more time the sifu has for each of us.
I've been even invited into a new "hardcore" training group -- "you know, just the tough guys and you", I was told :o)) We'll see how this one goes, with all the tough guys fighting me ...
Here's the Letter to Dr. Laura, attributed to Kent Ashcraft. This may be well-known to you, I have just doscovered it and find it utterly hilarious:
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual un-cleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is: my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
This is one of the books that just about everyone speaks about lately. Plus, it's one most people either love or hate, but hardly anyone remains indifferent.
Neither did I. Overall, I tremendously enjoyed the book and I agree with a lot that he says in it. I share his (utterly negative) view of any organized religion, and so I agree with many points he is making. At first I was thinking he was too militant, too radical, but reading further and looking around me, I don't think he's too radical any more. The brainwashing of the three major monotheistic religions, the way they basically require you to switch your brain off before you open the holy book or enter the church, not to mention how they interfere with totally private affairs... I can see why he's so radical.
There are two things I don't get about the book, though: his attitudes on paganism and spirituality in general. He says (correctly) that the existence of god (read freely: god/gods/afterlife/soul/spirit) can be neither proven nor disproven by science at the moment. But, at the same time, he dismisses paganism and any kind of spirituality with one broad sweep.
I would prefer if his book were titled "The Delusion of the Abrahamic Religions". It wouldn't sell that well, but it would be closer to the truth. Throughout the book, he raises arguments against these three, and mostly against Christianity. His atheism seems to be a religious stance too, for how could he otherwise, with no argument at all, dismiss paganism in a single clause as "irrelevant" (yes, it is irrelevant for his purposes: paganism does not brainwash by plan), and say that what he says about Christianity would apply to paganism as well? I think it's the fault of overgeneralisation, I actually do not believe he had given Paganism a single serious thought.
The second issue that gets swept off is dualism and any kind of spirituality in general. He introduces extreme materialism to stress his point, but I think it's unnecessary and has an adverse effect: while his criticism of Christianity is well researched, well argued (except for the "anthropic principle", which I consider a paradigmatic circular argument, but then, scientists have been using it for long, so perhaps I am just missing something. He was simplifying things) and entertaining, his clinging to materialism with no evidence for or against it is every bit as religious as the views of those he's criticising.
I would still recommend everyone to read The God Delusion.
A funny thing: he sees everyone who does not believe gods are "real" as in "real real" to be atheist - so under his definition, I am atheist as well, as I see the gods as archetypes and symbols. Well, I am pretty damned secular, to be sure, but I still think there's more between "religious" and "atheist". Who needs labels, anyway.
I am currently reading another materialist on consciousness, but this time one who argues his case extremely well - Daniel Denett's Consciousness explained. I still don't agree with him, but it's a fascinating book which makes me think a lot. I actually really like Dennett, despite the fact that I do not share his - allow me to say - hardcore materialism.
