I may not be the best candidate to discuss rationality...

In Stoller’s article he discusses three approaches to rationality, namely the universalist, relativist, and phenomenological.

The universalist uses a “logical criteria free of context” (240). This is a more “scientific” approach (pseudo-science?) maintaining an “overriding passion to isolate Truth through the precision of language and logic... rationality has been a matter of coherence and logical consistency of statements” Scholars adhering to this method believe in a “singular rationality founded upon universal principles of logic that are universally applicable no matter the sociocultural context” “universalists believe they can make sense of any phenomenon they encounter... using logical criteria” (244)

Wow that sounds intense, I wonder how much they analyze all phenomenon. Can you really break everything down to be able to be explained on a “rational” scientific basis? I think relating this back to last week the belief that alien encounters are just a manifestation of other unrelated deeply buried and/or forgotten traumas, such as sexual abuse may be an example of a universalist approach.

I think universalism may have its merits. I think it is interesting to find the similarities and patterns between many different cultures and their belief systems. Why is it that societies that are on opposite sides of the world, in such different cultural contexts, have so many striking similarities in many of their beliefs and traditions. Is it because there is a universal human quality? A universal human question attempted to be answered? Or did it really happen. Again relating this back to last week’s discussion on experience, is there such a thing as a true experience, a universal experience? How would the universalists approach this? This is more on the side of a belief in a universal ultimate, less “scientific” and analytical... more just giving in and believing. I think my first example fits better with the universalist, at least in my own understanding, I do not know if they would accept or reject my second example of a universal ultimate.

But I think it is dangerous to discuss rationality completely devoid of cultural context, reducing sociocultural differences to theoretical insignificancies as Levi-Strauss did (246). I think with universal rationality it may become dangerous judging other cultures ethnocentrically, particularly Eurocentrically. If something is irrational to westerners and western scholars it should not make it irrational for everybody. I feel this is somewhat exclusive, causing a sort of Othering where the intricacies of another culture’s identity are ignored and assimilated.

Relative rationality is pretty much the opposite of universal rationality, representing another extreme. They believe in the “diversity of rationality. There can be many rationalities, based upon diverse sets of rules” (246). “Relativists seek to understand the nuances of local context to avoid making insensitive analytic errors... they believe that it is best not to make judgements of relative rationality/irrationality” (247).

I see the merits in this system as well. Cultural context is very important in my own analysis of myths etc. (and I like Einstein!!). I also believe not everything can be analyzed and explained scientifically, I do not know how far the relativist go in their analysis though, this was not clearly explained in the article, but the universalist are mentioned as criticising the relativists “scientific naïveté” (248).

Yet again I believe Othering may have the possibility to come into play with this approach, in a more patronizing manner than how it could happen with the ignoring of differences completely in universalists rationality. ‘Oh well WE would never believe such a silly explanation of such and such natural phenomenon, but THEY do not have such advanced understandings of science as WE do, so it is OK.’

One comment that I found rather frightening (and I know this is an extreme example and an example given to illustrate how this system can be taken to extremes) is the example of the Holocaust being excused for its cultural relativism (see pg 247)... wow scary, but these types of things can be taken this far. How much can be excused by the cultural context, the context and world views of the time and place. There has to be some sort of level of universal acceptance of what is right and wrong. Genocide should be wrong no matter what the freaking context is!!

Stoller is not shy in advertising which system he thinks is best. In the introduction to the systems he states “The phenomenological approach, which I have used in my own work, creates space for multiple realities in a given belief system” (240). Because Stoller is so firm in his belief in the superiority of phenomenological rationalism, I believe this article contains a slightly biased approach in explaining the three systems of rationality (maybe you could even argue is detracts from his ability to discuss them rationally!!). Therefore I would believe that my choice for which system is the most convincing may be swayed by his arguments for phenomenology. Because this is his system of choice he goes into a much more complex discussion of the system. The other two were dumbed down a bit, maybe even in a negative light. Focusing only on their extremes leads me to focus on the negative aspects of each system.

Also, compared to the first two, I found understanding exactly what the phenomenological system was difficult. This often happens if someone knows the ins and outs of a subject; it becomes difficult to explain it to a simpleton like me! This also illustrates the author’s biases, as he simplified the others and made his more complex. (Ahh yet another example of Othering!)

I did find myself liking the author though, I liked his little anecdote at the beginning, I liked that he admitted in believing in the unexplained, and I liked his little story at the end. It made for a more enjoyable article to read, but this may be expressing my own irrational biases towards anecdotes and cute stories!!

Fitting, no?

I actually know what I am talking about, I just can't explain it to you properly

I have always been quite interested in linguistics. I think it all stems back to my non-jaded (yet somewhat pretentious) academic excitement as a first year undergrad discovering Derrida for the first time. And so if there is a question about language and how it inhibits our ability to truly understand and communicate with one another, I will jump on the chance to name drop my favourite completely non-understood philosopher of linguistics and life in general. Even though I seriously had/have no idea what he was talking about, in my first year excitement I decided that is THE POINT. Language is not a perfect medium of communication and we are all doomed...

Sharf’s discussion becomes quite Derridian at points “As it is never possible to communicate exactly how things appear to us (how could we ever know whether your experience of red is precisely the same as mine?)” (pg 110) Doesn’t he sound lonely? Poor guy, but I understand... How can we ever explain to someone how we truly feel, what we truly believe if we cannot express it in language. How can we explain our understanding of “red”?

How could one go about explain such a complex feeling/experience as experiencing the divine? One could write a poem like Rumi, paint a picture, play a song? These are all so easily misunderstood, so easy to not “get”. But can we really explain it in words? Can you explain red? How could you explain it to others who have never experienced red? What about trying to explain a mystical experience to someone who has never experienced, or to someone who have absolutely no belief in the existence or possibility of such an experience? What if two people are in a room and both have had an “experience”, do they need words to convey what it was? Or is wordless mutual understanding the only way? If this is so how can we possibly begin to write about this, discuss this from the view of the non-experienced, or even the non-believer?

“the terms ‘paradox’ and ‘ineffable’ do not function as terms that inform us about the context of experience, or any given ontological ‘state of affairs’. Rather they function to cloak the experience from investigation and to hold mysterious whatever ontological commitments one has... they eliminate the logical possibility of the comparability of experience altogether... To assume, as [others] do, that because both mystics claim that their experiences are paradoxical they are describing like experiences, is a non sequitur.” (Katz pg 204). Yes I agree that jumping to such conclusions based on the use of similar words is too simplistic. It is further complicated by the impossibility to describe personal experiences perfectly using words. The go-to words used in describing are provided by our culture, the definitions of the words are defined by our culture.

Maybe all the mystics, anyone who has ever experienced such an “experience”, are experiencing the same thing (The “universal core” of Stace discussed in Katz pg 200). Maybe the Jewish devekuth, the Buddhist nirvana, the Sufi fana, the Hindu atmavada are all the same indescribable experience. Maybe it is uninterpretable, unidentifiable, unmanifestable. The only way to describe what the hell just happened to us would be to go to our own cultural clichés to help us define, explain and understand. It is all so clear in the moment, yet once that state has been exited it is impossible to describe what just happened, “well it was kinda like.....[insert culturally relevant simile]”. Once you start to use such culturally constructed clichés to explain yourself you begin to start believing that is what indeed happened. The personal understanding of your experience that you take away with you to remember at a later date is dictated by easy ways to remember it, by the “models” given in our own culture.

I agree with the heavy role culture plays in shaping our understanding of experiences as discussed in Sharf’s article. Referencing another article by Katz, Sharf sums it up by saying “mystical experience is wholly shaped by a mystic’s cultural environment, personal history, doctrinal commitments, religious training, expectations, aspirations, and so on” (pg 98) This is true, but I would say that culture etc. may not dictate how we experience the experience as it is happening in the moment, it dictates how we understand and describe it later. (I did love his example of aliens as religion, it was a great example illustrating how culture shapes our experiences...but maybe “small greys” really DO exist... and then the point would be moot as they all indeed experienced probing by the little guys!! Same thing goes for is all mystics experience the same ultimate divine... wouldn’t this all be so much easier if that were to be proven? Hehe!!)

I probably have not been in scholarship for long enough to become as jaded as the scholar we have read for this week’s discussion (and all the weeks before this). Katz says there are no pure unmediated experiences (pg 189). I like to think true experience can be experienced, and I do not really want that to be taken away from me. I usually keep my beliefs separate from what I do, nobody needs to know them unless I feel they should, but as scholars are we really expected to be so unbelieving, lacking so much faith. Does EVERYTHING have to be explained or broken down under such minute scrutiny? I guess keeping the personal you and the scholar you at a distance is the best way to go about it, they should not meet because they would probably get in lots of fights. The scholar you calling the personal you irrational and silly, the personal you calling the scholar you heartless and cynical. Worlds are colliding... George is getting very upset!

OK I am simply going to blame the incoherencies of my post to the wonderful go-to belief that we can never fully express ourselves in words... oh it makes things so much more simple sometimes!

aaaannd... THIS is why I love what I study!!

The question: “To what extent might the sex/gender discussion seen in our readings be dependent on a Western notion of autonomous identity? What about cultures in which identity is defined more widely than the individual, as encompassing family or community? (And is there then something "male" about that?)" got me thinking about grammatical genders.
Latin gender (*shudder* oh how I try to forget this stuff): if it is a group of more than one person and there is at least one male in said group the gender will always be masculine plural. Maybe this grammatical rule could explain in some way the Bible quote in Boyarin from Genesis 5: 1-2 “and He blessed them, and called their name Adam” (119). This could be evident of gender ambiguity or duality as is discussed throughout Boyarin’s article, but it also kinda seems to me that because Adam and “Eve”(?) are a couple they are seen as one unit. And by default that unit becomes masculine and is referred to by the male’s name. Similar to the practice of referring to a couple as Mr. and Mrs. John Smith on postage etc..

Now I can’t seem to remember off the top of my head f there is a set rule in Sanskrit... but I DO know off hand that if there is a compound (oh and how Sanskrit loves its compounds!!!) if the last word is feminine, no matter what the other words in the compound are, or what the relationship to each other is, the entire compound will be feminine. (Now that is girl power! haha)

Fascinatingly Brahman, the “ultimate” often worshipped in a kind of monotheistic way (henotheism), is grammatically a neuter word! Therefore “god” is an “it”... and can easily (and often is) worshipped in the feminine. Before reading the articles I was wondering if this can be found in biblical traditions, so I went to Chris: In Greek the word for god of the bible is always masculine. Yet notably in Proverbs “wisdom” is personified in the feminine and possibly present at creation (thanks Chris!). I was also wondering about how in the Christian trinity tradition god = father, son, and holy spirit... father/son are both very masculine nouns... could the holy spirit be feminine ever...?(Chris was busy so I couldn’t ask him!!)

After reading Daniel Boyarin’s article, it became clear that gender ambiguity is found in the Judea-Christina tradition as well. The “spirit” is often neither male nor female. This discussion was interesting for me as I found lots of parallels with the traditions I am more familiar with. It seems that often, when the divine is in the most unidentifiable abstract from (as in Brahman, the holy spirit, the Sikh god) gender is ambiguous, dual, or does not exist.

In many societies more than the two most straight forward genders are accepted. In North American traditional culture there are two-spirited people. In many parts of Asia (at least at one time. *Read: before colonization*) five genders are understood. This is still evident in Thailand (a country that had never been colonized) I spent just over 17 hours in Thailand, and I saw quite a lot of lady boys!

Gender is very flexible in Hindu mythology. Many of my favourite myths involve gender ambiguity. Siva’s consort (Parvati, Devi, Uma, Durga, Sakti, etc) is a very powerful force (sakti means power/energy in Sanskrit... it was brought up last class by the twins). Without her Siva is really nothing, as is illustrated in his form as Ardhanarishvara “the lord who is half woman”. As Ardhanarisvara, Siva is depicted literally as being split vertically into half man and half woman!! Yet this is not to say that male/female can be argued to be perfectly equal in the Hindu tradition, far from it. Ardhanarisva remains the LORD who is half woman... he retains his masculinity even though half of his body has boobs and stuff. “The “manipulation of conventional gender categories” seems to produce an androgyne who is always gendered male” (Boyarin 125).

Yet the “goddess” in Hinduism is not always the consort of a god. There are many Devi/Sakti /Durga cults who worship her as a completely separate, and very powerful, unit. Although these are often referred to as Saivite movements because the “goddess” is usually an avatar of Siva’s consort. I don’t know if this is a category imposed by the practitioners, but it may be the result of what Kinsley discusses in his article, how the goddesses “were discussed primarily, if not exclusively, as adjuncts to males, according to their relationships with males: as mothers, wives, consorts, daughters, and sisters.” (pg 3). All the points made in this section of Kinsley’s article are definitely true for most scholarship involving goddesses in Hinduism. They are mothers and wives. Yet in reality they are entities separate from the gods in their family, the destructive Kali chops heads off while trampling her husband Siva under her feet... she’s hard-core!

Back to gender ambiguity in characters in mythology:

gender ambiguity can be seen in the Mahabharata epic in the character of Arjuna. Arjuna is arguably the hero of the epic he is uber masculine, strong, powerful, sexy, virile... quite the ladies man. yet while in disguise in his last year of exile, Arjuna dresses up as a eunuch dance teacher... and in the sanskrit there are many plays on word suggesting that he in fact a full blown eunuch/hermaphrodite for this year (there are like 5 different myths explaining why this is so... wont go into that!) this is similar to “the dominant rabbinic interpretation [that] insisted that the first male-female human [Adam] was a physical hermaphrodite” (Boyarin 128)

In Kerala, most of the people are devotees of a god called Ayyappa. He is the son of Visnu and Siva... yup, Visnu took his feminine form of Mohini (her name translates as “temptress” and she is uber feminine) in order to become impregnated by Siva! Then Visnu gave birth to Ayyappa. It’s quite ironic that this is how he was created because the cult of Ayyappa has become quite the “boy’s club”. Again he is an uber masculine god, and only men and non-menstruating (read little girls and old women) are allowed to go on pilgrimage to his main temple. The pilgrimage takes several days, is hard work , and generally turns into a male bonding session... although I doubt they impregnate each other in the form of the temptress! (well....it IS India...).

Aahhh I knew I would have too much random stuff to talk about in this week (I could go on)... why do my blogs always turn out so random ? (and long... sorry guys!)... I’m done

Ardhanarisvara "the Lord who is half woman"