A lapidary inquest into the meaning of the word 'humane'

[...]

>Lapland sounds nice! - are you going to the Swedish or Finish Lapland?

- It's Finish Lapland. Is this more lapidary?

>Nope, they are about 'equal' in status. Anyway, they are occupied territories where the natives (the 'lap'-people) have been displaced and abused by the governments in Helsinki and Stockholm... Not to make you feel bad about your holiday destination :-).

- As a German, it is somehow mildly reassuring that other nations did also do a bit of unnecessary intra-species violence.

As a scientist, I'd say this proves once more the point that the selection within the human race is not done by intelligence, but by violence. Which explains a lot about our planet's current state.

As a human, I'd say that's one more proof for the fact that the current meaning of the word 'humane' is wrong and should be replaced by 'unnecessary intra-species violence with medium to extreme brutality'.

the right kiss : does kissing make our love last longer?

In our body, we have about 10 times more microorganism cells than human cells. Especially our skin, mouth and digestive system are full of them. The body’s microorganisms have been shown to determine partner choice in some species, where one individual prefers a partner who has a similar microbiome in its body. Could it be that we kiss and touch our partners so to exchange and homogenise our microbes? If so, then this behaviour may improve our relationship. Or, more intriguingly, is our kissing and touching behaviour influenced by our microbes, to allow them to inhabit other individuals of our species? Unlikely? Well, a number of behaviour-altering effects of microorganims on humans have been reported...

Intraspecies vs Interspecies communications. In fact we are alone.

If you get the chance, dive around a coral reef. The complexity of interactions between species is amazing. Of course, much more of the interactions are not visible, for example the symbiosis between corals and dinoflagellates. Of course, all other wild animals are constantly in exchange and relation with other wild species. In comparison, we modern humans, with how many other species do we interact on a daily basis? Mostly none, except for those who have a pet. However pets are adjusted to humans, and depend on us. So in fact, we're the only species who does not interact with all others. We're pretty alone - but so complex in our head that we are so much occupied with ourselves that we don't really notice how alone we are.

Re: Darwinian selection of religions

Following up on my question of why world religions are so malleable in their interpretations (see my post 'Darwinian selection of religions'), I asked a Muslim why the Qur'an has not been written more clearly and explicitly. She said that the ambiguity in the Qur'an is a test for followers. The way you interpret the text--with love or hate, with a spirit of openness or of exclusion--is a mirror of your soul. The first word of the Qur'an, 'iqra', can be interpreted as 'read!' (with meanings such as 'follow closely [the prescriptions]), or 'instruct yourself!' (which could mean to learn, gather knowledge), or 'search!' (which could mean to search in yourself, or in the scriptures, to understand).

Seek - and you will find... yourself?

Comedy Relief

I wonder how the world would change if everyone watched or listened to a 5-min hilarious comedy show or transmission three times a day.

The American Dream #7: total freedom to rest

On Friday at 2 pm, you notice  that you have utterly, completely and satisfactorily finished all your things on all your to-do lists.

The American Dream #6:

total security

Religious racism - Relicism?

A good friend has slowly drifted into a ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam. As the second wife of an ulema, a Muslim scholar, completely covered in public, and reading only the Qur'an at home, she says she was never happier. Is this a good thing as long as she does not harm anyone? Can educating her children in the same fundamentalist way be considered 'harm' or 'doing the best for her children to the best of her knowledge'?

Would my reaction have been different if she had joined a fundamentalist current of Buddhism instead, an interpretation which does not allow music, encourages daily studying of the holy texts, provides a strict daily schedule and obliges her to wear a particular garment in a particular colour?

How much of my 'common sense' reactions are due to 'relicism' - some sort of religious racism?

Darwinian selection of religions

Every human group appears to have forged their spiritual experiences into some sort of religious framework. Why do we nonetheless only have a handful of world religions, rather than a patchwork of local beliefs, as diverse as human ethnic groups and their geographic situations? Why have almost all of these world religions been used as a pretext to commit the most horrible acts of violence, although all preach non-violent behaviour as a core value? And why are all these religions based on holy texts that are so ambiguous that followers fight over right and wrong interpretations, and use the same text to justify one thing and its opposite? Is it simply the result of the features a religion needs to have to survive and dominate others?  

Imagine for example a religion that is based on a half page of text that states simply and clearly that as a follower, you have to (for example) pray/meditate with good intentions, not harm anyone in any way, treat everybody like you want to be treated and help those in need. Full-stop. Either you do this, or you’re out. Would this religion have millions of followers and thrive for centuries? Or imagine a religion that is founded by a wise old woman who lives alone on a remote island and has no intentions to travel. Would this religion stand any chance of survival against a religion that is malleable, permissive, adaptive, and aggressively promoted worldwide by a powerful people? Even the most ingenious virus that infected only the Dodo has died out. Or, on the other hand, how peaceful can a religion be that is spread through violence?

Are our current dominating religions simply the result of a Darwinian (and hence human) struggle for survival? 

Your own, personal Jesus - part II: Copyright on Jesus - DENIED

In my previous post I wrote how I prepared a short personal version of Jesus' teachings based on selecting and rewriting passages from the Complete Gospels.
Since I thought that this particular selection I made highlighted unusual aspects of Jesus' teachings, I thought I may just self-online publish the text in case anyone is interested.
I therefore contacted the editor of the Complete Gospels just to make sure there is no problem with it.
Here is the short answer I received:

Polebridge Press, the copyright holder,  denies you the right to use any part, or a substantial similarity, of The Complete Gospels edited by Robert J. Miller, in all media now known or later developed. This matter is now closed and not open to any further negotiation.

I was quite puzzled by this reply. One the one hand, of course, the Complete Gospels were written based on new translations of all available texts, which took a tremendous amount of time, effort and expertise. From this point of view the text deserves the copyright. On the other hand, it seems wired that one can be forbidden to publish a text of 'substantial similarity' to the Complete Gospels... after 2000 years during which substantially similar versions of Jesus' gospels were taught all over the world.

Of course, it is extremely unlikely that reading my little text would have stopped anyone from buying the Complete Gospels (which I strongly recommend reading!).

Your own, personal Jesus - part I: Meeting Yeshua bar Yosef

I always found it frustrating that Jesus, unlike Mohammed, appears to have done nothing to assure a verbatim transmission of his teachings. As a result, Jesus’ words and deeds have only been written down decades or even centuries after his death, in a different language, by persons who most probably have never met him. Because of the socio-political context at the time of writing, selection and rephrasing of the gospels was strongly biased.

The obvious question is therefore on how much has this error-generating transmission affected the message of the historical Jesus?

To find out, I did the following: I bought the Complete Gospels (which contain also fresh translations of non-canonical texts, such as the Gospels of Thomas or Mary, or the Q and Signs Gospels) and selected sentences that I found particularly touching. I then rephrased these sentences to some extend, and put them in a different order, so to obtain something like a suggestive little story line.

The result of my little experiment (which took me two years, and resulted in a short manuscript) were twofold: 1) there is a particular message and spirit of the Gospels that is reassuringly robust to manipulation. 2) By chewing on the texts for long to produce a distilled and personal version, I felt I understood Jesus' message - and maybe Jesus himself - much better. In a way, it almost felt like I got to know this Yeshua personally, at least a little bit. Bottom line: If you want to understand Jesus, you have to rewrite the Gospels; you have to wrestle with the available texts, take them apart and write your own, personal Jesus. 

A little later I read that Buddha advised followers to question and chew on his teachings...

It's good to be the King

It is a scientifically proven fact that improving education, especially for lower-income parts of the society, has far-reaching benefits for a country. Benefits are not limited to simply stimulating and sustaining innovation, but also include reduction in crime rates (including domestic violence against women), and improvement of public health.
Hence, improving education improves a country's economy in two ways: by enhancing the technological competitiveness and by reducing expenses (e.g. for prisons or health care).
The down-side of investments in education is that it pays off only in 10-20 years. Since most democratic leaders of countries are elected for one or maximum two 4-5 year terms, such investment would not be beneficial. And it is preferred to invest in economic projects that pay off in the short-term, ideally before the next elections.
In this regard, it's good to be the King. For example Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has put in place a 15 year program to pay studies abroad for Saudi students - currently 130,000 (26,000 women) in 46 countries. Fellowship recipients receive full university tuition coverage, as well as full medical and dental insurance, a monthly stipend, materials allowances, and annual airfare vouchers for the student and his or her family to Saudi Arabia and back to the host country. Recipients’ families receive the same insurance coverage, and joint scholarships are given to students with spouses.
As a welcome side-effect, these students will showcase their own culture abroad and, in turn, obtain deep insights in foreign cultures.
It certainly helps to have a bit of spare oil money to spend - however the cost of this program is probably only a small fraction of the yearly US military budget.