Bewilderment

Bewilderment: to cause to lose one's bearings or to perplex or confuse especially by a complexity, variety, or multitude of objects or considerations; This is what Merriam Webster describes bewilderment as. I think Fanny Howe brought up bewilderment in her essay because with bewilderment comes new ideas and new ways or seeing things. "Lord, increase my bewilderment." This is the Muslim prayer Howe talks about in her essay. I think one would pray this because when you are in a bewildered state, you are forced to think about the situation in a different way. When you lose your bearings, you are forced to leave your comfort zone and think and act in ways in which will help you address your problems. Although if when one is lost or confused they may not see that they have another way out.  She talks about how weakness, fluidity, concealment, solitude can take over. We have all been in a situation where we were thrown a variety of things in our path and we just didn't quite know how to handle it. No longer are the feelings of courage, discipline, or conquest one our minds, like how Howe talks about, but the feelings or distress take over. Bewilderment can either enhance our actions and understandings or they can break us and make us feel more lost.

Bweilderment

Fanny Howe draws on bewilderment in her writing in such a way that she almost makes sure to create a sense of confusion; not to say that the reading is confusing, but that there’s a huge level of uncertainty associated with it. I like Howe’s use of dreams to convey bewilderment in this poetic writing. I’m either twisting her ideas or completely agreeing; I can’t be sure because it’s so open ended, but dreams are a connection to bewilderment. As she says, “there is no plain path, no up and down, no inside or outside, but there are strange returns and recognitions and there is no conclusion.” Bewilderment in life is essentially the certainty that everything is uncertain, and that we can’t be in control of the uncertain; we must be bewildered. It is important to know what is certain in life in several areas. If we were uncertain that we were physically here, then that would create quite the predicament; we should be certain of physical life. Complete dream state would be a world with no certainty; we have to be certain that we’ll be here tomorrow, otherwise we’d live without hope. Bewilderment is necessary on the other hand in a similar opposite way; we cannot know the spiritual truths that humans have questioned since the idea of creation. Bewilderment is essential to man because we mustn't lose sight of what is good and natural, and to industrialize everything and eradicate nature to the whim of our wants is to destroy the very foundation of what got us here and how we became.

Bewilderment

Bewilderment is the beauty of getting lost; experiencing the moments of euphoric wonder in uncharted territory, the mystery of the loss of bearing and boundaries, and the perplexity and awe of the inconceivable, mind blowing truths and coxes the world throws at us. When the spiral spins it seemingly appears and disappears into thin air; bewilderment. That moment when you figure out the maze and think about the infinite many detours/solutions the maze holds; bewilderment. When you gaze up at night and get lost in the constellations and thoughts of your size compared to the twinkling stars and if there really is an end to the seemingly endless black velvet landscape that covers the sky; bewilderment.

In my opinion, “Bewilderment,” talks more of the importance of bewilderment than that of certainty. Though I think both are very important, the emphasis on bewilderment in this essay made its importance more obvious to me. Certainty is imperative when making certain decisions. There are times when we need guarantees, concrete facts and rock solid barriers and boundaries to feel secure in our decision.  We cannot always blindly make decision and run into situations with no certainty of the out come or certainty of the layout. Sometimes we need a map. On the other hand, bewilderment is the divergence of life. It is the breaking down of concrete walls; it exposes “the weaknesses from the bottom up, the conspiracies, the lies, the plans, the false rhetoric.” Howe describes it as “grassroots that imitates the way grass bends and springs back when it is stepped on. It won’t go away but will continue asking irritating questions to which it knows all the answers.” Bewilderment is necessary because we need to look past the walls and out side the box. If we stay comfortably inside its cardboard barriers then nothing will ever change. Life is about taking chances, making mistakes and discovering and experiencing new things. All of these actions root from bewilderment and its dare to dream and get lost. “This walk into the wilderness is full of falls and stumbles and pains,” but it is to each their own if the wonders out weigh the possible risks.

Fanny Howe's "Bewilderment"

I think it’s funny that Shiloh assigned us to come up with a definition of bewilderment from the essay because going into the reading I was expecting something very difficult like Sartre’s “Existentialism,” and like Sartre, I was expecting her to give clear definitions of the ideas expressed. Instead, Howe, being a poet, leaves us to do the dirty work. Due to the poetic style of the essay, I’m not entirely sure what she means by the “bewilderment,” though I will give you my interpretation. Howe describes the dictionary definition of bewilderment is “to cause to lose one’s sense of where one is.” Though she that the wilderness metaphor is “not evocative enough because causing a complete failure in the magnet, the compass, the scale, the stars, and the movement of the rivers is more catastrophic than getting lost in the woods.” Though even this more elaborate definition doesn’t seem to satisfy Howe. To me, it seems that she views bewilderment as being the state of being one is in when, attempting to find truth in the world, one only finds that one is getting farther and farther from the truth. This causes us to feel lost and confused. When we try to find certainty, we come across more positions that seem more viable and we throw out things that we once thought were viable. It reminds me of something that Friedrich Nietzsche said about the abyss. “When you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you.” When Howe talks about language and how we wish there was a way to signify actions that happen simultaneously, it seems that she advocates for certainty. She wants us to be clearer when we talk to one another. In the rest of the essay, she states bewilderment as both a problem and a solution. We have no other choice but to be bewildered. “Strangely one tries to get in deeper and to get home at the same time.”

Bewilderment

Fanny Howe explains bewilderment is a way of entering the day as much as the work. I think the meaning of bewilderment is when you get lost in yourself and you are confused because things repeat in your life and you still don’t know how to see them. Fanny Howe explains even when you see things over and over again you still might not recognize it. In the story she says, “But there are strange returns and recognitions and never a conclusion.” She also explains how bewilderment means lost by saying, “And even if it is associated with childhood, madness, stupidity, and failure, even if it shows not only how to get lost but also how it feels not to return…” Even if you recognize these things you still might feel lost. We need certainty in our lives because things should be set so we don’t get confused and lost. We need bewilderment in our lives because when things repeat we learn from the past situations and we know how to handle what is coming up. Fanny Howe is explaining how when you lose someone you love you learn from the repeating process. Howe says, “This action can produce guilt, withdrawal, and rumination that some might read as depression. But to preserve, and return to a past you have voluntarily left- to suffer remorse- has always signaled a station in spiritual progress.”

KIngdom of Parable and Is Everything Determined

The readings had a consistent connection throughout on how one explains the concept of how there is no unified theory of how the universe will be determined, or how everything will be. Steven Hawkings also further explains why god and man struggle for how everything is determined.  While Parables of the Kingdom is strictly ordained on how passages or parables that help one understand insconsistencies in the universe and help one fully comprehend the universe is not pre determined. Steven Hawking explains that anything we say is also pre determined, but that grand unified theory "is that anyhting I say is right". So therefore the "grand unified theory" is that man is what determines everything, but man is flawed. He later talks about free will and how the organism can determine if it is free or not. He follows with a series of rhetorical questions that continue to pick at your imagination and the consitency of his questions slowly reveal the thesis of his explanation and how his support comes together. Steven Hawkings explains that humans are "too complicated" and the human brain contains to many particles and there is too much data too meausure how the brain works and how each part is connected. So even with the latest in scientific theory and understanding the human brain it is still a far step from understanding how everything is determined, even through the different understood concepts of fluid mechanics and the "grand unified theory" can not quantify how everything will be.

Parables of the Kingdom and Is Everything Determined

The older humans get, the more we start to question our lives. Although there are many differences in the two articles, Parables of the Kingdom Is Everything Determined, there is also one major similarity. Both articles express wanting to know how the world works. In the Parables of Kingdom, a Christian view of how it works, there is no free will, you are living by Gods plan. This is hard for some to wrap their minds around because we do not know what God's plan for all of us is, he keeps it hidden and as we live our life with our eyes fixed upon him, he slowly starts to reveal it. For example in The Ten Virgins parable, it expresses how we should live a life with our eyes always fixed on Jesus and never loosing sight of him. There were ten virgins that came to see jesus that day and that brought lamps with them. Five were wise and brought oil to burn for the lamp and the other five were careless and did not bring the oils. The five who were careless, did not have their eyes fixed on Jesus and were forced to go back to get oil. When they arrived with their oil, they learned that they had missed their chance to see him. They wanted to be let in but instead were told, "Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." This means that we do not know God's plan. In order to know it and live in it, we have to be eager and always be thinking about Jesus. Another example of this is in the parable The Ten Talents. In this parable, the lord has given money, or talents, to servants. He believes that these three men know what he wants done with the money and trusts in him that everything will be okay. Two of the three men do exactly what the lord wants them to do, they go and trade their talents to get more. The other man who did not do this, was selfish and did not trust in the lord, he hid his talent/money from the world, showing that he does not trust in God's word. This story is made relevant to us now even though God doesn't hand down money for us to spread, he has given us his word through the Bible for us to spread. In his plan he has for us, we are told to go spread his word to nations. Those who have full faith that the Lord will give them life will do this, those who do not have faith will not do this. "And there shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." God's plan is for the righteous to strive and those who are not trusting or believing in him to be punished. He has the will to determine where we go after life based on what we believe and how we trust him in the life we live on earth. We as humans do not have the free will to determine where we end up, God is the only one who can judge that. The last parable, The Prodigal Son, also shows that even though God will judge where we end up after life, he also has a forgiving and welcoming heart when or if we decide we have not been living a righteous life and we want to turn our life around to walk in the path of Jesus. These parables are a completely different way of thinking than the way scientific people think about free will. In the other article, Is Everything Determined, there is free will. The group of people that believe in the way of thinking described in this article believe in scientific reasoning rather than the Bible and Jesus. "Is everything determined? The answer is yes. But it might as well not be, because we never know what is determined." This shows that they believe we have some free will because there is not proof to show that we don't. Instead of the bible they believe that we have free will based upon the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics and Darwin's idea. Both the two articles, Parables of the Kingdom and Is Everything Determined, are trying to express their opinion on free will and prove their thoughts and reasoning on it. As humans we want to know more and more about ourselves and the life we live, asking daily is our life plans were already determined or if we are determining the as we go.

Parables of the Kingdom/Is everything determined

The two reading were very different, however they had connectable similarities. Stephen Hawking questions the determination of all evolution in the universe; he argues that there’s no grand unified theory that determines how everything will be. He asks tons of rhetorical questions like: is who will be on the cover of a magazine preordained, and also asks- who determines what’s correct, since we all have equally possible wrong ideas with questionable validity. He starts off with the uncertainty in the universe and incorporates Darwinist ideas. The mass uncertainty in beginning of life on earth, the development of complex DNA that could pass off information due to being a product of survival of the fittest- this idea also applies to the free will of humans, which probably came from evolution of humans from primates; those that understood that they had unpredictable free will that also understood the consequences of their actions would have a better chance of surviving. He argues that if everything is determined then we don’t really have free will. But because our actions are unpredictable, we have free will and there’s no way that everything is determined. He explains that neither God nor science could explain the complicated functions in our universe. If God knew that the actions were to happen, then free will isn't free; it would've been “planned”. Also, there’s no set of calculations that could measure the millions of billions of particles within the human brain. The parables of the kingdom is not really about the same thing but ideas are reflected. The stories all are about a person or people that act in such a way that there are consequences for their actions. The story about the virgins the forgot oil in their lamps and the story about the man who saved his money instead of investing it both sort of show that the worth of the actions is up to the master. It was the master’s choice to not accept the virgins who forgot oil the first time, or to expect the servant to spend his money rather than to save it. This is a place where i find a similarity; the free will of the people in the examples led them to do things that had unpredictable consequences. Although some higher power was judging them for their actions, there was no instruction- they were almost expected to fail in order to teach a lesson. The people who failed were a product of survival of the fittest; they wouldn't have survived based on their ability to think about the consequences of their actions, however their fate was not determined ahead of time; it was up to them to make a free-will based decision.

Jesus' Parables vs. Stehpan Hawking's Scientific Determinism

The two readings seem to have some similarities but also some differences. Both of the world views assigned to us to read argue in favor of determinism. Determinism means that we have no control over our actions and every thing that happens in the universe is part of a plan or was already determined to occur. In Christianity, it is a very common belief that “everything is a part of a Divine Plan” or that “everything happens for a reason.” Though this is not stated explicitly in the text, most christians would argue in favor of this. Hawking concedes that his view of Determinism would work even if god set the universe into being. “These laws may have been ordained by God. But it seems that He (or She) does not intervene in the universe to break the laws.” However Hawking ultimately believes that ever human action and every occurrence within the universe could be attributed to the fact that the laws of science exist. Now when it comes to morality and the purpose of life, the two readings differ greatly. The parables of Jesus state that the purpose of life and all of one’s actions should be done in such a manner that they please God. This is done by either fulfilling one’s abilities to their maximum so that they do God’s bidding to the fullest. “Thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into they joy of thy lord,” says God when one of the men doubles the amount of money they were given. Or life is done by begging for God’s forgiveness and pledging to serve Him. “They brother was dead, and is alive again: and was lost, and is found,” says the father when his son asks for his forgiveness. However, Hawking’s view seems to be that we should view morality in the same we have been doing: we should try to make the world, here and now a better place. “One cannot base one’s conduct on the idea that everything is determined, because one does not know what has been determined. Instead, one has to adopt the effective theory that one has free will and that one is responsible for ones’s actions.” 

Is everthing deteremined vs. Parable of the kingdom

There are many differences that result when you read “Is Everything Determined” and “Parable of the Kingdom.”  In Parable of the Kingdom you read about the Christian ways and how we do not have the free will to determine what will happen in the future.  We may think that we are making a very smart decision but in the end this may be reprimanded by a force we cannot control.  This was shown through the ten talents excerpt in parable of the kingdom.  Talents were delivered to servants, most of the servants used these talents and grew from them, gaining even more talents on their own.  But one servant decided that the best decision for him would be to keep his talent stashed away and not even so much as to look at it until the lord came, but this turned out to be the wrong thing to do.  The Lord said to him “And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” which proves the fact that in this reading no matter whether you know if you are doing right or not, you will never know what will come of it until it actually happens because things have already been determined for you.  Which is why this is different from the Is Everything Determined text.  In this reading Stephen Hawking makes the statement that “One cannot base ones conduct on the idea that everything is determined, because one does not know what has been determined.”  I think that these examples are dissimilar because it shows that in the parable of the kingdom these people have a predetermined destiny so no matter what they decided to do with their life, the result will come out a certain way.  In is everything determined it contradicts this statement claiming that we will never know if everything is determined because how do we actually know what is right and what is wrong? How did the servant know that hiding his talent would lead to him being chastised instead of honored?  I think that this is the point that Stephen Hawking was trying to portray to the readers. 

Comment to Nick's Zen Vs. Existentialism

I agree with your interpretation of the readings. The Zen Parables have a beautiful way of conversing the message of zen; in a time where you find death lurking above and below you with mice nibbling at the vine that’s holding you above one and below the other, that one should, rather than fear for your life, find peace in the moment and taste the sweet strawberry that is hanging near you. The lessons of zen can be explained through these analogies better than trying to tell someone the message, however the messages I found were; do not fear, leave your worries behind, and that rather than worrying about others and their faults, control what you have the power to control. You stated that existentialism excludes God and projects man as a factor in the way that man thinks. I found that the depiction of existence before essence is incredible; that if “god” or an angel were to come down and tell you what to do, that maybe you should consider it to be paranoia, the devil, subconscious thought or a pathological condition instead of believing it to be an angel and acting on that thought. When you said “improving the human condition,” this is exquisitely explained when in existentialism, the writer tells the reader to essentially make himself all men, rather than just A man. If you can ask yourself the question: “Am I really the kind of man who has the right to act in such a way that humanity could guide itself by my actions?” you will see the bigger picture. People need to lose their selfishness a see the world community as whole.

Science vs Spiritual

(Hey so I didn't notice until I got done writing this that I wrote this blog over next weeks readings...oops.)
In my opinion, the two readings, "Parables of the Kingdom" and "Is Everything Determined?", were more different than similar. Stephen Hawking seems to favor the scientific theories of Darwinism, quantum mechanics, and Newton's laws.  He says, "I want to suggest that the concepts of free will and moral responsibility for our actions are really an effective theory in the sense of fluid mechanics. It may be that everything we do is determined by some grand unified theory." He states his questions of, "How can relatively simple and compact theory give rise to a universe that is as complex as the one we observe, with all its trivial and unimportant details?" "If what we do is determined by some grand unified theory, why should the theory determine that we draw the right conclusions about the universe rather than the wrong ones? Why should anything we say have any validity?" "If everything is determined, what becomes of free will and our responsibility for our actions?" I feel that two out of the three questions he asks, he answers them with scientific theories, relating the first question of our complex reality is determined by simple sets of equations of quantum mechanics and the fact that "there is not just a single history for the universe but a whole family of possible histories.  For his second question of what we do  is determined by a grand theory, why should the theory determine that we draw the right conclusions about the universe rather than the wrong ones, his answer is Darwin's theory of natural selection: "Only those individuals who drew the appropriate conclusions about the world around them would be likely to survive and reproduce." Finally his last question, if everything is determined by a grand theory, what becomes of free will and responsibility, he answers differently than he does in the first two. He states that we cannot predict human actions because there are too many variables and particles; and "even if we could solve the equations, the fact of making a prediction would disturb the system and could lead to a different outcome."
The second reading from the books of Matthew and Luke, obviously, being from the Bible, revolve around the idea of the divine creator, God, and all the proclamations He has made. In The Ten Virgins, the message is that God can come back at anytime and we must be prepared for his arrival and not be fools like the five that didn't bring the extra oil for their lamps and essentially were too late to be delivered to heaven. "For ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh." In The Ten Talents, the point was that we are all given opportunities, may they be great or little, we are given them and it is our responsibility to multiply it and use the what we are given to please God. When God gave the three men the talents he already planned that if each of them multiply's what I've given them, no matter the large amount of five talents or of one talent, if they do what I ask of them I will reward them. Unfortunately the man with the one talent, in fear and greed of loosing it he hid it. When it was time to repay God for blessing them with the talents, the man who hid it could have been blessed and rewarded with the same things the others were, but he could not even handle the responsibility of one talent so he was cast into hell. "For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." It then explains the differences between heaven and hell. Finally, in The Prodigal Son, the message is that even though the youngest son took all the money his father gave him and spent it all on gambling and prostitutes, the father's joy for his sons survival overcame his disappointment for the loss of the money and the running away of his son. His love of his son was greater than his love of money. "It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad; for this, thy brother, was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found." Now I'm not completely and one-hundered percent sure that my explanations are what these scripture mean exactly, but this is what I could make of them. I feel that these scriptures related more to the question of free will and responsibility. It doesn't matter where we come from or what we started with, but essentially what we make of what we got and what are our priorities and if we do believe in God, we have to be ready and obey him if we want to pass into heaven. I feel like this would have answered Hawking's question of free will and responsibility if he chose to accept the spiritual side of the argument instead of purely the scientific.

Zen vs Existentialism

The two readings seem to me to have both similarities as well as dissimilarities. They are similar in the following ways: both are life philosophies that do not include the concept of god. Instead, they both examine what humans are to due if there is no god and humans are the main focus of living. Instead of pleasing god, we should attempt to improve the human condition. In “Existentialism,” Sartre examines the implications of god’s nonexistence saying, “The existentialist thinks it very distressing that god does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him.” Though not stated explicitly in the Zen readings, Zen Buddhism begins with the observation of suffering. For example, the “tigers” in “A Parable” are symbols of suffering or at least potential suffering. The strawberry may be a symbol for nirvana or at least finding contentment in the midst of suffering. So both of the readings are similar in so far as they view the human condition without a god. But they also have some dissimilarities: the main focus of Zen is to eliminate suffering, while the point of Existentialism is to simply convince one of their own lack of value. Zen is an answer to a problem, while Existentialism creates a problem. So in the “Muddy Road” one of the monks still carries the idea of the young, beautiful girl with him thus causing suffering. To eliminate that suffering, he must leave the idea of her in the forest. In “Existentialism,” Sartre asks more questions then he does answer them: “Am I really the kind of man who as the right to act in such a way that humanity might guide itself by my action?”