Spirituality, Mind-Body, Gender, Ecology, Ageing, Peace, Scrapbook (in English and Korean)
2017/09/29
Ecological civilization - Wikipedia
Ecological civilization - Wikipedia
Ecological civilization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ecological civilization is the final goal of environmental reform within a given society. It implies that the changes required in response to global climate disruptionare so extensive as to represent another form of human civilization, one based on ecological principles. Broadly construed, ecological civilization involves a synthesis of economic, educational, political, agricultural, and other societal reforms toward sustainability.[1]
Although the term was first coined in the 1980s, it did not see widespread use until 2007, when “ecological civilization” became an explicit goal of the Communist Party of China (CPC).[2][3] In April 2014, the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations and the International Ecological Safety Collaborative Organization founded a sub-committee on ecological civilization.[4] Ecological civilization emphasizes the importance of a long-term perspective on the current climate crisis, the need for major environmental reforms, and the need to reimagine the nature of society after these reforms.[1]
Contents [hide]
1History
2See also
3References
4External links
History[edit]
In 1984, former Soviet Union environment experts proposed the term “Ecological Culture” (экологической культуры) in an article entitled “Ways of Fostering Ecological Culture in Individuals under the Conditions of Mature Socialism" which was published in Scientific Communism, Moscow, vol. 2.[5] A summary of this article was published in the Chinese newspaper the Guangming Daily, where the notion of ecological culture was translated into Chinese as 生态文明 (shēngtài wénmíng), or ecological civilization.[6]
Two years later, the concept of ecological civilization was picked up in China, and was first used by Ye Qianji (1909–2017), an agricultural economist, in 1987.[7][8] Professor Ye defined ecological civilization by drawing from the ecological sciences and environmental philosophy.[9]
The first time the phrase “ecological civilization” was used as a technical term in an English-language book was in 1995.[10] Roy Morrison, an environmentalist, coined the phrase in his book Ecological Democracy, writing that “An ecological civilization is based on diverse lifeways sustaining linked natural and social ecologies.”[11]
The term is found more extensively in Chinese discussions beginning in 2007.[2][3] In 2012, the Communist Party of China (CPC) included the goal of achieving an ecological civilization in its constitution, and it also featured in its five-year plan.[1][12] In the Chinese context, the term generally presupposes the framework of a “constructive postmodernism,” as opposed to an extension of modernist practices or a “deconstructive postmodernism,” which stems from the deconstruction of Jacques Derrida.[1]
Both “ecological civilization” and “constructive postmodernism” have been associated with the process philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead.[1] David Ray Griffin, a process philosopher and professor at Claremont School of Theology, first used the term “constructive postmodernism” in his 1989 book, Varieties of Postmodern Theology.[13]
The largest international conference held on the theme “ecological civilization” (Seizing an Alternative: Toward an Ecological Civilization) took place at Pomona College in June 2015, bringing together roughly 2,000 participants from around the world and featuring such leaders in the environmental movement as Bill McKibben, Vandana Shiva, John B. Cobb, Jr., Wes Jackson, and Sheri Liao.[14]
Since 2015, the Chinese discussion of ecological civilization is increasingly associated with an “organic” form of Marxism.[1] “Organic Marxism” was first used by Philip Clayton and Justin Heinzekehr in their 2014 book, Organic Marxism: An Alternative to Capitalism and Ecological Catastrophe.[15] The book, which was translated into Chinese and published by the People’s Press in 2015, describes ecological civilization as an orienting goal for the global ecological movement.[16]
2017/09/21
Einstein on the Essential Feature of Productive Thought | Thrive Global
Einstein on the Essential Feature of Productive Thought | Thrive Global
WORK SMARTER // August 6, 2017
Einstein on the Essential Feature of Productive Thought
'Creativity is just connecting things.'by
Shane Parrish
There is a view, to which I subscribe, that a lot of innovation and creativity comes from the combination of worldly wisdom, perspective, accumulating existing ideas, failures from multiple disciplines, amongst other things. These ideas — sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously tossed around in our head — combine into something new. This is part of the reason that creativity and innovation is hard. You can't just pick up a single book or thread of knowledge and have it deliver results.
This beautiful Steve Jobs quote sums it up nicely.
“Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn't really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while.”
***
In 1945 Jacques S. Hadamard surveyed mathematicians to determine their mental processes at work by posing a series of questions to them and later published his results in An Essay on the Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field.
It would be very helpful for the purpose of psychological investigation to know what internal or mental images, what kind of “internal words” mathematicians make use of; whether they are motor, auditory, visual, or mixed, depending on the subject which they are studying.
Especially in research thought, do the mental pictures or internal words present themselves in the full consciousness or in the fringe-consciousness …?
Einstein‘s response to the French mathematician, found in his Ideas and Opinions, shows the physicist's mind at work and the value of “combinatory play.”
My Dear Colleague:
In the following, I am trying to answer in brief your questions as well as I am able. I am not satisfied myself with those answers and I am willing to answer more questions if you believe this could be of any advantage for the very interesting and difficult work you have undertaken.
(A) The words or the language, as they are written or spoken, do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought. The psychical entities which seem to serve as elements in thought are certain signs and more or less clear images which can be “voluntarily” reproduced and combined.
There is, of course, a certain connection between those elements and relevant logical concepts. It is also clear that the desire to arrive finally at logically connected concepts is the emotional basis of this rather vague play with the above-mentioned elements. But taken from a psychological viewpoint, this combinatory play seems to be the essential feature in productive thought — before there is any connection with logical construction in words or other kinds of signs which can be communicated to others.
(B) The above-mentioned elements are, in my case, of visual and some of muscular type. Conventional words or other signs have to be sought for laboriously only in a secondary stage, when the mentioned associative play is sufficiently established and can be reproduced at will.
(C) According to what has been said, the play with the mentioned elements is aimed to be analogous to certain logical connections one is searching for.
(D) Visual and motor. In a stage when words intervene at all, they are, in my case, purely auditive, but they interfere only in a secondary stage, as already mentioned.
(E) It seems to me that what you call full consciousness is a limit case which can never be fully accomplished. This seems to me connected with the fact called the narrowness of consciousness (Enge des Bewusstseins).
Remark: Professor Max Wertheimer has tried to investigate the distinction between mere associating or combining of reproducible elements and between understanding (organisches Begreifen); I cannot judge how far his psychological analysis catches the essential point.
***
Still curious? Combinatory play is one of the principles of Farnam Street. It's so important I've incorporated it into the Re:Think Workshops.
For more from Shane, visit Farnam Street. Follow him on Twitter @farnamstreet.
Originally published at www.farnamstreetblog.com
CREATIVITY, ADVICE
Shane Parrish
Reader. Writer. Thinker. Entrepreneur. Trying to understand how the world works. farnamstreetblog.com @farnamstreet
2017/09/10
(Essay) The Gift Economy by Genevieve Vaughan - Return to Mago E*Magazine
(Essay) The Gift Economy by Genevieve Vaughan - Return to Mago E*Magazine
AUGUST 22, 2016
(Essay) The Gift Economy by Genevieve Vaughan
Two basic economic paradigms coexist in the world today. They are logically contradictory, but also complementary. One is visible, the other invisible; one highly valued, the other undervalued. One is connected with men; the other with women. What we need to do is validate the one connected with women, causing a basic shift in the values by which we direct our lives and policies.I first approached the idea of giving as a basic economic and life principle when I was doing work on language and communication. Later, as a feminist, I realized that in my free homemaking and child-rearing work, I was doing gift labor-as were women worldwide.
The present economic system, which is made to seem natural and too widespread to change, is based upon a simple operation in which individuals participate at many different levels and at many different times. This operation is exchange, which can be described as giving in order to receive. The motivation is self-oriented since what is given returns under a different form to the giver to satisfy her or his need. The satisfaction of the need of the other person is a means to thc satisfaction of one’s own need. Exchange requires identification of the things exchanged, as well as their measurement and an assertion of their equivalence to the satisfaction of the exchangers that neither is giving more than she or he is receiving. It therefore requires visibility, attracting attention even though it is done so often that the visibility is commonplace. Money enters the exchange, taking the place of products reflecting their quantitative evaluation.
This seemingly simple human interaction of exchange, since it is done so often, becomes a sort of archetype or magnet for other human interactions, making itself-and whatever looks like it-seem normal, while anything else is crazy. For example, we talk about exchanges of love, conversations, glances, favors, ideas.
There is also a different type of similarity of exchange to linguistic definition. The definition mediates whether or not a concept belongs to a certain category, just as monetarization of activity mediates its belonging to the category of work or not. The very visibility of exchange is self-confirming, while other kinds of interaction are rendered invisible or inferior by contrast or negative description. What is invisible seems to be valueless, while what is visible is identified with exchange, which is concerned with a certain kind of quantitative value. Besides, since there is an equivalence asserted between what we give and what we receive, it seems that whoever has a lot has produced a lot or given a lot, and is, therefore, some – how more than whoever has less. Exchange puts the ego first and allows it to grow and develop in ways that emphasize me-first competitive and hierarchical behavior patterns. This ego is not an intrinsic part of the human being, but is a social product coming from the kinds of human interaction it is involved in.
The alternative paradigm, which is hidden – or at least misidentified – is nurturing and generally other-oriented. It continues to exist because it has a basis in the nature of infants; they are dependent and incapable of giving back to the giver. If their needs are not satisfied unilaterally by the giver, they will suffer and die. Society has allocated the caretaking role to women since we bear the children and have the milk to nourish them.
Since a large percentage of women nurture babies, we are directed toward having an experience outside exchange. This requires orientation toward interest in the other. The rewards and punishments involved have to do with the well-being of the other. Our satisfaction comes from her or his growth or happiness, not just from our own. In the best case, this does not require the impoverishment or depletion of ourselves either. Where there is enough, we can abundantly nurture others. The problem is that scarcity is usually thc case, artificially created in order to maintain control, so that other-orientation becomes difficult and self-depleting. In fact, exchange requires scarcity because, if needs are abundantly satisfied, no one is constrained to give up anything in order to receive what they need.
It is said that the earth produces enough at the present time to feed everyone abundantly. However, this cannot be done on the basis of the exchange paradigm. Nor can the exchange paradigm or the kind of dominant ego it fosters continue in a situation of abundance and free giving. That is why scarcity has been created on a worldwide scale by armaments spending and other wastes of resources: $17 billion would feed everyone on earth for a year and we spend it every week on the military, thus creating the scarcity necessary for the exchange paradigm to survive and continue to validate itself.
If we identify the gift paradigm with women’s way, we see that it is already widespread, since women arc the majority of the population. Many men practice it to some extent also. Noncapitalistic economies such as native economies, often have major gift-giving practices and various important kinds of women’s leadership.
I believe, for example, that many of the conflicts between women and men that seem like personal differences are really differences in the paradigm we are using as the basis for our behavior. Women criticize men’s big egos and men criticize women as being unrealistic, soft touch. bleeding hearts. Each tries to convince the other to follow his or her values. Recently, many women have begun to follow the exchange paradigm, which has the immediate advantage of liberating them from grim economic servitude – and the psychological advantage that monetarization defines their activity as valuable. But the servitude itself is caused by the exchange paradigm.
As people change from one paradigm to the other, there is probably some holdover of the previous paradigm, so that women who take on exchange often remain nurturing while men who take on giving remain more ego-oriented. I see this in the case of religions, in which men legislate other-orientation, often according to exchange, excluding and disqualifying women. Indeed, they make altruism seem so saintly that it is impractical for the many (while ignoring that it is often the norm for women). This is like the madonna-whore syndrome, where the woman is either over- or undervalued, worshiped or despised. Altruism is made to seem above our reach, often with a self-sacrificing side (because of the scarcity – exchange economy), or seen as wasteful, spendthrift; charity is given by patriarchal religions in exchange for the soul.
The gift giving done by the big exchange ego does not work, as we have seen on the scale of aid between nations. There are strings attached by the donor country, which pauperize the recipients. Another aspect of the conflicts of paradigms is that housework or other unmonetarized women’s labor is seen as inferior, or nonwork; valuing it is subversive to the exchange paradigm. Perhaps women’s labor is paid less than men’s to maintain it in a disempowered gift stance. What we need to do is not to pay women’s labor more, but to change the values altogether, eventually disqualifying monetarization and exchange.
How can a noncompetitive, nurturing paradigm compete with a competitive one? It is always at a disadvantage because competition is not its motivation or its value. Yet it is difficult to not compete without losing, thereby validating the other’s stance. Another major problem is that if satisfying a need is free, one should not require recognition for it. But by not requiring recognition, women have themselves remained unconscious of the paradigm character of their actions and values.
Yet clearly the ego-oriented paradigm is pernicious. It results in the empowerment of the few and the disempowerment, depletion. death, and invisibility of the many Since the ego is a social product, artificial in some ways, it needs to be continually re-created and confirmed. This can also be done by violence against the other, including sexual violence Anyone in the position of the other is ignored, denied, excluded, degraded to confirm the superiority and identity of the dominant egos. I would like to avoid any moral discourse on this point (in fact, I see guilt as internalized exchange, preparing to pay back for the wrong one has done) and simply see the problems as logical and psychological consequences of the paradigms. Vengeance and justice require a balance of accounts. But we need kindness and nurturing, When we find that 85 percent of people in prison have been abused as children, we must realize justice is not the issue. Like charity, justice humanizes the exchange just enough to keep it from changing. We need a world based on giving and for giving, not retribution.
At this point, it seems that it is important to create transitional structures by which giving can be validated. Such strategies as cause-related marketing, where profits are given to social change projects to satisfy needs, use exchange for giving. The social change funding movement also empowers giving especially when it comes from an abundance rather than a scarcity model. But so do all the people in the peace, feminist, healing, and therapy movements who devote their time and energy to satisfying human and social needs. We are doing the right thing, but we don’t know why. Sometimes, we even disparage other-orientation while we arc practicing it, because the exchange model is so pervasive and strong. We need to give our money, time, and attention to the change in values, and both new and traditional economic alternatives not dependent on exchange and the market. Women need to realize that our values and energies are important outside the family as well as inside. Social problems are themselves needs that we must satisfy. Our other-orientation must become the norm.
Then the ancient dream that the powerful will lay down their arms and the rich their goods might come true, led by women of the world. We can, for example, move within the “first world” to forgive-the “third world” debt. I call your attention to the word for-give.
[Editor’s Note: This article first appeared in Ms. Magazine, May/June 1991.]
“우리는 우선 미국을 극복해야 합니다”
“우리는 우선 미국을 극복해야 합니다”
리즈돌 노예역에서 우리는 순례의 첫 발길을 멈추었습니다. 1937년 9월9일, 고려인들의 첫 강제이주자 수백여 명을 화물칸에 싣고 떠난 역, 이 역을 우리는 ‘통곡의 역’이라 부릅니다. ‘통곡의 역’에서 우리는 고려인 선조들, 항일 순국선열들을 마음에 모시고 묵념을 올렸습니다. 그리고 갈라진 민족의 일치와 화해를 위해 ‘우리의 소원은 통일! 꿈에도 소원은 통일! 통일을 이루자! 통일을 이루자!’를 간절한 마음으로 함께 부르며 하느님께 기도 드렸습니다.
일제의 침략과 억압을 거치고, 6.25의 비극을 겪고 이승만, 박정희, 전두환, 이명박, 박근혜 등 역대 수구 독재자 정치인들의 탄압과 거짓 음모에 맞서 싸워온 우리에게는 글쎄, 내공이랄까 타성이랄까, 눈앞에 폭탄이 떨어져야만 전쟁이 터졌구나 하고 생각할 정도의 여유와 힘이 있습니다. 방송과 신문, 정치인과 시민, 전문가 등 우리는 모두 할 것 없이 나름대로 일가견은 갖고 있지만 어쨌든 속수무책이라 답답한 상황에서 의지적으로 덤덤한 자세를 지니고 있습니다.
그러나 우리는 우선 미국을 극복해야 합니다. 그리고 북과 미국이 대화하도록 우리가 나서서 도와줘야 합니다. 어느 분이 신문 칼럼에서 북 핵은 결코 북이 포기할 수 없는 심장과 같다고 표현했습니다. 심장을 떼어버리면 죽는데 어떻게 그 심장을 떼라고 할 수 있겠습니까? 냉철하게 현실을 직시하고 현실을 인정하자고 했습니다. 저는 그 분의 제안에 정치인들과 우리 모두가 진지하게 동의해야 한다고 생각했습니다.
시베리아 철도 순례 중에 7월말 북이 미사일을 발사했다는 소식을 들었는데 그 뒤에 문재인 대통령이 당황했었는지 또는 북에 대해 실망했었는지 어쨌든 그는 임시라는 단어를 붙이며 사드를 전면적으로 배치하겠다고 선언했고 9월 6일에는 기습적으로 사드 6대를 모두 다 배치했습니다. 큰일입니다. 사드배치 과정에서 국방부와 청와대의 관계자들이 대통령을 속이면서 제대로 보고조차 하지 않았던 사안을 끝까지 조사하고 나서 응분의 조치를 취한 뒤에 결정했어야 할 일을 북이 미사일을 발사하고 핵실험을 했다고 해서 느닷없이 북에 제안한 대화를 취소한 꼴이 되었으니 더욱 걱정이고 중국과의 관계도 더 꼬이고 있으니 참으로 큰일입니다.
21개의 의견이 있습니다.
csharpminor 2017-09-10 08:31:50
우리는 우선 미국을 극복해야햘게아니라 ..우리자신부터 극복해야됨니다 .. 매일 북괴의 협박속에 사사오분열되어 갈피을 못잡고 갈자로 국정운영 .반복되는 시위 .세계경기호황속에 한국만 oecd평균미달. .. 그어떤 부모가 열강속에 북괴의 농간에 비굴한자세로 자식을키우고 양육하고싶습니까 ..이런나라에서 자식을 키우고 싶은사람은 누구입니까? . 열강애 비굴한 부모가되어 자식도 그리 살라고 강요하고 싶습니까 ? 핵만이 자신의 자식에게 당당하게 사는게 무엇인지. 보여주는것입니다
211.***.***.220
답글00
===
싫은데요 2017-09-10 06:42:53
북 김정은과 그들의 하수인이 살아있는한 북은 적입니다.
김정은한테 머리 조아리며 살바에 미국의 변방이 되더라도 김씨일가와 노동당을 개박살 낼것입니다.지금 한 민족이란 말은 김씨일가와 노동당과 북한군이 무장해제한다면 가능한 이야기로 받아들이겠습니다!!!
110.***.***.191
답글01
===
청출어람 2017-09-10 05:09:04
일본사람은 일본사람 답다. 중국사람도 중국사람 답다. 한국사람만 한국사람 답지 못하고 미국 사람이 못되서 발버둥 치는 것 같다.
116.***.***.76
답글03
====
한마디 2017-09-10 02:05:45
그렇게 한 민족이고, 자랑스러우면 본인이 북한에 가야되는 것 아닌가? 남한에는 성당이 많으니까, 신부가 부족한 북한에 가서 설교하면 되자나. 김정은 집단 아래에서 고통으로 신음하며, 목숨을 걸고 예배하고 기도하는 북한의 그리스도인들에게. 김정은 정권 체제를 포용해달라는 함세웅이라는 자는 신부의 가면을 쓴 박해자일 것이다. 북한의 실상을 잘 알텐데, 저따위 얘기를 하는 것 보면, 종교로 포장한 간첩(세작)일 가능성이 높다.
73.***.***.160
답글33
=======
지나가다 2017-09-10 01:56:57
미디어오늘은 민주노총 산하 언론노조 신문, 노보 같은건데 이런걸 네이버에 실어줄 필요가 있나? 김정은 집단을 민족으로 포용? 역사를 북한에서 배웠나? 6.25 때 민간인들을 토끼 죽이듯이 재미로 총으로 쏴서 죽인게 인민군이야. 지금도 북한은 사람 죽이는데, 법이나 절차가 필요없어. 김정은이가 기분 나쁘면 시신도 회수 못할 정도로 고사총 이나 화염방사기로 죽이는 곳이야. 미디어오늘은 북한에서 사업하고, 이 나라를 떠나라. 자유민주주의 그늘 아래 기생하는 독버섯이야.
73.***.***.160
답글42
===
다니엘99 2017-09-10 01:14:12
미국을 극복해야만 한다. 미국을 극복해야만 한다. 미국을 극복해야만 한다.....
북한에 대한 군사적 옵션을 들먹이면서, 실질적으론 한국을 위협하고있는 것이 미국 아닌가?
부분적인 군사 작전이라도 한반도에서 일어난다면, 가까스로 이어가는 국내경제는 큰 충격을 받을게 뻔한데, 게다가 미친개 처럼 시종일관 문재인 정부의 안보정책을 문제삼고 친미를 넘어 숭미를 읊조리는 수구세력의 공세를 무시하고 미국에게 사드를 반대하라고?
전적이다시피 미국의 무기체계에 의존하고있는 대한민국이 이 딜레마를 어떻게 풀어 나갈 것인가?
그 어떤 혈맹도 민족보다 앞설 수는 없다.
122.***.***.14
답글13
===
123ㅁㅁㅂ 2017-09-10 00:15:50
ㅎㅎㅎ 날이 더우니 별 희한 한 .........횡설수설. 북한공산당은... 적화통일되면 남한내 지식인 특히 브로조아성 종북/친북좌파들 부터 처단할 걸........너무 북한공산당에 아부하는 것 같아서....
182.***.***.105
답글23
===
강남 좌파 2017-09-09 23:02:16
죄송하지만 동의할수없습니다. 북한의 핵위협은 한국과 미국 뿐만 아니라 세계에 큰 위협인데 그건 눈감고 북한을 동조하는듯한 신부님의 글은 그 저의가 의심스럽네요. 이런 글때문에 극우 적폐들이 동력을 얻고 분별력 떨어지는 노년층을 현혹시켜 어버이 연합같은 조직을 양산하게 한건 아닌지...
222.***.***.252
답글44
===
그림자 2017-09-09 22:49:54
어이없습니다!!~ 김정은이의 폐륜적 행동과 인민들착취 고문 .총살등의 인권 유린 행위를 매체를 통해 접해 보면서도 이런 말을 한다는게 도무지 이해가 안된다! 아무리 종교인 이라 하지만 그 선량한
형제 자매들이 한 인간으로 인해 삶 자체가 파괴되고 피폐해 지는데 그런 말도 안되는 주장을 하십니까? 이 나라 이 땅에서 숨쉬고 살면서 또 자유를 누리면서 이런 말 함부로 하시면 죄 짓는 겁니다!! 정신 차려요!!~
124.***.***.144
답글75
===
살인마 김정은 2017-09-09 20:56:33
함세웅신부님 정신차리세요. 북한에 수많은 기독교인들이 죽어가서 씨가 말랐어요. 무엇을 의미합니까? 사람가치를 우습게 보는 조폭과 같은 김정은에게 동포라니요? 조폭새끼들이 동족인가요? 신부님은 미국때문에 겨우 신앙유지하고 있는 거에요. 북한이 적화통일하면 신부님은 맨 먼저 죽어요, 그리고 수많은 기독교인들이 죽을 겁니다. 자기 형이며, 고모부며 닥치는데로 죽이는 김정은이가 그렇게 좋은가요? 당신이 이야기하는 남의 나라 러시아나 왔다가지 말고 북한동포니 북한으로 가시면 어떨지요? 그리고 미디어 오늘도 북한으로 가시면 어떨지요?
=====
원문보기:
http://m.mediatoday.co.kr/?mod=news&act=articleView&idxno=138844#csidx0de397e97a7e7aebbcae122869fc08d
“우리는 우선 미국을 극복해야 합니다”
함세웅 신부 “문재인 대통령의 사드 배치가 아쉬워…어떤 동맹도 민족보다 나을 수 없다”
2017년 09월 09일(토)
함세웅 신부 media@mediatoday.co.kr
지난 7일 정부는 경상북도 성주군 주한미군 기지에 사드(THAAD·고고도미사일방어체계) 잔여 발사대 4기를 배치 완료했다. 지난 7월29일 북한의 대륙간탄도미사일(ICBM) 도발에 대응해 사드 추가 배치를 지시한지 40일만이었다. 이에 일각에서는 북한의 ICBM도발과 6차 핵실험 등으로 상황이 바뀌었다고 주장하고 있지만 또 다른 일각에서는 사드가 대한민국 영토 방어에 효용이 없는 것은 변하지 않는 사실이며 사드 배치의 절차적 정당성을 강조했던 문재인 대통령이 배치를 강행한 것은 문제라고 비판하고 있다. 이에 대해 함세웅 신부가 자신의 의견을 담은 글을 미디어오늘에 보내왔다. 이 글은 ‘사제들을 위한 강론 길잡이 115권, <선포와 봉사> 서론’에 담긴 글이다.<편집자 주>
민족의 얼과 생기를 되새겨야
저는 7월23일-8월4일까지, 고려인 강제이주 80주년, 시베리아 횡단 6,500km 철도 순례에 함께 했습니다. 바이칼 호수 산정에서는 남북의 화해와 일치, 세계 평화를 위한 공동체 기도를 올리고 카자흐스탄 알마티 대학에서는 한반도 평화를 위한 국제 학술 모임으로 일정을 마무리 했습니다.
두 주간의 순례는 평화와 기억, 다짐과 활력, 단절과 비약을 체험하고 재현한 귀중한 시간이었습니다. 러시아 문학 작품에서 읽고 상상했던 자작나무 숲 벌판을 가로 지르며 쉴 틈 없이 달리고 또 달리는 기차 속에서 80년 전 고려인들이 끌려갔던 고난의 여정을 떠올리며 많은 것을 생각했습니다. 아니, 그보다 훨씬 전인 3500여 년 전, 히브리 인들이 이집트의 노역과 그 억압을 뚫고 나온 모세의 해방 여정도 되새기고 또 예수님의 십자가 죽음, 그리고 빼앗긴 나라를 찾기 위해 이역만 리 이곳 시베리아 벌판에서 오로지 독립을 위해 목숨 바친 항일선열들을 생각했습니다.
아침에는 햇반을, 점심에는 식당 칸에서 러시아 음식을, 저녁은 라면 등을 먹으면서 한 기차 칸에서 4명이 함께 한 과정도 옛 신학교 생활의 조별을 떠올리며 우리 모두를 동심의 세계로 이끌었습니다. 힘들고 불편했지만 죽음의 행진을 거쳐간 고려인 선조들을 생각하면 우리의 여행은 보장 받은 아주 화려한 여정이었습니다. 여러 역을 거치면서 우리는 각자의 삶과 과정 그리고 민족의 고비고비를 생각하며 산상에 오르는 구도자의 발길과 숨결을 재현했습니다.
 |
| ▲ 함세웅 신부. 사진=미디어오늘 자료사진 |
고려인들의 고난의 과정에서 새삼 뜨거운 ‘민족애’를 확인하며 연해주의 높은 하늘을 응시했습니다. 1862년 함경도 지방의 첫 12가족이 찾아와 일군 개척의 땅 연해주, 이곳이 바로 남북의 일치와 화해를 위한 이정표이며 길잡이 임도 확인했습니다.
첫날 저녁 블라디보스톡 고려인 문화센터에서 우리는 고려인들의 아리랑 노래와 부채춤 등 선조들의 귀중한 삶과 문화를 대면하며 민족 공동체를 새롭게 확인했습니다. 최재형, 이상설, 안중근 등 애국지사, 독립선열들의 발자취를 따라 그리고 대한민국 첫 임시 정부가 태동한 ‘한인촌’을 둘러보면서 선열들의 130여 년 전의 뜨거운 숨결을 확인했습니다.
이튿날 저녁 우리 일행은 기차역으로 향했습니다. 갑자기 소나기가 퍼부었습니다. 험난한 옛 여정을 상징적으로 알려주는 하늘의 징표였습니다. 이 첫 여정이 바로 고려인들의 고난의 길, 그 재현이고, 독립선조들의 발길이었습니다. 우리는 하바롭스크, 치하 등을 거쳐 3일 후에 이르쿠츠크에 도착했습니다. 시베리아의 빠리라는 별칭을 지닌 이 도시가 바로 러시아 저항적 지성인들이 유배당했던 곳, 그리고 1921년에 우리 선조들이 고려 공산당을 창설한 현장입니다. 선열들의 숨결을 되새기고 조국독립을 위해 함께 싸웠던 우리 선조들이 상해파와 이르쿠츠크파 등으로 나뉘어, 공산당 주도권 다툼으로 2000여 명의 무장 독립군들이 서로 싸워 목숨을 잃은 슬픈 사건, ‘자유시 참변’ 얘기는 우리 모두의 가슴을 무섭게 찢었습니다. 결국 소련 공산군이 개입해 상해파와 우르쿠츠크파 모두를 전멸시켜 끝냈다는 이 사건으로 항일독립 무장 부대의 시대가 마감되었다는 가슴 아픈 얘기입니다.
주도권 다툼으로 결국 함께 죽어간 무장 독립군들, 참으로 안타까운 사건에서 저는 탐욕이 바로 분열의 뿌리임을 새삼 깊이 생각했습니다. 주도권이 도대체 무엇이기에, 그 주도권 때문에 항일 독립 투쟁의 큰 가치를 놓쳤을까 하는 생각으로 온 몸이 저려왔습니다. 남북 분단의 현실도 한가지입니다. 동족임에도 불구하고 이념적 갈등으로 서로 헐뜯고 죽이는 이 분단의 현실이 바로 100여 년 전 항일 독립군들이 서로 죽이고 갈라져 결국 소련 공산군에게 전멸 당했다는 과거의 사건의 재현임을 생각하고 더욱 부끄럽고 마음이 아팠습니다. 바로 오늘 우리 남북이 제 정신을 찾지 못할 때, 미국이 또는 중국이 제 3국이 무력으로 남북 공동체 모두를 전멸시킬 수 있다는 역사적 교훈을 얻어야 한다고 생각했습니다.
우리는 바이칼 호수 산상에 올라 남북의 일치와 화해, 세계 평화를 위한 기도제를 올리고 샤머니즘의 본산지인 이곳에서 조상들의 옛 문화, 우리의 뿌리를 확인했습니다.
노보시비르스크에 유일하게 남아 있는 레닌 동상 앞에서 우리는 1917년의 러시아 혁명의 과정과 진전 사항을 생각했습니다. 그 후 우리는 버스로 고려인들의 첫 도착지인 카자흐스탄, 우슈토베에 도착해 추모제를 가졌습니다. 두어 시간의 추모제에서 우리는 조상들을 기억하며 특히 80여 년 전의 고려인들을 기리며 민족의 역사를 마음에 품고, 하늘의 천사들과 함께 하느님을 칭송하며 은총의 시간을 확인했습니다.
민족사적 진한 체험과 교훈 그리고 꿈을 안고 고향에 돌아오니 온통 슬프고 안타까운 소식만이 그득해, 시베리아 순례 체험에서 축적한 생기로, 다시 투쟁의 여정을 설정해야 할 때임을 깨닫고 있습니다.
2000년 남북 공동선언을 기초로 화해와 대화를 우선해야
북이 수소폭탄 실험을 했습니다. 그 위력은 히로시마 원자폭탄의 3-4배가 된다고 합니다. 온통 방송과 신문은 북의 핵 실험 소식으로 ‘그득’차고 문재인 대통령을 비롯 청와대 관계자들은 연일 모임과 강한 발언을 쏟아내고 트럼프 아베 등은 북을 규탄하고 있고 중국도 발끈하고 있습니다. 북의 계속된 미사일 발사와 핵 실험에 온 나라가 아니, 온 세계가 떠들썩합니다.
 |
| ▲ 지난 4월15일 북한 열병식에 등장한 신형 대륙간탄도미사일(ICBM). 사진=노동신문 |
글쎄, 주일미사에 오는 착한 교우들에게 사제들은 성경말씀을 어떻게 풀이하여 무슨 강론을 할지 진지하게 고민해야합니다. 바로 지금 예수님께서 무슨 말씀을 하실지 진지하게 여쭙고 그 답을 얻어 기도하며 교우들에게 전해야한다고 생각합니다. 청천벽력과 같은 하느님의 말씀을 전해야 합니다. 더욱 정신을 바짝 차려야 합니다.
새삼 칼 바르트의 가르침을 떠올립니다. 설교란 바로 성경과 신문을 번갈아 읽으며 그 안에서 세상의 문제점을 포착해 하느님의 말씀으로 녹여 해석하고 방향을 제시해야 합니다. 미사 때마다 우리는 평화를 염원하고 평화의 인사를 주고받습니다. 평화! 그렇습니다. 평화를 확신하고 평화를 신념으로 평화를 복음으로 크게 아주 크게 외쳐야 합니다. 이사야 예언자와 같이 “칼을 쳐서 보습을 만들고 창을 쳐서 낫을 만들어라”(2,4) 는 말씀을 더 크게 외쳐야 합니다.
그런데 많은 경우에 우리 사제들도 무덤덤하기만 합니다. 평화를 크게 외치지도 않고 평화에 대한 확신도 의지도 뚜렷하지 못합니다. 재의 수요일, 요엘 예언서의 말씀대로 바로 오늘 우리는 민족의 일치와 화해를 위해 ‘심장’을 찢어야 합니다. 회개의 기도를 올려야 합니다.
9월6일 경향신문 30쪽에서 이대근 논설 주간은 “여섯 번째의 실패로 충분하다”는 칼럼에서 북이 여러 차례 핵 실험하는 동안 미국과 한국이 무엇을 했는가라고 지적했습니다. 사실 우리 남한은 미국 식민지 처지와도 같다는 것입니다. 이대근 논설주간은 남북 관계의 근원적 개선을 위해 남북 양자회담과 함께 6자회담을 재개해야 한다고 역설했습니다. 문재인 대통령의 여러 차례 대화 제안에도 불구하고 북이 외면하는 것은 문재인 대통령의 언행이 바로 북보다는 늘 미국을 우선하고 있기 때문입니다.
 |
| ▲ 지난 6월24일 오후 서울광장에서 열린 ‘사드 철회 평화행동’ 집회에 성주 주민들이 사드 철회 촉구를 외치고 있다. ⓒ 연합뉴스 |
문재인 대통령에 대해 아쉬운 점은, 국방부 관계자들이 사드 배치에 대해 대통령에게 보고도 누락한 채 거짓 보고를 했으니, 무엇보다도 먼저 이것을 조사하고 철저히 그 과정을 밝혀내야 했습니다. 그런데 이제는 그 거짓 과정은 오간대가 없고 북이 미사일을 발사하고 핵실험을 했다고 해서 비록 임시라는 단서를 붙이기는 했지만 사드 4기를 추가 배치하기로 한 것은 도덕적으로나 정치적으로 큰 모순입니다. 아무리 급해도 바늘허리를 실로 묶어서는 안됩니다. 급할수록 천천히 돌아가는 결단의 지혜를 지녀야 합니다. 미국은 우리에게 어떤 나라인가? 를 진지하게 되물어야 합니다. 이 점에 있어서 문재인 대통령은 스스로를 속이고 역사와 민족을 결과적으로 배신했습니다. 가슴 아픈 일입니다.
문재인 대통령, 늘 초심을 되새겨야!
2017년 5월 10일 문재인 대통령의 국회에서의 취임사를 되새깁니다.
“거듭 말씀드립니다. 문재인과 더불어민주당 정부에서 기회는 평등할 것입니다. 과정은 공정할 것입니다. 결과는 정의로울 것입니다”
소박한, 그러나 눈물을 자아낸 감동적 선언이었습니다. 그에 앞서 그는 자유한국당, 국민의당, 바른정당, 정의당을 방문했습니다. 그 초심과 그 감동을 문재인 대통령이 5년 내내 재현했으면 좋겠습니다. 그 취임사 전문을 다시 읽고 묵상했으면 좋겠습니다. 우리는 사제로서 첫 마음을 간직하고 첫 미사 때 감동을 늘 되돌아보며 기도합니다.
문재인 대통령의 지지여론은 초반 87%에서 성주의 사드를 배치 한 이후 9월8일 현재 69%로 떨어졌습니다. 69% 지지도 상대적으로 높은 지지이니 다행스러운 일입니다. 개인적으로는 저도 문재인 대통령이 생각보다 훨씬 잘해 마음이 흐뭇합니다. 그런데 사드배치를 지켜보는 지금은 불안할 뿐 아니라, “이것은 아닌데!” 라는 근원적 회의와 함께 깊은 좌절에 빠져있습니다. 이에 더 기도하고 혹시 누가 문 대통령에 대해 지적을 해도 열심히 변명하고 또 함께 걱정하면서 고민하고 기도하고 있습니다.
 |
| ▲ 문재인 대통령, 사진=청와대 |
특히 블라디보스톡에서 러시아 푸틴 대통령을 만나 나눈 대화는 더욱 씁쓸합니다. 동족인 북을 끝까지 껴안아야 하는데 북에 대해 원유공급을 하지 말라는 요청을 했으니 형제로서 얼마나 부끄러운 일입니까? 저는 이에 근원적인 물음을 제기해야 한다고 생각합니다. 왜 미국 등 큰 나라들만 핵을 보유할 수 있는 권한이 있는가? 왜 북은 자신의 방위를 위해 핵을 가질 수는 없는가? 또 유엔에서도 모든 나라들이 평등해야 되는데 미국, 러시아, 중국, 프랑스, 영국 등 5개국이 상임이사국으로 특권을 가지고 있는가? 이것은 민주주의, 평등의 원리에 어긋납니다. 이렇게 근원적 물음을 제기하며 자주와 평등을 지향하는 아름다운 민주공동체를 이룩했으면 하는 꿈을 꿉니다.
이에 고승우 민언련 이사장은 사드배치논란의 핵심이 바로 1953년 10월에 남북 전쟁의 상흔을 안고 있던 바로 그 시절, 당시 미국 중심으로 체결한 “한미 상호 방위 조약”에 있음을 지적하며 그 4조를 문제 삼고 있습니다. 이를 우리는 분명히 알아야 합니다.
사드에 대한 고승우 민언련 이사장의 핵심적 주장
지구촌이 주시하는 사드 배치가 추진된 근거는 한미상호방위조약 4조입니다. 이 조항에 따라 미국은 한반도 방위에 필요할 경우 자국 무기나 병력을 한국에 배치할 ‘권리’를 수용하고 한국은 양허하게 되어 있습니다. 군사적으로 수십 년 묵은 대미 종속은 1953년 10월 체결된 이 조약의 4조에 따른 것입니다.
이 조약에 따르면 한국은 군사적으로 미국과 동등한 주권국가가 아닙니다. 미국은 슈퍼 갑이고 한국은 반대가 거의 불가능한 을에 불과합니다. 심각한 군사적 종속관계입니다. 한미상호방위조약 제 4 조는 “상호적 합의에 의하여 미국의 육군해군과 공군을 대한민국의 영토내와 그 부근에 배치하는 권리를 대한민국은 이를 허여하고 미합중국은 이를 수락합니다.(영문 The Republic of Korea grants, and the United States of America accepts, the right to dispose United States land, air and sea forces in and about the territory of the Republic of Korea as determined by mutual agreement.)”로 되어 있습니다.
제 4조의 영문 표기를 보면 그 실체가 적나라하게 드러납니다. 미군의 한반도 방위에 필요한 군사력을 한국에 배치하는 것을 미국의 권리(right)로 규정하면서 미국은 이 권리를 수용(accept)하고 한국은 수락(grant)하도록 되어 있습니다. accept와 grant 단어는 대가없이 받거나 주는 것을 나타냅니다. 이 외교적 단어에 의해 한국의 군사주권에 대해 미국이 사전에 협의하나거나 동의를 구하는 여지가 전혀 없는 것입니다.
복잡할수록 원칙이 최선입니다. 이제라도 한미상호방위조약의 문제점을 공론화 시켜 사드는 물론 한미군사 불평등관계의 근본적인 해결책을 모색해야 합니다. 그것이 국방을 포함한 전반적인 자주를 회복하는 길입니다.
그렇습니다. 이제 우리는 미국의 실체를 제대로 파악해, 우방이니, 혈맹이니 하는 시대착오적 기계적 표현을 넘어서야 합니다. 1993년 2월 김영삼 대통령이 대통령 취임사에서 “어느 동맹국도 민족보다 더 나을 수는 없습니다”라는 선언을 우리는 모두 가슴 깊이 되새기고 남북 8천만이 온 세계를 향해 크게 외쳐야합니다.
2017년 9월 8일
성모님 성탄 축일에 기쁨과희망사목연구원 가족들과 함께 함세웅
<저작권자 ⓒ 미디어오늘(http://www.mediatoday.co.kr) 무단전재 및 재배포 금지>
21개의 의견이 있습니다.
csharpminor 2017-09-10 08:31:50
우리는 우선 미국을 극복해야햘게아니라 ..우리자신부터 극복해야됨니다 .. 매일 북괴의 협박속에 사사오분열되어 갈피을 못잡고 갈자로 국정운영 .반복되는 시위 .세계경기호황속에 한국만 oecd평균미달. .. 그어떤 부모가 열강속에 북괴의 농간에 비굴한자세로 자식을키우고 양육하고싶습니까 ..이런나라에서 자식을 키우고 싶은사람은 누구입니까? . 열강애 비굴한 부모가되어 자식도 그리 살라고 강요하고 싶습니까 ? 핵만이 자신의 자식에게 당당하게 사는게 무엇인지. 보여주는것입니다
211.***.***.220
답글00
===
싫은데요 2017-09-10 06:42:53
북 김정은과 그들의 하수인이 살아있는한 북은 적입니다.
김정은한테 머리 조아리며 살바에 미국의 변방이 되더라도 김씨일가와 노동당을 개박살 낼것입니다.지금 한 민족이란 말은 김씨일가와 노동당과 북한군이 무장해제한다면 가능한 이야기로 받아들이겠습니다!!!
110.***.***.191
답글01
===
청출어람 2017-09-10 05:09:04
일본사람은 일본사람 답다. 중국사람도 중국사람 답다. 한국사람만 한국사람 답지 못하고 미국 사람이 못되서 발버둥 치는 것 같다.
116.***.***.76
답글03
====
한마디 2017-09-10 02:05:45
그렇게 한 민족이고, 자랑스러우면 본인이 북한에 가야되는 것 아닌가? 남한에는 성당이 많으니까, 신부가 부족한 북한에 가서 설교하면 되자나. 김정은 집단 아래에서 고통으로 신음하며, 목숨을 걸고 예배하고 기도하는 북한의 그리스도인들에게. 김정은 정권 체제를 포용해달라는 함세웅이라는 자는 신부의 가면을 쓴 박해자일 것이다. 북한의 실상을 잘 알텐데, 저따위 얘기를 하는 것 보면, 종교로 포장한 간첩(세작)일 가능성이 높다.
73.***.***.160
답글33
=======
지나가다 2017-09-10 01:56:57
미디어오늘은 민주노총 산하 언론노조 신문, 노보 같은건데 이런걸 네이버에 실어줄 필요가 있나? 김정은 집단을 민족으로 포용? 역사를 북한에서 배웠나? 6.25 때 민간인들을 토끼 죽이듯이 재미로 총으로 쏴서 죽인게 인민군이야. 지금도 북한은 사람 죽이는데, 법이나 절차가 필요없어. 김정은이가 기분 나쁘면 시신도 회수 못할 정도로 고사총 이나 화염방사기로 죽이는 곳이야. 미디어오늘은 북한에서 사업하고, 이 나라를 떠나라. 자유민주주의 그늘 아래 기생하는 독버섯이야.
73.***.***.160
답글42
===
다니엘99 2017-09-10 01:14:12
미국을 극복해야만 한다. 미국을 극복해야만 한다. 미국을 극복해야만 한다.....
북한에 대한 군사적 옵션을 들먹이면서, 실질적으론 한국을 위협하고있는 것이 미국 아닌가?
부분적인 군사 작전이라도 한반도에서 일어난다면, 가까스로 이어가는 국내경제는 큰 충격을 받을게 뻔한데, 게다가 미친개 처럼 시종일관 문재인 정부의 안보정책을 문제삼고 친미를 넘어 숭미를 읊조리는 수구세력의 공세를 무시하고 미국에게 사드를 반대하라고?
전적이다시피 미국의 무기체계에 의존하고있는 대한민국이 이 딜레마를 어떻게 풀어 나갈 것인가?
그 어떤 혈맹도 민족보다 앞설 수는 없다.
122.***.***.14
답글13
===
123ㅁㅁㅂ 2017-09-10 00:15:50
ㅎㅎㅎ 날이 더우니 별 희한 한 .........횡설수설. 북한공산당은... 적화통일되면 남한내 지식인 특히 브로조아성 종북/친북좌파들 부터 처단할 걸........너무 북한공산당에 아부하는 것 같아서....
182.***.***.105
답글23
===
강남 좌파 2017-09-09 23:02:16
죄송하지만 동의할수없습니다. 북한의 핵위협은 한국과 미국 뿐만 아니라 세계에 큰 위협인데 그건 눈감고 북한을 동조하는듯한 신부님의 글은 그 저의가 의심스럽네요. 이런 글때문에 극우 적폐들이 동력을 얻고 분별력 떨어지는 노년층을 현혹시켜 어버이 연합같은 조직을 양산하게 한건 아닌지...
222.***.***.252
답글44
===
그림자 2017-09-09 22:49:54
어이없습니다!!~ 김정은이의 폐륜적 행동과 인민들착취 고문 .총살등의 인권 유린 행위를 매체를 통해 접해 보면서도 이런 말을 한다는게 도무지 이해가 안된다! 아무리 종교인 이라 하지만 그 선량한
형제 자매들이 한 인간으로 인해 삶 자체가 파괴되고 피폐해 지는데 그런 말도 안되는 주장을 하십니까? 이 나라 이 땅에서 숨쉬고 살면서 또 자유를 누리면서 이런 말 함부로 하시면 죄 짓는 겁니다!! 정신 차려요!!~
124.***.***.144
답글75
===
살인마 김정은 2017-09-09 20:56:33
함세웅신부님 정신차리세요. 북한에 수많은 기독교인들이 죽어가서 씨가 말랐어요. 무엇을 의미합니까? 사람가치를 우습게 보는 조폭과 같은 김정은에게 동포라니요? 조폭새끼들이 동족인가요? 신부님은 미국때문에 겨우 신앙유지하고 있는 거에요. 북한이 적화통일하면 신부님은 맨 먼저 죽어요, 그리고 수많은 기독교인들이 죽을 겁니다. 자기 형이며, 고모부며 닥치는데로 죽이는 김정은이가 그렇게 좋은가요? 당신이 이야기하는 남의 나라 러시아나 왔다가지 말고 북한동포니 북한으로 가시면 어떨지요? 그리고 미디어 오늘도 북한으로 가시면 어떨지요?
원문보기:
http://m.mediatoday.co.kr/?mod=news&act=articleView&idxno=138844#csidx0de397e97a7e7aebbcae122869fc08d
The Human(ism) Side of Spirituality | Jim Palmer Author
The Human(ism) Side of Spirituality | Jim Palmer Author
The Human(ism) Side of Spirituality
September 7, 2017
I recently gave a presentation to a group on the subject of humanism and spirituality. TheAmerican Humanist Association describes Humanism as, "... a progressive philosophy of life that, without Theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity." Whereas Atheism is a conclusion with respect to disbelief in the existence of God, Humanism promotes a non-religious/supernatural way of life that is ethical and altruistic.
There tends to be an ambivalent and suspicious feeling in the non-religious community about the word "spiritual." This is the matter I took up in my presentation and discussion. What follows are the notes and points I made with respect to this topic. The title I gave it was, Can Humanism be "spiritual"?
What is spirituality?
A reasonable place to begin is to define spirituality. A basic dictionary definition states, “Spirituality is the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.” I would call your attention to that part of the definition that contrasts "spirit/soul" with "material/physical." Spirituality is a realm or area of inquiry that is non-material.
Spirituality is a broad concept with room for many perspectives. In general, it includes a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves, and it typically involves a search for meaning in life. As such, it is a universal human experience—something that touches us all. People may describe a spiritual experience as sacred or transcendent or simply a deep sense of aliveness and interconnectedness.
There's an assignment in my Life After Religion Course called: Determining what “spirituality” means to you. The exercise involves answering the following questions as way of cultivating a personally meaningful, authentic, non-religious spirituality. Notice that none of the questions speak of "God," "supernatural," "religion," or "faith."
What makes you come alive?
What satisfies you most deeply?
What fills you up?
What brings you joy?
What centers you?
What need in the world moves you to action?
What hardship and suffering in the world weighs heavy on your heart?
What injustice in the world makes you angry?
What is a source of delight and pleasure for you?
What areas, fields, or subjects are you interested in exploring?
What makes you feel connected to yourself?
What forms of self-expression are the most gratifying?
What would your sense of adventure tell you to do?
What way of being in the world resonates most deeply with your heart?
Where does your sense of curiosity take you?
How are you most compelled to aid the liberation of others?
Where in life are you inspired to be a tangible expression of love, acceptance, and compassion?
What nurtures a greater love for yourself and others?
In the non-religious community there are different ways people relate to the word and concept of spirituality. Atheist neuroscientist Sam Harris describes spirituality as, “…. inhabiting the far end of the positive side of the continuum of human psychology and human well-being… radical insight into the nature of consciousness by virtue of a disciplined practice like meditation.” Harris also mentions words such as awe, well-being, love and happiness as experiences that do not require the framework of religion, belief in God or the supernatural. He states there is no sufficiently adequate word or term to replace the term “spiritual” or “spirituality,” and instead calls for a reclaiming and redefining of these words. (However, the words Yugen and Satori are sometimes mentioned is such conversations.) Sam Harris sees the mystery of consciousness as one of the primary scientific and spiritual areas of inquiry in the non-religious community. Sam Harris shares these thoughts in this video.
There are many voices in the non-religious community who speak of spirituality.
In an article about spirituality in Psychology Today, David Elkins, author of the book: Beyond Religion: A Personal Program for Building a Spiritual Life Outside the Walls of Traditional Religion, remarks that “… the word spirituality derives from the Latin root spiritus, which means ‘breath’—referring to the breath of life.” To Elkins, spirituality involves “opening our hearts and cultivating our capacity to experience awe, reverence, and gratitude. It is the ability to see the sacred in the ordinary, to feel the poignancy of life, to know the passion of existence and to give ourselves over to that which is greater than ourselves.”
Robert C. Fuller in Spiritual But Not Religious writes, “Spirituality exists wherever we struggle with the issues of how our lives fit into the greater scheme of things. . . . We encounter spiritual issues every time we wonder where the universe comes from, why we are here, or what happens when we die. We also become spiritual when we become moved by values such as beauty, love, or creativity that seem to reveal a meaning or power beyond our visible world. An idea or practice is ‘spiritual’ when it reveals our personal desire to establish a felt-relationship with the deepest meanings or powers governing life.”
The planetary scientist, Carolyn Porco, writes, “At the heart of every scientific inquiry is a deep spiritual quest to grasp, to know, to feel connected through an understanding of the secrets of the natural world, to have a sense of one’s part in the greater whole. It is this inchoate desire for connection to something greater and immortal, the need for elucidation of the meaning of the ‘self,’ that motivates the religious to belief in a higher ‘intelligence.’ But the same spiritual fulfillment and connection can be found in the revelations of science. I consider myself . . . a spiritual person. . . . meaning that I’m someone who seeks the extraordinary in the ordinary; someone who wants to know the underlying meaning of everything; someone who looks around them at everyday life and asks, “Is there a purpose to this? Where is this leading? What lies beyond? And how do I fit into this whole picture?”
Unitarian Universalist minister and author Doug Muder, in a piece called, “A Humanistic Perspective on Spirituality,” poses the question: “What if we had an authentically Humanist spiritual vocabulary that didn’t have to be borrowed or transplanted or reinterpreted?” going on to claim that “the people who invented Humanism already had an advanced spiritual practice . . . consistent with their Humanism.” Examining each of the four Greek schools of the Hellenistic era—the Cynics, Epicureans, Skeptics, and Stoics, Muder concludes that they “represent the birthplace of modern western humanism.” Muder sees the ideas of the Stoics particularly as best embodying “the full Humanist complex of ideas.” For example, they were against slavery, believed in the education of women, and envisioned a world community without war.
Because the word "spirituality" is often associated with religion, supernatural or metaphysics, there is the distinction of secular spirituality. Secular spirituality is the adherence to a spiritual philosophy without adherence to a religion. Secular spirituality emphasizes the personal development of the individual, rather than a relationship with the divine. Secular spirituality is made up of the search for meaning outside of a religious institution; it considers one's relationship with the self, others, nature, and whatever else one considers to be the ultimate. Often, the goal of secular spirituality is living happily and/or helping others.
Science and spirituality
In the non-religious community a link has also been made between science and spirituality.
Particle physicist Jeff Forshaw writes, “I am struck by the astonishing beauty of the central equations in physics, which seem to reveal something remarkable about our universe… the natural world operates according to some beautiful rules… We are discovering something at the heart of things… It feels like a personal thing – like we are relating to something very special."
And of course there are the well-known words of Carl Sagan, “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”
As mentioned previously spirituality belongs to the realm of the non-material, which is increasingly becoming a matter of scientific interest. Dr. Gary Schwartz, professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry and surgery at the University of Arizona, writes:
“Non-material science began to emerge at the turn of the nineteenth century when physicists started to explore the relationship between energy and the structure of matter. When they did this, the belief that a physical, Newtonian material universe was at the very heart of scientific knowledge was abandoned, and the realization that matter is nothing but an illusion replaced it. The very make-up of an atom is comprised of what we believe to be empty space. At this point, scientists began to recognize that everything in the universe is made out of energy, and this has been known in the scientific community for more than one hundred years.
Some materialistically inclined scientists and philosophers refuse to acknowledge these phenomena because they are not consistent with their exclusive conception of the world. Rejection of post-materialist investigation of nature or refusal to publish strong science findings supporting a post-materialist framework are antithetical to the true spirit of scientific inquiry, which is that empirical data must always be adequately dealt with. Data which do not fit favored theories and beliefs cannot be dismissed a priori. Such dismissal is the realm of ideology, not science.”
As I have thought about it, I have pondered a connection between spirituality and the theory of evolution. Let me explain. Abraham Maslow created a theory of psychological health known asMaslow's hierarchy of needs. He portrayed this in the shape of a pyramid with our most basic needs at the bottom, and the need for self-actualization at the top. The basic idea is that we have survival needs for food, water, safety, shelter, etc. Then, to continue to develop, we have psychological needs for belonging and love met by friends and family, as well as a sense of self-esteem that comes with some competence and success. According to Maslow's theory, if you have these needs fulfilled, then you can explore the cognitive level of ideas, the aesthetic level of beauty and, finally, you may experience the self-actualization that accompanies achieving your full potential.
What is less well-known is that Maslow amended his model near the end of his life, and therefore the conventional portrayal of his hierarchy is inaccurate, as it omits a description of this later thought. In his later thinking, he argued that the we can experience the highest level of development, what he called self-transcendence, by focusing on some higher goal outside ourselves. Examples include altruism, or spiritual awakening or liberation from egocentricity. Here is how he described it in The Farther Reaches of Human Nature, "Transcendence refers to the very highest and most inclusive or holistic levels of human consciousness, behaving and relating, as ends rather than means, to oneself, to significant others, to human beings in general, to other species, to nature, and to the cosmos."
I have often wondered about the possibility that "transcendence" or "spirituality" could have been an acquired trait through natural selection because it instilled a sense of being part of something beyond and bigger than simply oneself and one's own individual potential. In other words, it was a necessary trait for advancing the human species to be aware, mindful, meaningfully connected to and in active relationship with a larger framework that included other species, nature, the cosmos, and the interdependent web of all existence, and that this connection was forged by nonmaterial dynamics such as the emotions of awe, gratitude, empathy, service, compassion and beauty.
Spiritual but not religious
There are two terms that are common descriptors of the non-religious community. The first is"nones," which are those who do not identify with any religion. The terms comes from what is typically the last choice on questions about religious affiliation - "none of the above." There is also the SBNR distinction - "spiritual but not religious." These are people who discard religious structures for a more personal spirituality.
A recent survey reports that as many as 33 percent of the population identify themselves as SBNR. One of the most interesting statistics here is from USA Today, which in 2010 claimed that no fewer than 72 percent of Generation Y identify themselves as “more spiritual than religious.”
I have discovered in many cases that when individuals declare themselves “spiritual but not religious,” they are adhering to principles of humanism. Many people who aren’t self-identified humanists are de facto humanists. An article aptly titled "The Spiritual Perspective and Social Work Practice," author Patricia Sermabeikian talks about the spiritual dimension of life as expounded by such humanistic and existential theorists as Viktor Frankl, Eric Fromm, and Abraham Maslow. Her quotation from Maslow is particularly instructive: “The human being needs a framework of values, a philosophy of life, a religion or religion-surrogate to live by and understand by, in about the same sense he needs sunlight, calcium, or love.”
The word "spiritual" often stands in contrast to "secular," and both terms are often viewed in quite a narrow-minded sense. Religious/spiritual people tend to have an inadequate understanding of the word "secular," and non-religious people return the favor with an insufficient view of the word "spiritual." The words are often thought of antithetical - in other words, what is "secular" cannot be "spiritual" and what is "spiritual" cannot be "secular." Part of the confusion is that the word "secular" implies to some the absence of things like any kind of deep sense of aliveness and interconnectedness or feelings of awe, well-being, love, beauty and happiness or transcendent experiences of knowing oneself as part of and belonging to a greater, mysterious and beautiful whole. And then on the other hand, the word "spiritual" implies to some the belief in God and religion or a bunch of woo-woo and supernatural/metaphysical mumbo-jumbo and irrational nonsensical quackery.
That many humanists themselves disparage the term spiritual as mumbo-jumbo—as little more than outdated pre-scientific superstition—doesn’t much help the matter either. For it inflicts the word with negative meanings similar to what Christian conservatives have done to the tag “secular.” I think humanists would want to claim all the positive, non-supernatural aspects of spirituality, and leave the heavily biased, parochial derision of the term secular to those too narrow-minded, or prejudiced, to appreciate how they’re using it.
In the article, "Humanism and Spirituality: A Spiritual Perspective," Humanist psychologist Judith Goren writes, “Humanism, to be a viable movement in the 21st century, needs to expand its parameters to explore, address and include the spiritual dimension of human experience.” With respect to the Humanist Manifesto of the American Humanist Association, I think that according to all the secular definitions of spirituality I’ve seen—Humanism's philosophy, ethics, and its principles and practices makes humanism a spiritual movement, and one to be reckoned with. Some hope that future humanists will come to recognize their essential identity and reclaim a word that actually reflects the very heart of what they’re all about. Which is to say their aspiration to lead virtuous, morally responsible lives that are at once rational and—emotionally—rich, passionate, exciting . . . and deeply fulfilling.
There are many examples of people expressing non-religious spirituality such as this Atheist Superbowl Commercial and this compelling and inspiring video entitled, My spirituality as an atheist.
As stated at the outset, the title for my remarks and discussion was, Can Humanism be "spiritual"? This breaks down into a few very different kinds of questions. With respect to "can" humanism be spiritual, of course it can. In the simplest and perhaps the most profound sense of the term, Humanism IS spiritual. Religion can often be a barrier to nurturing spirituality to the extent that it assumes that it has already answered all the deepest questions of life, systematizes the spiritual realm into an approved set of beliefs, practices, do's and don'ts, and rules and rituals, uses the construct of divine reward and punishment to engender good or moral behavior, and discourages skepticism, questioning and exploration beyond its own beliefs and conclusions.
So yes, Humanism "can" be and IS spiritual.
However, there is the question of whether Humanism wants to claim and use the word "spiritual" or "spirituality" to describe itself. In so doing, Humanists may have the burden to explain what they don't mean and what they do mean by these terms since many people already have a fixed understanding about them. Choosing words such as Yugen and Satori would have its own challenges. Others have suggested that reference is simply made to the "human spirit."
After my remarks, the group discussed the following questions:
1. What is "spirituality" and why do people want it?
2. What is the humanistic mindset or response to the interest people have in spirituality?
3. Is there a secular or humanistic spirituality?
4. Is being human enough, and is everything we need to know for living a meaningful, fulfilling, and purposeful life found in our humanity?
5. Are there better semantics or language for identifying and talking about the ideas that the word “spirituality” are referring to?
To explore the topic of non-religious or humanist spirituality, check out these books:
The Good Book: A Humanist Bible, A.C. Grayling
Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion, Sam Harris
Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, Neil deGrasse Tyson
The Meaning of Human Existence, Edward O. Wilson
Confession of a Buddhist Atheist, Stephen Batchelor
Christianity without God, Lloyd Geering
Reason and Reverence, William R. Murry
2017/08/16
Observer review: E=mc² by David Bodanis | Books | The Guardian
Observer review: E=mc² by David Bodanis | Books | The Guardian
After an interview with Premier magazine, the Hollywood actress Cameron Diaz was asked if there was anything she wanted to know. 'Yeah,' said Diaz, 'what does E=mc² really mean?' The journalist laughed, but Diaz reiterated that she really did want to know the meaning behind the most famous equation in physics.
Read more
This exchange inspired science writer David Bodanis to write a short, lively book aimed at anybody who has ever wondered about Einstein's equation. It is neither a biography of Einstein, although we do learn something about him along the way, nor is it an explanation of all his work, although we do encounter a little general relativity at the end of the book. Instead, it is a highly focused introduction to the derivation and implications of E=mc².
Bodanis begins by explaining each element of the equation. For example, E represents energy, and by 1900 physicists concluded that energy is conserved. There are many types of energy, but they are all basically the same, so if you destroy some chemical energy then you must create an equal amount of energy in some other form.
As a student, Einstein had learnt that energy and mass are both conserved, one of the great axioms of physics. However, his research into the properties of light forced him into the realisation that it is the combination of mass and energy that is conserved, and that mass can be destroyed as long it is turned into energy, and vice versa. This is the essence of E=mc².The same goes for mass (m). In the eighteenth century, it was observed that burning wood in oxygen resulted in ash, smoke and carbon dioxide, but these had the same combined mass as the initial materials. Mass is conserved.
The c² is the conversion factor, effectively the exchange rate that turns one currency into another. Crucially, c is the speed of light, 1,000,000,000 kmh, so c² (c x c) is truly huge. Therefore, a tiny mass can turn into a literally massive amount of energy.
Typically, mass is happy being mass, so sheets of paper do not spontaneously explode with enough power to wipe out a city. But Einstein's equation is a reality, as demonstrated by nuclear bombs, nuclear power and nuclear sunshine.
This book is packed with the standard anecdotes relating to the equation, many of which will already be familiar to scientists. But this is not a criticism. The book is intended for a different audience, namely Cameron Diaz and anybody else with curiosity but without a degree in physics.
Finally, I rarely mention covers in reviews, but in this case it is exceptionally striking: a fluorescent Einstein sticking his tongue out. A similar image was used to promote the recent science and arts festival, Creating Sparks, and was criticised by some who thought it trivialised Einstein. I am of the opinion that the image is enticing and engaging, and I hope it will attract rather than repel potential readers.
After an interview with Premier magazine, the Hollywood actress Cameron Diaz was asked if there was anything she wanted to know. 'Yeah,' said Diaz, 'what does E=mc² really mean?' The journalist laughed, but Diaz reiterated that she really did want to know the meaning behind the most famous equation in physics.
Read more
This exchange inspired science writer David Bodanis to write a short, lively book aimed at anybody who has ever wondered about Einstein's equation. It is neither a biography of Einstein, although we do learn something about him along the way, nor is it an explanation of all his work, although we do encounter a little general relativity at the end of the book. Instead, it is a highly focused introduction to the derivation and implications of E=mc².
Bodanis begins by explaining each element of the equation. For example, E represents energy, and by 1900 physicists concluded that energy is conserved. There are many types of energy, but they are all basically the same, so if you destroy some chemical energy then you must create an equal amount of energy in some other form.
As a student, Einstein had learnt that energy and mass are both conserved, one of the great axioms of physics. However, his research into the properties of light forced him into the realisation that it is the combination of mass and energy that is conserved, and that mass can be destroyed as long it is turned into energy, and vice versa. This is the essence of E=mc².The same goes for mass (m). In the eighteenth century, it was observed that burning wood in oxygen resulted in ash, smoke and carbon dioxide, but these had the same combined mass as the initial materials. Mass is conserved.
The c² is the conversion factor, effectively the exchange rate that turns one currency into another. Crucially, c is the speed of light, 1,000,000,000 kmh, so c² (c x c) is truly huge. Therefore, a tiny mass can turn into a literally massive amount of energy.
Typically, mass is happy being mass, so sheets of paper do not spontaneously explode with enough power to wipe out a city. But Einstein's equation is a reality, as demonstrated by nuclear bombs, nuclear power and nuclear sunshine.
This book is packed with the standard anecdotes relating to the equation, many of which will already be familiar to scientists. But this is not a criticism. The book is intended for a different audience, namely Cameron Diaz and anybody else with curiosity but without a degree in physics.
Finally, I rarely mention covers in reviews, but in this case it is exceptionally striking: a fluorescent Einstein sticking his tongue out. A similar image was used to promote the recent science and arts festival, Creating Sparks, and was criticised by some who thought it trivialised Einstein. I am of the opinion that the image is enticing and engaging, and I hope it will attract rather than repel potential readers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)