Magicians and other Intellectuals

Only division of labour allows the existence of magicians and other intellectuals. We often neglect the fact that being a magician or intellectual can be a tough job, too. Apart from the frequent possibility of being hunted down by other members of the public for the purpose of burning someone alive, working with the brain or in the company of demons is sometimes rather hard.
The better you get with your ideas or magic the closer you get to the brink of insanity. Only a nice cold glass of beer might safe you, given that you consume it fast enough.
My favorite intellectual/magician is the Bauernbergpark man. Though I do not understand what he does, I appreciate his efforts, and he lives a humble life, similar to that of the Cynics in classical times.
I try my best to be a proper magician by not doing any magic at all, and to be a good intellectual by learning how to stop thinking. That is all I can do.

Construction II

In their first chapter Berger and Luckmann discuss everyday life. They explain a world centered in the "here" and "now". They analyze aspects of language and knowledge in relation to everyday life.
I was wondering when science and religion enter their considerations. And: voilà on page 40 (Anchor Books, 1967) it is there: Symbol systems very remote from the pragmatic language for everyday purposes: Abra cadabra so to say.
Cynicism and skepticism have a lot to say about the expendable nature of all that.
I am looking forward to read more about B&L's arguments in the coming chapters. I can recall the Ichthyosophists, who I really like.
Nevertheless, I think Berger and Luckmann are completely right about the predominance of the "here" and "now"as the focus of everyday knowledge. Everything is in it, the future, which is just an illusion, and the past, which is just a memory. In the presence everything is there.
However, why do we permanently try to escape from the "here" and "now"by thinking, day dreaming, drugs, television and other means?
To learn why, and to learn to avoid it is one of my missions.

Construction

I am about to read "The social construction of reality" for the second time. This time I will remember more aspects than when I read it for the first time.
I really like the introduction by Helmuth Plessner, in which he says that the sociology of knowledge of Scheler and Mannheim was a theory of bad conscience towards Marx. :-)
In their work the influence of ideology on knowledge was central.
That brings us back to religion. Ha!
Is it better to live in a geocentric or a heliocentric world? However, we still say that the sun rises instead of : "We have accomplished another rotation."
How come, that this trace of medieval bullshit (in the sense of Harry G. Frankfurt) is still in our heads and words.
I think it is better not to be in the centre of the Universe, but to be in an outer spiral arm of some smaller galaxy somewhere in time and space.
My conclusion is that religion and ideology are not the best friends of scientific knowledge. Religion on the other hand can be a means of orientation, that does not exist in science. Does it?
There is reason, logic and mathematics. Can they really help with ethics or normative orientation?
However, from Berger and Luckmann we learn, that all knowledge is socially constructed, through processes of institutionalization, due to the need for legitimization and finally is internalized by socialization.
So what about the social construction of God?
Nah. It is something you have to believe in with or without knowing.
For the moment I have to take a walk in the Bauernbergpark and leave the discussion of religion and science behind. I have to open my eyes and see, what is there. I have to feel the wind, and look after my dog. That is all much more important.

Epicurus

I am still not sure which classical school of philosophy I favor. It seems as if  a good deal of wisdom was there, but somehow it was all only particularly dealt with by single philosophers. 

The last chapter that I read about was about Epicurus and Lucretius, who despised religion and above all the superstition that comes with it.

Is it good to have a world without religion?

I am a religious man myself, but I am also a scientist. Nevertheless, what I believe in has a lot to do with the presence, the here and now, and not so much with flying pasta monsters. However, it is almost impossible to talk about Zen, especially for a humble pupil and beginner. Maybe it is even harder for a master.

So I write about a world without religion. 

Yesterday my girlfriend brought some food to the Bauernbergpark man. We can do such things without religion. On the other hand, Jesus, Buddha and other prophets or religious teachers, say that it is a good thing to do so. I think religions have many good things to say. But what is the problem with them, if there are positive, useful and generous ethical messages that are the core of the teachings of any religion (except maybe the church of Satan).

One problem is power and the interference with politics. It does not matter whether it is science, economy, art, education or religion that crosses the path of the political system, it will be a victim of power. Wonderful religious teachings will become inquisitions, crusades, Jihads and witch-hunts. 

Epicurus, I think taught to abstain from politics as well.

The pursuit of personal happiness is central for him. 

And he was wise enough to see that you cannot get that by eating 10 pounds of Hungarian goulash, drinking liters of wine and having sex with plenty of different women.

You see, there is good ethical teaching without religion, too.

So Epicurus and his disciple Lucretius might be right.

I am not sure but I am just 40 years old and I have to read a lot about the wisdom of the world, and I have to meditate a lot to get rid of all this knowledge again, to be sure.

Sometimes I envy the ones that say: I believe.

Sometimes I despise the ones that say: What I believe is right, and what you believe is wrong.

So, again, let me ask: Is it good to have a world without religion?

To be continued…