Leaps of faith

The first leap of faith

‘It also demands too great a leap of faith from the reader, to make the link between a belief or position, and an outcome.’

Not most readers, I’m afraid, once you pummel them with a 5,000 word length essay with tonnes of bombast, especially if they are not experts in the field. :p I was aware of the necessary leap of faith though, but had little choice, given the word and time constraint, and my own sad lack of knowledge in sociological and postmodernist theory. So forgive me lar. :p

Once again, however, I must say, the Postmodernist (with a capital P no less), has replied to my replies to his comments, with more thought-provoking comments, and interesting references. Amongst them is: Granovetter, MS (1973). The strength of weak ties, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 78, no. 6, and available for free on www.jstor.org

Essentially, Granovetter, a mathematical sociologist (what on earth is a mathematical sociologist???) recommended the analysis of social networks as a tool to link micro and macro aspects of sociological theory. In this article, he stated that intuitively the strength of interpersonal ties should be probably a linear function of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, intimacy and reciprocal services that characterise the tie. A given tie may be strong, weak or absent, and while most network models deal with strong ties, an analysis of weak ties ‘lends itself to discussion of relations between groups and to analysis of social segments of social structure not easily defined in terms of primary groups’. He argued that weak ties e.g. the connections between colleagues, acquaintances etc., are more important for personal advancement, such as getting good jobs, than the strong ties of family and friendship. For more, read the article yourself. :p

The other name he mentioned in the email was Michel Callon. I don’t know who he is, and a search on wikipedia and jstor leads little clues. Swetswise is little better, with only one paper co-written by Callon. So, all I know is that he is French (postmodernists tend to be French or American anyway), and that he is a professor of sociology (again no surprise).

The second leap of faith

Just a few days ago, I got a tad aggressive with Mr. Jonny. He wanted to talk about religion, and I reacted rather badly at Wagamama.

Really religion is hardly the best of topics to talk about with me, especially if one is an active practitioner of a faith. And if one has something bad to say about other religions / denominations.

I get VERY annoyed if an X-tian tells me that another X-tian of a different denomination, or culture is not an X-tian because he practises the religion differently and do not adhere to tenets A, B and C, which are essential to the very core of the X-tian religion, and which are the MYSTICAL TRUTH and the UNIVERSAL LAW and the GOD’S WORD and the ABSOLUTE.

I would also get very annoyed if an X-tian tells me that the bombs in London (or anywhere else for that matter), because the bombers were Y-tians, and are therefore deluded. That the Y-tian faith should accept responsibility for the actions of the few bombers.

Basically, I can get very annoyed when religions are spoken of as not only necessary and superior to other religions and non-religions.

So there.

Sighz. Religionists seldom appreciate that religion is contestable and is indeed contested. Universal laws, God’s word and the like are words and beliefs, over which people across and within religions do struggle over their meaning, interpretations, importance, practice, manifestation, etc. These lie at the centre of any religion, or rather any given practice of religion, and it should be obvious that the centre of practice depends on what the practitioners regards as its essence.

Take Buddhism for example. A religion that Western-ers tend to take as enlightened and caring, obvious, accepting, tolerant, unstained by bloodshed (as compared to the Judeo-Islamic faiths), and holding uncontested universal laws. I was rather put off when an ang moh Buddhist said that he regarded Thai Buddhism as non-Buddhist, in a ‘I think Thai Buddhism is pooty’ kinda tone. If Buddhism is tolerant, and if that ang moh believes that tolerance and mutual respect lies at the essence of Buddhist, surely that ang moh is either not one, or a deficient member of the faith, according to (probably) his own definition and interpretation then.

More specifically, recently, Jonny and I went to a rather facile and surface-skimming lecture on the SG supported Komeito pro-war stance. Two universal laws seemed to be at conflict here, to this non-SG member (So please do correct me if I’m wrong or misguided): a) Pacifism: military action is not to condoned as an option. And b) situations should be weighed to achieve the greater good. The greater good, is of course open to interpretation. Which is the greater good: further tyranny by the Saddam government, in which the whole world seemed to believe in pre-war, but have conveniently forgotten since then, or an American invasion and an American tyranny and an Iraqi self-imposed suicide bombing series. If Komeito hadn’t supported the war with reservations (which it did), it would have implicitly supported dear Mr. Saddam Hussein. While Hussein’s reign was probably bleak, at least the battles, which proved to be easily won and at little costs of life, gave the long-suffering Iraqis a glimpse of hope and opportunity. Now, I am not justifying the war, just suggesting or stating an alternative perspective of the situation. It’s not like Komeito sent in troops and sarin gas armed cultists to do the work. All they did was say only, or not say only.

Ok. I’m aware that I’m rambling. Another time then.

Oh. The leap of faith here? mmmh. "I'm an X-tian. He practises differently from me. Therefore, he is not an X-tian." or "I'm an X-tian. He is a Y-tian. Any problems in the world, are Y-tian, for X-tianity holds the universe truth."