After 6 or so months of spotty internet/general laziness, I'm getting back on the horse. Some highlights (not necessarily in the order I read them):
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies -- Jane Austen and Seth Grahame-Smith
Hilarious. Elizabeth and the Bennett sisters are trained zombie hunters who must also find husbands. Good for fans of Regency-era literature and zombies. The best part is how serious the subject is taken.
The Worst Hard Time -- Timothy Egan
Mind-crushingly depressing. About the Dust Bowl -- not only do these people have zero economic resource (it's during the Great Depression), the very land they live on is against them. The thought of dust so thick you can't see your hand in front of your face at noon is only slightly less terrifying than dying of dust pneumonia (jesusfuckingchrist!). You'll want to curl up in your sock drawer and sleep for weeks.
The Southern Vampire/Sookie Stackhouse series -- Charlaine Harris
After I got done reading about horrible crushing death-dust, I wanted something light that wouldn't make me think too hard. This was my answer. It's an easy series, but the characters are consistant (inconsistant characters drive me nuts), and I could read a book in about four hours. There are approximately seventy books in the series, with another twenty on the way, so if you are the kind of person who likes to read a whole series at once, just wait a few years.
Right now I'm reading "World War Z" (yes, I know I'm the last person in the world). Jesus, Max Brooks has thought a lot about this. Organ transplants spreading the virus? Brilliant.
Also reading "Mr. Darcy, Vampyre" by Amanda Grange. Please don't judge me: this is work-related. I'll say it's just as good as the title would suggest. The Darcy and Elizabeth of this book have nothing to do with Jane Austen's complex and well-written characters. Elizabeth basically just wants to have sex with her husband, and Darcy basically wants to turn into a bat and fly around at night (or something), all the while keeping his beloved from harm caused by his hideous affliction. It's kind of like Twilight.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
(Part 2) Hardcore Zen: Punk Rock, Monster Movies, and the Truth About Reality - Brad Warner
Okay. Hardcore Zen is part memoir, part introduction to Zen Buddhism. The memoir part is only interesting if you like punk music or Japanese monster movies, or if you really like to read memoirs. It's not that that stuff is poorly written; it's that it's merely a vehicle for Warner to discuss Zen Buddhism.
Now the Zen thing: Warner makes a great case for Buddhism as a part of life . . . or not, depending on how you look at it. If you're more comfortable with an outside entity (i.e. God, Karma) pointing your moral compass north, Zen Buddhism is not for you. It requires absolute responsibility for your actions, with the knowledge that there will be no ultimate reward or punishment in the Christian sense. There is no Heaven or Hell. In fact, Warner tells us that it is never possible to reach a utopia-like place. When Gautama Buddha said "existence is suffering," what he meant was that you will NEVER be as happy as you think you could be. As Warner says "Suffering occurs when your ideas about how things ought to be don't match how they really are." Accepting that fact, and learning to live with it, is "enlightenment," as far as that goes.
The book is mostly memoir until about the seventh chapter, in which Warner talks about the Great Heart of Wisdom Sutra. This Sutra is basically the basis for his study of Zen and you can read it at his website here. There's also the ten fundamental precepts, which include specific concepts like "don't kill" and "don't steal." They're not commandments, of course, just guidelines for right action in the current moment. He talks about how to practice zazen, which is basically just sitting and thinking. Which is good for you, I guess.
Some specific things he says, and my thoughts on them:
"The only place other than in the world of superhero shows for kids where you can find powerful beings who help powerless people out and ask for nothing in return is in the sphere of religion."
His point here is that Buddhism is not a religion like Judaism is. I agree that most concepts within organized religions make about as much sense as the origin story of Superman. I do not agree with his assertion that religions ask for nothing in return. Gods ask for a lot from their followers: do this, don't do that, worship in a specific way, interact with specific people a specific way, etc. So I'm going to say that, yes, Buddhism is not a religion the way most people think about religion. It's because gods asks for everything and reward people in return. There is no god to reward or punish people in Buddhism. There is no One asking any person for any thing.
"Compassion is far more important [than love]. Compassion is the ability to see what needs doing right now and the willingness to do it right now. Sometimes compassion may even mean doing nothing at all. Lots of loving people in this world go way out of their way to "try to help" -- but often they do more harm than good. Stupid helpfulness is not compassion either."
Sometimes doing the right thing involves going way out of your way. I'm going to say that the people to travel to Africa with the WHO are doing just as much good as the person ladling soup in their hometown homeless shelter, if not more. And yes, sometimes people do the wrong thing for the right reasons, but I think trying is at least as good as succeeding, in most cases.
"We cling hard to our pain because we mistakenly think that that pain is who we really are. We define ourselves by what we don't like or we define ourselves by what we like. Either way we miss the truth."
Warner insists multiple times that there is no "self." This goes way beyond the interconnectedness of all things. There is no separation between ourselves and our pets, the mailbox and the supernova, etc. I believe that human beings have a responsibility to other beings, and that we should strive to do as little damage as possible.
"When you're so committed to the future, it's real easy to let your life right now turn to shit."
Yes and no. This goes back to the "do the right thing in the current moment" idea, which is a grand one. And dreaming too much can sometimes have the unfortunate effect of letting a person ignore the important things going on in the here and now. But every major and minor achievement has occurred because people were committed to the future.
"If you understand the natural law of cause and effect in your bones you naturally refrain from doing stupid things -- because it all happens to you. You create the cause and you experience the effect."
Again, yes and no. I feel that much of religious and philosophical thought operates in a kind of perfect-condition-bubble, in which concepts can be tested and proven if a person has the right capacity for it. What I mean is this: if a person has brain damage, can they realistically "experience the effect"? For that matter, can a child realistically "accept Christ as his Lord and Savior"? Can a sociopath really know that “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah"? I've just never been able to reconcile those ideas.
All in all, Buddhism doesn't make me as uncomfortable as most other "religions" or "philosophies," however you want to define it. I still think it's kind of bullshit, for the reason immediately preceding this paragraph, but most Buddhists really don't care what I think, so whatever. I do think it is important to try to do the right thing in the moment. And to remember that this is only a moment we're living through. We might feel worse or better in the next one, but this is the only moment we have. So we might as well live it. Right?
This is Brad Warner's website.
This is Brad Warner's blog.
This is the Wikipedia definition for Zen Buddhism.
Now the Zen thing: Warner makes a great case for Buddhism as a part of life . . . or not, depending on how you look at it. If you're more comfortable with an outside entity (i.e. God, Karma) pointing your moral compass north, Zen Buddhism is not for you. It requires absolute responsibility for your actions, with the knowledge that there will be no ultimate reward or punishment in the Christian sense. There is no Heaven or Hell. In fact, Warner tells us that it is never possible to reach a utopia-like place. When Gautama Buddha said "existence is suffering," what he meant was that you will NEVER be as happy as you think you could be. As Warner says "Suffering occurs when your ideas about how things ought to be don't match how they really are." Accepting that fact, and learning to live with it, is "enlightenment," as far as that goes.
The book is mostly memoir until about the seventh chapter, in which Warner talks about the Great Heart of Wisdom Sutra. This Sutra is basically the basis for his study of Zen and you can read it at his website here. There's also the ten fundamental precepts, which include specific concepts like "don't kill" and "don't steal." They're not commandments, of course, just guidelines for right action in the current moment. He talks about how to practice zazen, which is basically just sitting and thinking. Which is good for you, I guess.
Some specific things he says, and my thoughts on them:
"The only place other than in the world of superhero shows for kids where you can find powerful beings who help powerless people out and ask for nothing in return is in the sphere of religion."
His point here is that Buddhism is not a religion like Judaism is. I agree that most concepts within organized religions make about as much sense as the origin story of Superman. I do not agree with his assertion that religions ask for nothing in return. Gods ask for a lot from their followers: do this, don't do that, worship in a specific way, interact with specific people a specific way, etc. So I'm going to say that, yes, Buddhism is not a religion the way most people think about religion. It's because gods asks for everything and reward people in return. There is no god to reward or punish people in Buddhism. There is no One asking any person for any thing.
"Compassion is far more important [than love]. Compassion is the ability to see what needs doing right now and the willingness to do it right now. Sometimes compassion may even mean doing nothing at all. Lots of loving people in this world go way out of their way to "try to help" -- but often they do more harm than good. Stupid helpfulness is not compassion either."
Sometimes doing the right thing involves going way out of your way. I'm going to say that the people to travel to Africa with the WHO are doing just as much good as the person ladling soup in their hometown homeless shelter, if not more. And yes, sometimes people do the wrong thing for the right reasons, but I think trying is at least as good as succeeding, in most cases.
"We cling hard to our pain because we mistakenly think that that pain is who we really are. We define ourselves by what we don't like or we define ourselves by what we like. Either way we miss the truth."
Warner insists multiple times that there is no "self." This goes way beyond the interconnectedness of all things. There is no separation between ourselves and our pets, the mailbox and the supernova, etc. I believe that human beings have a responsibility to other beings, and that we should strive to do as little damage as possible.
"When you're so committed to the future, it's real easy to let your life right now turn to shit."
Yes and no. This goes back to the "do the right thing in the current moment" idea, which is a grand one. And dreaming too much can sometimes have the unfortunate effect of letting a person ignore the important things going on in the here and now. But every major and minor achievement has occurred because people were committed to the future.
"If you understand the natural law of cause and effect in your bones you naturally refrain from doing stupid things -- because it all happens to you. You create the cause and you experience the effect."
Again, yes and no. I feel that much of religious and philosophical thought operates in a kind of perfect-condition-bubble, in which concepts can be tested and proven if a person has the right capacity for it. What I mean is this: if a person has brain damage, can they realistically "experience the effect"? For that matter, can a child realistically "accept Christ as his Lord and Savior"? Can a sociopath really know that “There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah"? I've just never been able to reconcile those ideas.
All in all, Buddhism doesn't make me as uncomfortable as most other "religions" or "philosophies," however you want to define it. I still think it's kind of bullshit, for the reason immediately preceding this paragraph, but most Buddhists really don't care what I think, so whatever. I do think it is important to try to do the right thing in the moment. And to remember that this is only a moment we're living through. We might feel worse or better in the next one, but this is the only moment we have. So we might as well live it. Right?
This is Brad Warner's website.
This is Brad Warner's blog.
This is the Wikipedia definition for Zen Buddhism.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
(Part 1) Hardcore Zen: Punk Rock, Monster Movies, and the Truth About Reality - Brad Warner
3/22: Book #1 seems to be Hardcore Zen, mostly because I had to get through three chapters just to see if I wanted to buy the damn thing. I've been in the mood for something deep, challenging, etc. And since I'm a pretty vocal Atheist, I figure a book that comes from a different philosophical bent (Zen Buddhist) would fit the bill.
And when I say it took me three chapters to figure out if I wanted to read it, that's not because it's poorly written or uninteresting. I'm pretty wary of people peddling religion in general. But Warner's style so far is engaging and a little profane, which I fucking like. I'm pretty sure he and I will still fundamentally disagree about the "truth about reality," but as has been pointed out to me numerous times: We won't know until we know. So I'm ready to enjoy being challenged by a different viewpoint.
And when I say it took me three chapters to figure out if I wanted to read it, that's not because it's poorly written or uninteresting. I'm pretty wary of people peddling religion in general. But Warner's style so far is engaging and a little profane, which I fucking like. I'm pretty sure he and I will still fundamentally disagree about the "truth about reality," but as has been pointed out to me numerous times: We won't know until we know. So I'm ready to enjoy being challenged by a different viewpoint.
Hello, Internet!
The premise here is simple: I read a lot. Probably to an excessive degree. I need a place to work through themes and concepts in a way that is constructive. To have a record of what I've read will be nice. Also it would be pretty sweet if other people would discuss and recommend based on what I've written here. We'll see how it goes.
And just as a mark of record, today I am 23 years old, working full time at Barnes & Noble Madison East as a Lead, and still living on the east side of Madison in a shitty, shitty apartment with my good friend and coworker Audra. It was officially the first day of spring two days ago (March 20) so I think that this is a fitting time to start something new. Here goes...
And just as a mark of record, today I am 23 years old, working full time at Barnes & Noble Madison East as a Lead, and still living on the east side of Madison in a shitty, shitty apartment with my good friend and coworker Audra. It was officially the first day of spring two days ago (March 20) so I think that this is a fitting time to start something new. Here goes...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)