Sorry, forgot to post there here as well. A little old but still relevant.
http://christophermoorehistory.blogspot.com/2010/11/cran-and-childrens-rights-history.html
http://christophermoorehistory.blogspot.com/2010/11/tim-cooks-canada-and-world-wars-seminar.html
Enjoy,
Jordan Kerr
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
New post..."Eww...nationalism"
http://christophermoorehistory.blogspot.com/2010/11/eww-nationalism.html
Monday, October 25, 2010
New Post...
Film screening at Carleton University Shannon Lectures...
http://christophermoorehistory.blogspot.com/2010/10/carleton-university-shannon-lectures.html
Best,
Jordan
http://christophermoorehistory.blogspot.com/2010/10/carleton-university-shannon-lectures.html
Best,
Jordan
Monday, October 11, 2010
Monday, October 4, 2010
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Where I Stand....for now
So, I'm in a philosophical mood...possibly due to the fact that I'm taking two philosophy classes at the moment. I've been musing over where I stand on the God question. Well knowing that these things are quite fluid, constructed and in constant evolution I've been musing over and re-vamping or perhaps an extending my stance as an agnostic. This has taken me a few years to get to and I'm quite sure it will change again but here it is...
I am a humanistic agnostic deist.
You may be thinking, wtf Jordan? I shall explain.
First let's get some definitions down...
Agnostic:
Someone who neither believes or denies the existence of a God/gods/transcendent being etc.
Deist:
Someone who believes there is a creative and organizational power/being in the universe. This being is not a personal god nor does it intervene in the affairs of humans. It simply created the world and keeps it running. This idea came out of the Enlightenment and was actually popular with many American founding fathers. The best analogy of this belief is that God is a clockmaker. A clockmaker builds the clock, winds it and lets tick with no other interference. The key here for us is that this Being/Force is impersonal. It takes, or possibly cannot take, any interest in human affairs ie. no prayer listening/granting, no miracles, no interjection at all such as commandments, salvation, redemption, wrath etc.
Humanist:
This is someone who isn't necessarily religious, but can be. Regardless of this persons belief in God etc. their focus is on human affairs and their own life. This person is primarily more concerned with the advancement and sustaining of themselves and society. A more specific definition of the humanist I'm speaking of would be a secular humanist, one who removes religious beliefs from their humanistic philosophy to life and society. Think, separation of church and state.
For quite a while the term agnostic is the title I've given myself. However, it needs to be nuanced after a class the other day when my professor corrected what I viewed as agnosticism. His definition was an agnostic who is neutral, or does not have an opinion as to whether or not there is a God. I knew instantly that this general definition no longer applied to me and needed to be nuanced.
I do have an opinion, however. My agnosticism is based on the idea that there is ample evidence to argue both for and against the existence of God(s) But we, as humans, have not the capacity or ability to answer this question definitively. Therefore, without enough proof to say either yae or nay I cannot fall strongly on either side. This is my agnosticism.
However, I do vehemently reject the notion that there is a personal God. This is where the deism comes in. I shall use the most obvious example of why I believe there must be some sort of working force, evolution. It seems nonsensical to me to suppose that the process of evolution didn't start somewhere, somehow. This, for me, is based on probability. The rules and the patterns of the universe from which evolution is based are indeed mathematical in nature, most obviously with probability and physics. Bringing in agnosticism again, I simply cannot claim for sure that some force did not put those rules and patterns into motion. I don't believe for one second that a being created this for the pleasure and enjoyment of either it or human kind. If there is such a creator force humankind has personified it and created it in OUR image, not the other way around. The evolutionary history of religion bares witness to this personification rule. This is my deism.
Thus, with the ideas that we cannot prove or disprove the idea of a transcendent force and with the belief that such a force, if its exists, is most certainly not a personal one but rather a deistic distant administrator (the clockmaker or the auto pilot) our focus must then be humanistic. My humanism lies in the idea that this being/force is indeed impersonal and any personification of it is the work of humankind based upon our innate (probably evolutionary) spiritual needs. Indeed, for some reason evolution has not seen fit to rid our species of the need for spirituality, and I believe this is key. I do not reject religion, I reject it as transcendent and see it rather as earthly, as human, as humanistic. My view is that we, humankind, are responsible and in charge our own personal and societal destinies. While not denying the need for the emotional and mental advantages of personal religions these can and are found among earthly things. However, we must stop comparing our earthly spiritualism to a transcendent one. Indeed, a fantasy is always much more sweet than the truth. However, the truth doesn't have to be bad. This is a matter of perspective. I find my own spirituality in a number of ways in things earthly, in things human, in things that are indeed temporal. Just because something is temporal does not make it inferior. This is my humanism.
You ask for meaning in life? Our meaning in natural, rooted in evolution and the rules and patterns of the universe. Our evolutionary meaning is the continuance of our species and looking to God for help will not, and has not, solved our earthly problems. I urge to, as Dan Dennett writes, to break the spell. Find your own spirituality and put it to work in your life and the lives of others.
I am a humanistic agnostic deist...for now.
JK
Update...so right away I found this. Random eh? It pretty much explains where I stand except for the humanistic part. Supposedly I could fit somewhere in the area of an agnostic thesist and an agnostic creationist. Truly, labels mean nothing and cannot ever encompass the complexity of the human life and thoughts.
I am a humanistic agnostic deist.
You may be thinking, wtf Jordan? I shall explain.
First let's get some definitions down...
Agnostic:
Someone who neither believes or denies the existence of a God/gods/transcendent being etc.
Deist:
Someone who believes there is a creative and organizational power/being in the universe. This being is not a personal god nor does it intervene in the affairs of humans. It simply created the world and keeps it running. This idea came out of the Enlightenment and was actually popular with many American founding fathers. The best analogy of this belief is that God is a clockmaker. A clockmaker builds the clock, winds it and lets tick with no other interference. The key here for us is that this Being/Force is impersonal. It takes, or possibly cannot take, any interest in human affairs ie. no prayer listening/granting, no miracles, no interjection at all such as commandments, salvation, redemption, wrath etc.
Humanist:
This is someone who isn't necessarily religious, but can be. Regardless of this persons belief in God etc. their focus is on human affairs and their own life. This person is primarily more concerned with the advancement and sustaining of themselves and society. A more specific definition of the humanist I'm speaking of would be a secular humanist, one who removes religious beliefs from their humanistic philosophy to life and society. Think, separation of church and state.
------------------------------------------
For quite a while the term agnostic is the title I've given myself. However, it needs to be nuanced after a class the other day when my professor corrected what I viewed as agnosticism. His definition was an agnostic who is neutral, or does not have an opinion as to whether or not there is a God. I knew instantly that this general definition no longer applied to me and needed to be nuanced.
I do have an opinion, however. My agnosticism is based on the idea that there is ample evidence to argue both for and against the existence of God(s) But we, as humans, have not the capacity or ability to answer this question definitively. Therefore, without enough proof to say either yae or nay I cannot fall strongly on either side. This is my agnosticism.
However, I do vehemently reject the notion that there is a personal God. This is where the deism comes in. I shall use the most obvious example of why I believe there must be some sort of working force, evolution. It seems nonsensical to me to suppose that the process of evolution didn't start somewhere, somehow. This, for me, is based on probability. The rules and the patterns of the universe from which evolution is based are indeed mathematical in nature, most obviously with probability and physics. Bringing in agnosticism again, I simply cannot claim for sure that some force did not put those rules and patterns into motion. I don't believe for one second that a being created this for the pleasure and enjoyment of either it or human kind. If there is such a creator force humankind has personified it and created it in OUR image, not the other way around. The evolutionary history of religion bares witness to this personification rule. This is my deism.
Thus, with the ideas that we cannot prove or disprove the idea of a transcendent force and with the belief that such a force, if its exists, is most certainly not a personal one but rather a deistic distant administrator (the clockmaker or the auto pilot) our focus must then be humanistic. My humanism lies in the idea that this being/force is indeed impersonal and any personification of it is the work of humankind based upon our innate (probably evolutionary) spiritual needs. Indeed, for some reason evolution has not seen fit to rid our species of the need for spirituality, and I believe this is key. I do not reject religion, I reject it as transcendent and see it rather as earthly, as human, as humanistic. My view is that we, humankind, are responsible and in charge our own personal and societal destinies. While not denying the need for the emotional and mental advantages of personal religions these can and are found among earthly things. However, we must stop comparing our earthly spiritualism to a transcendent one. Indeed, a fantasy is always much more sweet than the truth. However, the truth doesn't have to be bad. This is a matter of perspective. I find my own spirituality in a number of ways in things earthly, in things human, in things that are indeed temporal. Just because something is temporal does not make it inferior. This is my humanism.
You ask for meaning in life? Our meaning in natural, rooted in evolution and the rules and patterns of the universe. Our evolutionary meaning is the continuance of our species and looking to God for help will not, and has not, solved our earthly problems. I urge to, as Dan Dennett writes, to break the spell. Find your own spirituality and put it to work in your life and the lives of others.
I am a humanistic agnostic deist...for now.
JK
Update...so right away I found this. Random eh? It pretty much explains where I stand except for the humanistic part. Supposedly I could fit somewhere in the area of an agnostic thesist and an agnostic creationist. Truly, labels mean nothing and cannot ever encompass the complexity of the human life and thoughts.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
The Crux of Social History
Old news (response to Who Killed Canadian History?) and well understood ideas but as I've finally gotten around to reading a piece that I ignored in a second year history course (sorry Dr. McDowell, I owe you one.) but I was re-introduced to it last week. It's a passage from A.B. Mckillop's response to a Jack Granastein book, "Who Killed Canadian History? (1998). Mckillop's response was titled, "Who Killed Canadian History? A View from the Trenches" (Canadian Historical Review, 80.2, 1999). As a student in his first years of understanding social and post modernist history, and forming reasoning as to why he studies and writes history, this passage articulated what has been solidifying in my mind for the last couple years. Mckillop is responding to Granastein's lament that in the absence of Canadian history being written on the political and social progress of the nation (ie. accomplishments and positive progress that tell the story of Canada's growth as a nation) historical writing has focused on specific aspects of specific groups in Canadian history that oft times don't reflect a very positive view of our past as the oppression of these groups comes to light.
"It was Canada's social historians, as much as its political historians, who rose to the challenge to see Canada anew. In their work they attempted to respond to the needs of long-neglected social groups to recover their own history and to understand why they had been, and continued to be, disempowered. To give them voice, to let the dead once again speak, it was necessary for historians to understand the particularities of past social experience.(f.66) The price they paid -- and it has been a steep one -- was the end of any pretension that a single narrative voice, based on power exercised from above, could tell the one story of Canada's true past, and do so in a palliative manner. For there was no one story, and Canadian history has involved pain as well as progress. In this respect, Canadian social historians understand what Granatstein apparently does not: that in order for Canadians to take the full measure of what it means to be Canadian, they must be made conscious of all aspects of their shared past. In this sense, there are no subdisciplinary hierarchies of historical significance. Citizenship entails the understanding of what it means to be weak as well to be powerful; it involves healing as much as it does pride."
Jordan Kerr
"It was Canada's social historians, as much as its political historians, who rose to the challenge to see Canada anew. In their work they attempted to respond to the needs of long-neglected social groups to recover their own history and to understand why they had been, and continued to be, disempowered. To give them voice, to let the dead once again speak, it was necessary for historians to understand the particularities of past social experience.(f.66) The price they paid -- and it has been a steep one -- was the end of any pretension that a single narrative voice, based on power exercised from above, could tell the one story of Canada's true past, and do so in a palliative manner. For there was no one story, and Canadian history has involved pain as well as progress. In this respect, Canadian social historians understand what Granatstein apparently does not: that in order for Canadians to take the full measure of what it means to be Canadian, they must be made conscious of all aspects of their shared past. In this sense, there are no subdisciplinary hierarchies of historical significance. Citizenship entails the understanding of what it means to be weak as well to be powerful; it involves healing as much as it does pride."
Jordan Kerr
Monday, September 27, 2010
Archiving Poem (ya, ya I did...)
Thought of a poem while archiving. Enjoy my awful awful poetry :)
These are more than just papers,
Dull ink and dead wood.
These are life, knowledge & effort,
Hope, joy, love and faith.
These papers are human,
A life bound in files.
These papers are living,
E'en as time expires.
Jordan Kerr
These are more than just papers,
Dull ink and dead wood.
These are life, knowledge & effort,
Hope, joy, love and faith.
These papers are human,
A life bound in files.
These papers are living,
E'en as time expires.
Jordan Kerr
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
