Christian influence in Remember the Kanji?

Apache Chief Member

Registered: 2011-02-04 Posts: 39

Jarvik7 wrote:
Failing to take seriously is not the same as insulting.
Shall I take insult when someone describes Zeus as mythical?

If you believed in Zeus, I would say that I don't believe he's real. I wouldn't call him a bathrobe wearing lightning chucker and pretend that all I'm doing is airing my disbelief.

cjon256 Member

From: USA Registered: 2006-01-22 Posts: 78

raharney wrote:
I don't understand why people can't enjoy a diversity and plurality of stories from many traditions. It is a perversity of the liberal secular tradition to think that we must ban all images that don't conform to a post-religious "politically correct" perspective. Liberalism is about rough messy freedom not neat clean conformity.

I don't know why some people cannot appreciate a diversity and plurality of opinions from many points of view. I guess that is just the perversity of the religious conservative tradition that makes them think that anything that does not agree with their fundamentalist Christian neo-con perspective is just wrong. Don't they understand that different people mean different things when they say they want liberty?

CJ

raharney Member

Registered: 2011-05-07 Posts: 134

SomeCallMeChris wrote:
Lord of the Rings is fine but don't mention the Bible, because...you know...suicide bombers and all that.
A strawman made up by mixing together different bits that different people said. Not bad at all.

It is a perversity of the liberal secular tradition to think that we must ban all images that don't conform to a post-religious "politically correct" perspective.
Pseudo-academic speech to establish an ostensibly superior position over the hoi polloi, whilst simultaneously collectivizing their diverse opinions under a synthetic label, and by directing argumentation against that label deftly avoiding the error of direct ad hominem! Magnificent! I applaud your efforts, sir!

What are you talking about? All you are doing is describing how argumentation works in general for any opinion. Socrates this ain't.

"Pseudo-academic speech" as in what? Not using the word fxxk.

"ostensibly superior position over the hoi polloi"
You could make this charge about any opinion. I think tabloid media can interfere with electoral politics and this is a perversity of democracy- cue "ostensibly superior position over the hoi polloi"

"collectivizing their diverse opinions under a synthetic label"
collectivizing diverse data under synthetic labels is what homo sapiens do. It's called "thinking".

"argumentation against that label deftly avoiding the error of direct ad hominem!"
I think communism is tyrannical. I think people who believe the sun goes around the earth are mistaken. Am I engaging in crypto-ad hominem by just stating disagreements like this?

JapanesePod101 Sponsor

raharney Member

Registered: 2011-05-07 Posts: 134

cjon256 wrote:
raharney wrote:
I don't understand why people can't enjoy a diversity and plurality of stories from many traditions. It is a perversity of the liberal secular tradition to think that we must ban all images that don't conform to a post-religious "politically correct" perspective. Liberalism is about rough messy freedom not neat clean conformity.
I don't know why some people cannot appreciate a diversity and plurality of opinions from many points of view. I guess that is just the perversity of the religious conservative tradition that makes them think that anything that does not agree with their fundamentalist Christian neo-con perspective is just wrong. Don't they understand that different people mean different things when they say they want liberty?

CJ

Well, as Terry Eagleton and others have pointed out, the neo-atheists and paleo-Christian fundamentalist have a lot in common. Namely, an inability to enjoy and respect the stories and narratives of others.

nadiatims Member

Registered: 2008-01-10 Posts: 1676

Why should anyone be compelled to enjoy or respect the stories and narratives of others?

raharney Member

Registered: 2011-05-07 Posts: 134

Jarvik7 wrote:
@raharney
You are totally off the mark.
The Christian themes are out of place because they don't represent knowledge held by the majority of potential readers (even your typical only-goes-to-church-for-Christmas Christians probably don't know a lot of what Heisig mentioned). That makes it poor material for creating mnemonics for everyone and thus makes the book a bit less accessible and harder to use.

I would make the same comment if it was a story referencing some element of local Swedish politics as a provided mnemonic.

Can you give me examples of Christian themes in RTK that the average English-speaker wouldn't know?
Solomon? Noah's Ark? Adam and Eve? these are simply part of our heritage, like other allusions such as Zeus, Thor, the assassination of Cesar, King Lear, Galileo, Gulliver's Travels, the Battle of Tours, and so on. Unless education has nose-dived big time in the past decade (which I don't for a minute believe it has) people should know this stuff.
And so, if people are making an issue of something that is common knowledge then I have a suspicion there are other agendas at play.

Last edited by raharney (2011 December 05, 11:01 pm)

raharney Member

Registered: 2011-05-07 Posts: 134

nadiatims wrote:
Why should anyone be compelled to enjoy or respect the stories and narratives of others?

No one should be compelled to to enjoy or respect the stories and narratives of others. Just like no one should be compelled to say "good morning" to others or hold open shop doors for old people.**[See adjunct below]**
A free society will always be rough and messy (to quote myself in an earlier post).
But I think it is good if people do enjoy or respect the stories and narratives of others. It's a nice way to treat others.
These are my values, what I want the next generation to inherit. I won't "compel" others to adopt them but I will argue strongly for them always.

**I am not accusing you of not doing these things. I am just drawing a distinction between values/conventions and compulsory laws.**

Last edited by raharney (2011 December 06, 6:47 am)

Jarvik7 Member

From: 名古屋 Registered: 2007-03-05 Posts: 3946

For a quick example, most are not aware of anything about Solomon.
That is not general knowledge in the way Noah's Ark or Adam & Eve/Genesis are (and even with those two, only the bare outline is common knowledge even among Christians).

Most will have at most heard the title "King Lear" (Romeo & Juliet is probably the only Shakespeare that is somewhat well known content-wise) but not know any other details, and even I've never heard of the Battle of Tours. Those weren't terribly good examples.

You are falling into the same trap Heisig fell in to when he wrote the book. He is/was heavily absorbed in religious study when he made the system, and people who are thus focused tend to forget about what the layman knows. It is the same reason why I cannot understand why my parents cannot figure out how computers work.

The average Christian has never read the Bible and never goes to church except for special occasions. They don't know any more about their religion than anyone else who consumes anecdotes about it from popular culture.

Last edited by Jarvik7 (2011 December 05, 11:28 pm)

raharney Member

Registered: 2011-05-07 Posts: 134

Jarvik7 wrote:
For a quick example, most are not aware of anything about Solomon.
That is not general knowledge in the way Noah's Ark or Adam & Eve are.

Most will have at most heard the title "King Lear" but not know any other details, and even I've never heard of the Battle of Tours. Those weren't terribly good examples.

The Wisdom of Solomon? The story about the two woman and the baby disputing who the mother was? "Cut the baby in two", said Solomon, "No, don't kill it, you take", said one woman, "Ah! you are the real mother" said Solomon. Come on. You've heard of it.

As for Zeus, Thor, the assassination of Cesar, King Lear, Galileo, Gulliver's Travels, the Battle of Tours,
OK, I may have missed the mark with the Battle of Tours (probably should have said Waterloo) but the others everyone will know - even if only from Saturday morning children cartoons.

Jarvik7 Member

From: 名古屋 Registered: 2007-03-05 Posts: 3946

Yeah, I know it, but I was raised as a Christian, went to a private Christian school, and went to church/sunday-school every Sunday growing up.

That story is not common knowledge even among typical Christians, who typically only know stuff orally from people being preachy (god hates fags etc), combined with cartoons/movies and political campaign speeches.

In the 1970s when RTK was initially written, probably a lot of the items you mentioned were much more commonly known, but it needs an update for the 2010s (that does not mean short-lived pop culture mnemonics involving Snooki or whatever is going on in America nowdays).

Last edited by Jarvik7 (2011 December 05, 11:27 pm)

raharney Member

Registered: 2011-05-07 Posts: 134

Jarvik7 wrote:
Yeah, I know it, but I was raised as a Christian, went to a private Christian school, and went to church/sunday-school every Sunday growing up.

That story is not common knowledge even among typical Christians, who typically only know stuff orally from people being preachy, combined with cartoons/movies and political speeches.

"solomonic" is an adjective in English. King Solomon gets 116 mil. hits on Google (George Washington only gets 74 million).

(By the way, intriguingly there is a very similar story about Ōoka Tadasuke, a Edo-period East-coast liberal pinko samurai who did the same thing when two women came to him disputing maternity over a boy.
Perhaps that is the functioning of Jungian archetypes-which would trump both our arguments about the nature and extent of shared knowledge. Or maybe it was the lost tribes of Israel washing up on Japanese shores. Or maybe coincidence.)

SomeCallMeChris Member

From: Massachusetts USA Registered: 2011-08-01 Posts: 787

raharney wrote:
What are you talking about? All you are doing is describing how argumentation works in general for any opinion.

Actually, what I'm describing is a particular sort of flame-baiting that doesn't really clarify anything and only serves to attack a group in a way that gives you room to retreat and say you didn't attack anyone in particular. While at the same time lumping secular, liberal, post-religious and politically correct into the same basket and attacking them as wanting to 'ban' religion.

Jarvik7 Member

From: 名古屋 Registered: 2007-03-05 Posts: 3946

You forgot quotes. King Solomon gets 4.9 mil hits vs 47.6 mil for George Washington.

Probably a good number of the Solomon hits are from online copies of the Bible and its equivalent in other Abrahamic religions.

The existence of an adjective (which I've never heard of) shows nothing since it's not a common word. It gets half a million hits and most of them are in relation to a dynasty (or things from it) or are dictionary entries.

Frondescence is a word but that doesn't make everyone a qualified botanist.

Last edited by Jarvik7 (2011 December 05, 11:45 pm)

raharney Member

Registered: 2011-05-07 Posts: 134

SomeCallMeChris wrote:
raharney wrote:
What are you talking about? All you are doing is describing how argumentation works in general for any opinion.
Actually, what I'm describing is a particular sort of flame-baiting that doesn't really clarify anything and only serves to attack a group in a way that gives you room to retreat and say you didn't attack anyone in particular. While at the same time lumping secular, liberal, post-religious and politically correct into the same basket and attacking them as wanting to 'ban' religion.

And actually, I did designate and describe those against whom I am arguing:They are those who are opposed to all public allusions to Christian semiotics (for want of a better word) in the name of liberalism and secularism because, they argue, such things are dangerous and/or offensive to others.
I've stated my case. Are you saying I should be naming actual individuals?

raharney Member

Registered: 2011-05-07 Posts: 134

Jarvik7 wrote:
You forgot quotes. King Solomon gets 4.9 mil hits vs 47.6 mil for George Washington.

Probably a good number of the Solomon hits are from online copies of the Bible and its equivalent in other Abrahamic religions.

The existence of an adjective (which I've never heard of) shows nothing since it's not a common word. It gets half a million hits and most of them are in relation to a dynasty (or things from it) or are dictionary entries.

Yes, you are right. I forgot quotes. That result is more to be expected.
Still, for example, "Isaac Newton" gets 10mil. 4.9mil is still a fair Google presence.

SORRY! Misspelled Procol Harum- it gets 5mil. (3,000 share my spelling mistake)
I give up. Civilization is mucked.

Last edited by raharney (2011 December 05, 11:55 pm)

Jarvik7 Member

From: 名古屋 Registered: 2007-03-05 Posts: 3946

I never meant to say Solomon is a minor character, just that he isn't common knowledge to most people because most people don't know anything about the Bible aside from what has been made into a movie or children's cartoon. You can decry the lack of classical learning in today's world, but my argument from the beginning is that such mnemonics don't suit today's learner.

"Green Hornet" gets over 3x as many hits and it's a minor comic book most people have never read.

Never heard of Procol Harlem... A suggested search is Procol Harum which gets a similar number of hits to King Solomon (but who I've also never heard of, though I've probably heard something by them).

Last edited by Jarvik7 (2011 December 05, 11:55 pm)

raharney Member

Registered: 2011-05-07 Posts: 134

I'm not sure. 1970s and 2010s is not such a long time, not long enough for people to suddenly year-zero history lessons.
My guess is the people over the age of 40 in 1970 also probably assumed that the young people didn't know about Solomon, King Lear, and so on. That is what we always assume about young people as we get older-that they don't know the stuff we knew.

Last edited by raharney (2011 December 06, 1:14 am)

cjon256 Member

From: USA Registered: 2006-01-22 Posts: 78

raharney wrote:
Well, as Terry Eagleton and others have pointed out, the neo-atheists and paleo-Christian fundamentalist have a lot in common. Namely, an inability to enjoy and respect the stories and narratives of others.

You seem to be complaining about other people's points of view because they differ from yours. You also paint yourself as tolerant and loving diversity while your opponents are trying to "ban" something that you support. This seems to be to be a bit of double think, thus my caricature. Or perhaps yours was also meant in jest?

Aside from a little complaining about some of the more obscure bible stories being poor mnemonics, I don't see anything like you are describing in this thread when you say "ban".

And although some people do seek to include other narratives along with the formerly dominant Christian ones in society, I don't see anyone trying to "ban" Christianity in the wider society.

Attention is limited, so if people pay more attention to other narratives and points of view then less time will be spent on whatever the current dominant narratives are. i.e. spending more time on Halo (or writing a compiler, or studying DNA, or reading the Dalai Lama, or learning Japanese) will mean less time spent trying to figure out what Mark 9:50 means.

Diversity of narratives seems to me to be exactly the reason why these Heisig stories end up not being very good mnemonics. I think this is also the reason why many Christians feel that the Christian narrative is "under attack".

CJ

raharney Member

Registered: 2011-05-07 Posts: 134

cjon256 wrote:
raharney wrote:
Well, as Terry Eagleton and others have pointed out, the neo-atheists and paleo-Christian fundamentalist have a lot in common. Namely, an inability to enjoy and respect the stories and narratives of others.
You seem to be complaining about other people's points of view because they differ from yours. You also paint yourself as tolerant and loving diversity while your opponents are trying to "ban" something that you support. This seems to be to be a bit of double think, thus my caricature. Or perhaps yours was also meant in jest?
CJ

There is circularity going on here.
I say X [neo-atheism] is intolerant of public displays of Y, Z [alternate religious narratives] point of views because X only wants X's point of view.
You say I am intolerant of X's point of view because I only want my point of view.
But to break the circle, (1) I did not attack the X position first. I am reacting to X's attack on other positions. (2) I am attacking not X (qua X) but X's view that public displays of Y, Z are not acceptable.

Tzadeck Member

From: Kinki Registered: 2009-02-21 Posts: 2484

I don't know how Procol Harum got mentioned, but let's chill out and listen a bit...

A Salty Dog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6BzNEZxbiw

Incidentally, they're famous for the song "A Whiter Shade of Pale":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5T7WujWrn7c
They're extremely underrated in general. I think they were a better band than Led Zeppelin, and certainly way more solid, yet somehow just didn't stick as years went by.

yudantaiteki Member

Registered: 2009-10-03 Posts: 3619

Jarvik7 wrote:
Failing to take the concept of god (I did say "your sky wizard", not "THE sky wizard") seriously is not the same as insulting a particular belief (they are all silly).
Shall I take insult when someone describes Zeus as mythical?

Going out of your way to use a dismissive term is insulting, and insulting towards a particular belief (not necessarily to the exclusion of others, but in this case it was geared towards Christians).

nadiatims Member

Registered: 2008-01-10 Posts: 1676

Why do people waste time getting offended when someone criticises their beliefs?

undead_saif Member

From: Mother Earth Registered: 2009-01-28 Posts: 635

Jarvik7 wrote:
Failing to take seriously is not the same as insulting.
Shall I take insult when someone describes Zeus as mythical?

You know better that talking about God(s) or holy figures of people of a certain religion in a some way is insulting even more than insulting those people themselves, you know that, it wasn't necessary to be offensive.

Sometime ago I heard someone who just ate some beef say to a Hindu "how does it feel that I ate your God?" and that man got super insulted and frustrated, even though we all know what cows are.

As for the original discussion, not only Christian related names were less effective, but also some obsolete or obscure words to the point that I had to do some internet research to understand them to get a vivid image lol.

Maybe we should introduce some new keywords? That would be great.

Last edited by undead_saif (2011 December 06, 6:04 am)

yudantaiteki Member

Registered: 2009-10-03 Posts: 3619

nadiatims wrote:
Why do people waste time getting offended when someone criticises their beliefs?

Why do people waste time telling others not to get offended?

nadiatims Member

Registered: 2008-01-10 Posts: 1676

yudantaiteki wrote:
nadiatims wrote:
Why do people waste time getting offended when someone criticises their beliefs?
Why do people waste time telling others not to get offended?

Because those getting offended tend to be the ones trying to censor other people, rioting, declaring fatwas etc.

Index » 喫茶店 (Koohii Lounge)

Jarvik7 wrote:

raharney wrote:

SomeCallMeChris wrote:

cjon256 wrote:

raharney wrote:

Jarvik7 wrote:

nadiatims wrote:

Jarvik7 wrote:

Jarvik7 wrote:

raharney wrote:

SomeCallMeChris wrote:

raharney wrote:

Jarvik7 wrote:

raharney wrote:

cjon256 wrote:

raharney wrote:

Jarvik7 wrote:

Jarvik7 wrote:

nadiatims wrote:

yudantaiteki wrote:

nadiatims wrote: