Saturday, January 31, 2015

into port

The American import store has really expanded its beer options.  The pioneer was actually a Spanish beer, although with American inspiration.  But now, one can find Sam Adams, Bud, even Duff.  And for discerning tastes, both Anchor and Flying Dog peer out from the refrigerator door.  It's been a while since I've had an Anchor beer, so that what was most appetizing.

I picked up an Anchor Porter (also a while since I've had a dark beer), which poured out in a comfortable chocolate brown with a beige head that fizzed up, but died back fairly quickly.  It has that nice sour-sweet porter smell, bringing plums to mind I think.  The fruitiness is apparent first when drinking, but the undertone of bitter earthiness is also there.  It rises to the top after a couple of seconds though, and hangs around after the beer is swallowed.  A little sour clings to the back of the tongue too.  The balance between sour-sweet-bitter is maintained from top to bottom of the glass, with the beer remaining smooth from start to finish.  A dark beer to go with the dark, chilly nights of the moment.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

More Religion Free Society

In an unusual event, we took up the topic from the week before once again.  A number of people had been waiting to speak, and time was short.  Over the week, I pondered whether a religion-free society would actually be any different from what we have now.  The proponents of such a society, as well as firm opponents, have rather strong opinions on the differences, with those being good (pro - more tolerance, less violence, greater respect for humanity and science) or bad (con - selfishness, anarchy, widespread destruction) depending on which side one falls on.  However, we are taking for granted that religion is the obstacle to or foundation of social behaviors, and that its disappearance would lead to fundamental change in interpersonal relations.  I do not think it is that simple.  Religion is not actually something handed down from on high, magically appearing in human society to prop it up, but rather is the product of that society.  Humans create religion.  If we create it, we must find some use in it, but religion is a tool to serve a purpose, not an agent that controls us.  We like to feel belonging in a community; we like having answers to questions great and small; we like feeling special or superior to others; we like having instructions for life.  Religion gives us all of those things, of course, but so could other groups or social organizations.  Atheists and non-religious people do not actually withdraw from all society just because they do not form part of one group, but instead find other groups that fulfill the social and perhaps moral functions of religion.  A religion-free society, sadly or not, would probably not look very different from what we have now.  Even the evils or excesses of religion are not due to any particular flaw in that system, but to flaws we all have as human beings, so ridding ourselves of one tool or outlet for them would not eliminate them.

Our Doctor had missed the first part of the discussion, meaning the first meeting, but was not out of step with the conclusions.  He also reasoned that religion was an institution, a human-created thing, and part of our social evolution.  He left open the possibility of different forms of belief arising, leaving modern religions aside.  In fact, it is almost impossible to live without some form of belief in his opinion.  He warned us to be careful of insulting others for their beliefs, however strange they might seem, and connected this principle of tolerance to the French Revolution, saying one of the major ideas behind it was fighting for respect for individual rights and beliefs - until they try to kill you.  The last part may have been a Doctor's addendum.  He also spoke of the groups created by religion, noting that Spanish unity is as much based on a single religion as anything else.  As he has said in other meetings, he stressed the importance of a group for an individual's survival: "If you are alone, you are dead," he said.  In his final contribution, towards the end of the meeting, he observed that there was practically no disagreement in the room.  As the Source says whenever he can, religion is related to power, norms, and dogma.  The Doctor even thought that religion should disappear, as well as states, since all institutions have the tendency to degrade over time and lose their relevance.  Religion was necessary in the past as a method of social control and transmission of ways of thinking, but science has changed how we think, and the old ways are no longer needed.  The only thing he seemed to think still useful from religion is the feeling of compassion it can generate.  The Actress chimed in, saying religions are doomed and almost incredulously asked how they can still exist today, but also noted that many religious people are not capable of understanding morality not based on a god or gods looking over your shoulder.

The True Philosopher continued to remind us of the importance of community in human society, but said that the modern world is "post-religion".  He also thinks the need for gathering together will remain rooted in us as human beings, and be released from any connection to religious worship; we will come together in the spirit of fellowship and companionship, as people and social animals, not as worshippers.  One major problem with religion, in his opinion, is the business aspect of it.  Rather than concerning itself with providing the comfort and care that it purports to, organized religion tends to be about money, like any other business.  The True Philosopher would see that vanish from society, whether we lose our beliefs or not.

The Leader also reiterated the benefits a person may find in religion, including connection with others, rewards material and spiritual, and psychological support.  He pointed out too, that many who act in the name of religion are not acting in accordance with its principles.  He felt certain that religions that discriminate against scientifically shown facts lose credibility among rational people, and that contrary to what the Doctor said, religions do not actually evolve; only society does, and eventually society will leave clunky religions behind.

The Educator had a number of things to say about the separation of church and state, essentially laying out a religion-free society within society.  She found the exemptions given to religious beliefs where health is concerned disgusting, saying those who refuse medical treatment for their children should not be allowed to make such decisions.  She also railed against subsidies for religious schools, saying only public schools should receive money from the public, albeit through the government, and those schools should take a tolerant and neutral stance on faith and religion.

The Source remained on the quiet side this time, possibly having said almost everything the week before.  However, he did give one short contribution, insisting that religion provides more disadvantages than advantages.  He compared faith to toxoplasmosis, saying it causes behavior that does not promote self-preservation, but rather benefits something beyond oneself.  He listed a number of problems stemming from religion: war; cruelty; anti-science stances; fear of change.

I would have to refer back to a comment I had made the week before: the problems are due to human weakness, and religion is just an easy excuse for them.

Saturday, January 24, 2015

for when you're not quite sure

There are an increasing number of specialized beer stores in this town, but only two German stores.  One of them, the one with the good pickles, had this "beer" up on the shelf, and the exciting label caught my eye.  Now, it's not exactly beer, it's a mix of beer and a caffeinated fruit beverage, but how bad could that be?
The X is for "extreme", no doubt
There's a sweet berry smell that hits the nose immediately after opening.  The beer comes out red...dish.  There's a hint of red in the head also.  I'm reminded of a very dark Kool-Aid when looking at my drink on the table.  The taste is alright, not too sweet.  It's definitely fruity, though.  Guarana is not a fruit I've tried, but I'd bet it doesn't come out as sweet as raspberries or cherries when processed for flavoring, which makes this mixed beer more bearable.  It is without a doubt a party drink.  It might have beer in it, but it's a little less than half the content, and the fruity flavor is what comes out most clearly.  Shandies, radlers and claras tend to have more a stronger beer flavor than this, so it isn't even a gateway drink, something to get the palate used to beer while distracting it with something else.  It's not that it's a bad drink, but it's not something a beer lover would pick up when there are other choices available.  Unless those choices consist of certain industrial beers, then one might consider a Berry-X just for the sake of drinking something with a taste.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Religion Free Society

We were informed that the attacks in Paris were the inspiration for the topic, one that the Source felt quite strongly about.  It is an idea that has been batted around for some time, although the actual consequences are not always very clearly thought out.  On one hand, we have the idea of "freedom of/to", in which anybody can follow any religious tradition without interference from the state; on the other, we have the idea of "freedom from", meaning that whatever you do you do not have the right to force anybody to pay attention or go along with you.  What the Source seemed to be getting at was a society entirely without religion, but we must consider why religion exists at all if we are to examine how a religionless society would function.  Religion, or at least a set of beliefs about the nature of the world and the best way to behave, seems to exist in all human societies.  There is a variety in the details, but the idea of a structured guide for morality and understanding appears to be universal.  As humans, we have a desire for order and closure, desires which are met by religion, which gives us origin stories and directions for living.  Many people happily follow a religion because it gives them structure or peace, an escape from the uncertainty of a life without a higher power as guidance.  Although the blind adherence to a religion appears to be due to a lack of mental prowess, there are logical reasons for it, in terms of energy and time conservation.  Religion claims to have answers for everything.  Why not just let it be, except for the questions that most interest you?

The Source insisted on the link between violence and religion, historically speaking.  He could not ignore the damage religion has done to advancement in science and social morality.  One idea he landed on was the idea of exclusivity.  Perhaps the act of admitting that there are many churches or faiths that claim to have the truth, just like one's own, could remove a bit of the hubris.  He insisted that a sort of clarification or admission of lack of certainty would add some kind of respectability to churches and religions.  Also, the admission would function as a kind of warning, much like the ones on medication or other products with unpleasant side effects.  After listening to several people try to dissect the connection between religion and violence, he insisted that since religion is the constant excuse for violence, there must be some kind of link.  Pointing out instructions for peaceful co-existence in religious texts, even while the faithful attack and kill, the Source saw as missing the point.  He said bluntly that religion is a force that actively promotes destruction and violence.

A Regular Listener made the effort to prepare a contribution for such prickly topic.  In it, she said that the benefits of religion include giving people a space to speak about their fears and lay their doubts to rest.  More than dogma, society needs rules and the crowd with its sense of belonging supports belief that might fall flat if an individual had to sustain it alone.

The True Philosopher focused on the sociological basis of religion, saying it is not some spontaneous and random event, but a process of creation in society.  Historically, religion has been connected to politics as the source of power for those with it, although even in our modern secular societies, the dominant religion tends to have a political component.  He insisted on there being no necessary connection between religion and violence, mentioning areas where even the infamous Islam does not produce violent adherents, such as South East Asia.  The violence that religion excuses has political roots, and is a function of political will rather than faith, perhaps influenced by the political power of a culture of faith.  He did not deny the prevalence of violent acts with religious defenses, but insisted that the link was not intrinsic to religion.  Violence is something added, not a basis element.

The Leader pondered the forces that could create a religion-free society, saying that it boils down to two possibilities: either people evolve past the need for the rigid external structure of religion, or authority bans it from being practiced.  First, he examined the human need for religion or belief, noting it as an emotional state rather than a rational conclusion.  Although we feel the need for structure, imposing lifestyle or behavior is problematic.  As humans we display an instinct to protect our own beliefs and prohibition of religion would end up being a victim of its own restrictions on thought and behavior, much like prohibition of alcohol in the US.  Religion has its own limitations, of course.  Being linked with politics and particular brands of morality makes it certain to appeal to some but not all.  He saw the real problem as being the privilege religion enjoys, not only in the sense that it limits the freedoms of those not connected with religion, but even denies the rights of those within it.  He mentioned envy and having the spotlight always on as causes of the loss of rights, but more detail was not forthcoming.  He asked why we need a religious monopoly on holidays, suggesting that any religion's festivities should be recognized, which led another participant to say that this situation would easily lead to the total elimination of work days.  The Leader mentioned the dependence on the supernatural for the legitimacy of religion, although only in passing, and speaking directly to the Source's inspiration, said that the problem in France had much to do with immigration and assimilation, not just only religion.  He noted that people are annoyed by lack response to religious violence, leading them to point out hypocrisy in faith, but law is not immune to hypocrisy either.  The issue is not belief or what kind of belief, but the prescription of lifestyle and the repression of "alternative" or "heretical" behaviors.  He also warned us not to put too much stock in separation of church and state at the moment, since the reality is that they are rarely separate, for a variety of reasons.

The Educator believes religion to be a very personal thing.  It comes from the need to find answers, and since our experiences are only our own, our religion is by necessity something belonging only to ourselves.  There may be superficial similarities which allow us to worship in community, but the real belief can only be individual.  This being the case, we cannot oblige other people to believe, nor can we prevent them from believing, so a prohibition of religion would simply not work. 

A Former Regular made a surprise reappearance for this topic, and gave us more ideas about the communal nature of religion.  He also sees religion as a social process, with its development united to politics, but at the same time belief is an in-born, non-rational thing.  We are strong in a group, which leads him to think that new belief (or non-belief) systems can only arise when those ideas can be communicated and accepted among a number of people.  One person alone cannot break away from her faith, but with a group of like-minded people, it is possible.  I disagree a bit with the appearance of new or different belief being contingent on there being a group to support it, but will go along with the expression of different belief being next to impossible without any network behind it.

My takeaway from this discussion is that while violence is not a basis component of religion itself, and in fact many religions insist that violence be avoided as much as possible, we give religion a pass to use violence.  As a society we allow religion and the religious certain leeway to behave in aggressive and harmful ways.  This makes religion the perfect excuse for bad behavior; not only do we have a hands-off approach to it, but its subjectivity when it comes to interpretation makes it easy to justify practically any course of action.

While there have been meetings that have run a little long in the past, this one ended up with a list of six people waiting to speak with half an hour before the center closed, and we still needed to choose the topic for the next week.  Immediately after his saying this, the dull drone who had been allowing badly pronounced half-formed thoughts to spatter our ears started up again, insisting he had some more important things to say, although nothing he has had to say has ever been important.  He does certainly like to use up oxygen, though.  After he had finished his spotlight stealing, a couple of people on the list gave their last thoughts and the rest were set to wait for the next week.

Saturday, January 17, 2015

a little late for santa

Aren't I cute?
In spite of being Belgian, always something that makes me hesitate regarding a beer, the novelty convinced me to give Cookie Beer a try.  It smells a little gingerbready, but the color is much lighter than I've come to expect from Christmas cookies.  It's sort of a dirty tan, with a bubbly white head.  The taste is surprisingly strong and very much like liquid gingerbread.  I notice the sweet first, but the low notes of spiciness are right there with it.  Hints of citrus also peak out around the edges as it's savored.  The sweetness hangs around a little as an aftertaste, like the frosting on a gingerbread house, but lighter and more palatable, probably.  It is a nice, snappy beer.  I don't think any snack is necessary to go with it, since it's a flavor that deserves to be focused on, but maybe something on the salty side like pretzels would set it off nicely.
The bottle even looks elf-sized

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

The Role of Language in Ideology

Unfortunately, I was not able to attend this meeting, due to being lured away to the theater.  That itself was an exercise in language, being an adaptation of Goethe's Faust, although one cannot say with certainty how much ideology is present in it.  I can ponder the topic, I suppose, with the support of the writing by the Leader and the True Philosopher.

An ideology must be supported by language in order to spread.  Its terminology or jargon is the virus that infects new followers.  It achieves this by being attractive, appealing to the emotions of the listener.  Having their emotions set alight, people allow themselves to stop thinking critically about what they are hearing and begin to believe and follow blindly.  The words chosen play on already accepted values, like family or individual value, using glowing terms to instill a sense of self-worth in the potential group members.  Sometimes this is accompanied by a series of negative casting of "others" who cannot join the group for any number of reasons.  Ideologies generally present themselves as great solutions, if only everyone would buy into them, but at the same time set about creating or intensifying divisions in a society.  The language of the ideology feeds into the need for belonging, and also the habit we humans have of grouping ourselves in opposition to others.  It is not enough to simply belong to a group, our group has to be better than the others, and other people have to be in those inferior groups to make us look better by comparison.

An ideology might make use of glories of the past, invoking the names of battles, empires or emperors for its followers to identify with. They may be from the group's own, possibly mythical, past, or representatives of more powerful, greater, groups and civilizations.  The message in that language is that we have some inherent greatness in us, especially in the case of the ancestral figures, and all we have to do is accept and revive that reverence for ourselves (or really, for our leaders) and tangible greatness will follow.

Besides being emotionally impacting, the language of ideology should also be memorable and relatively simple, although the messages it sends might be complex and not readily decipherable.  Slogans in advertising, political campaigns, and posters to ring up support for military actions are clear examples of this, whether we want to admit the connections to ideology that exist in these media; "Just do it," "We can do it," and "Yes we can" are short, to the point and motivating, their contexts easily identifiable for Americans at least, but also just vague enough that removed from their contexts, they are less energizing, and may even be almost meaningless.  Campaign and fight songs boost the power of words with music.  A catchy tune can even block out distasteful words, if one does not pay attention.  The language of the King James Bible resonates with English speakers, even if the meaning is obscured by the manner of expression, or if the particular speaker is not a supporter of the ideology promoted by that book.

As human beings we have a constant battle within us, to belong on one hand, and to be ourselves on the other.  Ideologies fulfill the desire to belong by creating groups for us, and some even encourage individuality beyond what is socially useful.  But, it is language that allows us to express our needs and to explore the options, that calls us to particular ideas and repels us from others.  Without language, we are without ideas and therefore without ideology.

Saturday, January 10, 2015

pudding in a bottle

I'm always on the lookout for those dark beers.  Smoke & Dagger had an eye-catching label, and black lager isn't something I see every day.  The label calls it a blend of schwarzbier and smoked porter, promising chocolate along the way.
It comes out a bit more transparent than stouts do, but once in the glass it's opaque enough.  The head is off-white and bubbly, another sign of not-stoutness.  The smell is a little sweet and tangy, reminiscent of porters.  The first taste also recalls a nice porter, with a little bit of light fruitiness, but that is immediately overtaken by an earthy chocolate.  After swallowing, it's the chocolate that lingers on the taste buds, something like a light chocolate pudding.  The beer remains smooth all the way down, and the aftertaste is very subtle, not overpowering, and not too long-lasting.  The smoke comes out after a time, not so noticeable right away.  In the end, it floats out, just a mild touch, making a nice balance with the chocolate.

A relaxing beer, good for anytime I'd say.  And it has the decency to wear the dagger on the front, no backstabbing in the cards.

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

What is a Family?

The idea of the family, not to mention "family values", has become something of a building block for people who dream of an ideal society.  Without the family, they warn, society would collapse into a rubble of terror and anarchy.  For the most part, the family is never clearly defined, although we can infer that the majority of these people are thinking of the 1950s American style family composed of husband, wife and several children.  Of course the family is much more extensive biologically; we ought to include grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and all manner of more distant relatives.  Western societies do not tend to include many members beyond the nuclear family, although their connection and sometime importance is recognized.  The so-called traditional family is actually highly individual, based around the success of the husband/father, who is the public face of the family, while the wife/mother does all the background labor in the home and the children are the contribution they make to the future of society without being individuals on their own yet.  The problem is, this type of family is not especially successful without rigid social structures to sustain, as indeed any family may not be.  But, having this ideal become a rarity rather than seemingly normal achievement should make us rethink what our families really are.  The basic element is the feeling of responsibility for other members of the family - caring for them when they are sick or injured, making sure they reach an age when they can contribute to the survival of all the group, and other services are expected from family members.  The relationships and therefore responsibilities may be by blood or by law, as sometimes family members who have joined to be with their spouse take on greater responsibilities than blood kin.  While we imagine these acts to be universal among humans, we also need to take into account the human tendency to be lazy and selfish.  Many family members exploit the goodwill of the others, and the expectations of society that somebody with a blood connection will feel an obligation to support them, even if they have been nothing but vile and unpleasant.  So what is so magical about birth?  Why can we not choose for our family people who truly care about us and feel an urge to have a hand in our happiness and fulfillment?

Our Doctor, a man committed to his family, stated clearly that the idea of the family has changed over time, and what was is no longer and what is will disappear to become yet another thing.  He mentioned the cooperation of a family as a survival strategy for infants, but noted that perhaps 10% of babies born today are not the offspring of the male whose name is on the birth certificate.  He did not condemn the behavior that produces these statistics, merely saying that promiscuity is part of nature.  He gave his opinion that the state was taking over the function of the family in modern times, in the sense of providing for our old age and infirmity, through public health and pension services.  Still, the family with its smaller size than a city or nation is attractive, since there is a certain stability in it, and we look for stable situations.  Later on, he spoke of couples who marry, pointing out that genetic testing is not done as a matter of course, although we expect married couples to produce children.  The Doctor believes testing should be done, so that the incidence of inherited disease will drop, at least in his view.  He also mentioned the importance of family medical history to a doctor, since the prevalence of certain illnesses or disorders can help with treatments and diagnoses.  After speaking for some time about married couples and their reproductive capacities, he also found a moment to toss adoption in, although he was more concerned about the future emotional effects on children adopted by homosexuals than the health of children with no genetic family medical history.  His final thoughts were of the complexity of modern life, and the treacherousness of information; we have access to many things, but many interesting things are hidden from us, often in plain sight.  We inherit our culture, values and selves from what went before us, but every discussion is new.

The True Philosopher did not give us a preliminary writing this time around, preferring to spend some time with his family.  He was eloquent in the meeting, however, beginning by examining the relationship of the biological versus the social family.  The family is considered the smallest unit of a society, but the size of that family is determined at least in part by the type of society around it.  Agricultural societies, in need of more laborers, are more likely to incorporate extended families and promote bigger numbers of offspring, while industrial societies tend towards the more compact option.  He told us we were now past the time of the nuclear family, in fact, having arrived at the post-modern family, which is either expanded with members of different generations a bit like an extended family, or added to with members by marriages: step-families.  The communal family and polyamory were also mentioned, but not explored in depth as concepts, probably due to lack of familiarity.  We were also reminded of the colloquial use of "family" as an expression of emotional closeness to another person, somebody who is given the same protection and consideration as a family member in situations of distress or enjoyment.  The value of the family is seen in nepotism in politics, and business, a development carried over from feudal society, he said, in which close relations but also the relations of one's in-laws could expect preferential treatment when one had the power to give it.  The close, the Philosopher emphasized the emotion involved in defining the family, and the flexibility of the term to differing circumstances.

The Leader did prepare a short essay, focusing mainly on the family as a means for survival for the individual.  In the meeting he insisted that we cannot escape the links between the biological, the social, and the political with regard to the topic.  He echoed the Doctor's idea of the state taking on the role of the family in the sense of providing access to resources for the success of its members, saying that a minimum of resources is necessary, not only for a child to survive but to flourish.  The state has an obligation to its citizens, although maybe only to provide the bare minimum.  He later brought up the question of when the state should interfere in that family structure, in particular when abuse is an issue.  Children should be the responsibility of the family, but sometimes a family, like an individual, can shirk its responsibilities.  Looking at the smaller nuclear family, he said that not only did working parents have less time to produce and raise children, but more and better resources to ensure that any individual child will survive, and so less pressure to make "extras".  For many of modern societies ills, he threw the blame on politicians, who work for their own advancement rather than that of the society they supposedly serve.

The Writer mentioned several ideas about the family connected to work, such as the "company family".  The propagandistic image of the workplace as a family encourages the employees to make sacrifices for the good of the group, although they might never see any benefits themselves.  She also spoke to the preference for married employees, especially married men, saying that they are seen as more conservative and more likely to defend the status quo, although other participants had proposed that they were simply easier to manipulate or blackmail with the idea of their families suffering if they do not perform the job up to expectations.

It was another interesting discussion with a philosophical family.

Saturday, January 3, 2015

start the year off hot

Here's something I hadn't tried before, chili beer.  Why not?  Beer by itself complements spicy food, so when you don't feel like a full meal, spicy beer.  There was one chili pepper on the bottom of the bottle, like an eel waiting to strike from the depths.
There's that pepper
Oh, hello
The chili popped right up to the top as soon as the cap was opened, interestingly.  It's small enough that it might come out with the beer if you're not careful, which I was since there's just a bit more beer than glass.  It foamed up at first, but the head almost immediately died back; I wonder if the chili has something to do with that.  So, I ended up with a glass of light cidery looking beer.  A good sniff does warn the drinker of the chili addition.  But how much is in the flavor?  Lots!  The spicy, snappy chili flavor explodes onto the tongue and streaks down the esophagus.   There are a few seconds of tingling after swallowing, like when eating some serious Mexican or Indian food, and the chill in the beer itself doesn't do much to fight it.  It does, however, keep the drink refreshing.  Actually, the spice itself seems to be a bit of a pick-me-up as well.  I wish I had some nice salty tortilla chips to go with it.  The flavor and the spicy kick are even all the way down, no concentration of flavor like in some other kinds of beers.  It's a little powerful for an everyday beer, unless you're a heavy spice lover, but it's quite nice for something special, although I don't think I'd have especially spicy food with it.
Don't be fooled, it's not apple juice