I've started to wonder whether Darwin's theory of evolution can apply to religious practice as well. Is the way that religions evolve over time similar to the way organisms evolve over time?
An important thing to consider is to whether or not this evolution is Darwinian (where evolution is basically random and has no long-term goal) or Lamarckian (where there is in fact a long-term goal).
We can start with the three Abrahamic religions. Starting with a primitive proto-Judaism somewhere in the Fertile Crescent which is now extinct, biblical Judaism emerged. It evolves over time to handle cultural and environmental changes (conquest of the Jewish "organisms" by competitors such as Assyria, destruction of the temple, and so forth) and in doing so creates several daughter religion "species". Many of these die out (the Essenes, for instance). Some spread (Christianity, for instance).
At what point does a religion become a completely different "species" from its parent? We can use the same criterion evolution uses: it is no longer possible for members of the two religions to "breed" and produce viable offspring. Now consider the fact that interfaith marriages very often produce children who are not religious -- effectively infertile in terms of religion. What's more, religious communities often have prohibitions against intermarriage, which will also encourage speciation.
With this in mind, Christianity quickly reached the point where it is no longer the same species as Judaism. Once intermarriage between the two faiths petered out, they started evolving completely independently. Catholicism as we know it now is nothing like Judaism.
Let's look at several things which cause evolutionary change according to Darwin and see if they apply to religion.
1. Survival of the fittest. Those are healthiest survive. The religious equivalent for this are the orthodox minorities who maintain their traditions as is and pass them on to the next generation. A tradition which lets other cultures interfere with this process could be considered
unfit in this regard as its rituals and customs may be diluted.
2. Changes in the environment cause changes in a species, most of which are negative but some of which are positive. This also makes sense. When the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, the Jews could no longer sacrifice animals at the
central altar there. They had to devise other means to communicate with God. Those who did -- using prayer for instance -- prospered. Those who did not may have assimilated and therefore served as a dead end for that species. Similarly, changes in the intellectual environment around the time of the Renaissance may have been instrumental in getting Luther's movement off the ground.
3. The more offspring, the better. So some get eaten by animals, diseases, and so forth. As
long as enough survive, the religion makes it to the next generation. It's an interesting coincidence that many religions frown on birth control.
4. Ensuring that your offspring make it to breeding age is crucial. In a religious context, that means training them in the tradition at a very young age. However, more importantly, a culture has to make sure that competitors/predators don't destroy it. This can be done in several ways taken right out of nature: camouflage (think of the Marranos), aggression (proselytizing), making yourself seem nonthreatening (adopt some but not all of the cultures that surround you so you will be
accepted and will not stand out), being very protective of your offspring (in this case, don't expose them to new cultures too early), and so forth.
5. Mutation -- random changes affecting an organism. Someone thinks of a new idea and tries to spread it. In some cases (in fact most cases)
the mutant organism does not survive: his faith peters out and his worshipers desert him). In others, the mutation finds a niche and prospers. Remember that all changes, successes and failures, begin with one man: Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Akhenaton...
6. Crossover. For those unfamiliar with crossover, crossover occurs when the offspring of two
parents gets a combination of genes of which both parent had just one half. If both halves are required in order to create a successful change in the lifeform, this change has been acquired via crossover. The most common examples of crossover would be the children of coreligionists from different cultural backgrounds (an Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic) which are close enough to produce "viable offspring" yet far enough to have a distinct difference between the two. If the child is able to create a new theology or belief system based on the sum of the parents, that's good. In theory, intermarriage would be a VERY good form of crossover. However, odds are that even if the child grew up with a well-defined religious culture, his or her culture may not be recognized by the parents. This would force him to either in effect start his own religious species or get very lucky.
7. All viable descendants of a religious belief are equally valid. After all, in the animal kingdom, who cares if
two fish from the same species have different colors? You don't see blue fish fighting with red
fish from the same species that much. The same can be argued for human skin tone.
8. Punctuated evolution. In some cases, problems and changes can appear out of nowhere which can render the dominant organism extinct/obsolete and allow lesser organisms to take over. Dinosaurs were useful until an asteroid hit the Yucatan. Right now, Christianity is the dominant religion with Islam a close second. Monotheists seem to dominate. However, it is interesting to note that many of the Native American religions -- and some of the Eastern religions -- focus on self-introspection and harmony with nature. The harmony with nature is the key here. Right now, Western society has a bit of a problem in that it does not live in harmony with nature. We are now going through a period of greenhouse warming. Could it be that there will be an sudden extinction of the non-harmonious religions in a few hundred years and the harmonious religions will take over? I am reminded a lot of
the dinosaurs fighting among each other and leaving the small mammals alone until the extinction took place. How much of the world's conflict is between Jews, Muslims, and Christians? The point is -- events can come out of nowhere (such as the greenhouse issues) which can totally change things.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Adding ostracism to American democracy
Having now transitioned from Greek philosophy to the fundamentals of Western civilization, I've begun thinking about the ancient Athenian concept of ostracism and whether or not that should be applied to American politics and the Constitution.
The Athenian democracy (open to all adult male citizens) had an unusual feature which never made it into the American constitution (nor that of
any other European country): ostracism, an institution which made sure that no one person got powerful enough to threaten the democratic institutions themselves.
Every so often, the Athenians could call for a vote. People were allowed to nominate people whom they (the voters) believed were acquiring too much power. If
enough votes were cast, the person who received the most votes was sentenced to either death
(which is what did in Socrates) or exile from Athens for 10 years. Regardless of what happens, the powerful figure would be neutralized, at least temporarily.
Could ostracism benefit America and democracies in general? Clearly, the Founding Fathers -- with their great knowledge of the classics -- must have known about it. Why did they not adopt it?
Suppose ostracism existed today. Clearly, Bush would be a prime candidate for ostracism. With a popularity index in the twenties, he could easily be kicked out -- think of it as impeachment by the populace instead of the Senate. Fortunately for American democracy, we have a vice president. This would put Cheney in as president. Whether or not he deserves ostracism is a separate issue. According to the current constitution, Bush is entitled to his office until 2009.
The constitution only permits impeachment of presidents who have committed crimes or other violations of the constitution. Being an ineffective leader, however, does not qualify. Granted, Bush is probably doing everything he can. However, everything is so global nowadays that no political leader can maintain control over his domain without external interference.
If the US adopted ostracism, how would it take effect? What would it look like?
Here is how I imagine it working. A special election is held once a year. Assuming a quorum (certain percentage of the voters) cast their ballots -- something which would be useful to encourage in any case as voter turnout is quite low in the US -- ostracism proceedings would begin.
Here, however, is where American ostracism would probably differ from its Athenian counterpart. There are so many people in the US that the number of candidates for ostracism would be extremely high (most of whom would likely not be deserving of it). This could result in the "winning" candidate having only 10% of the vote or something like that. 10% is certainly not enough to warrant ostracism, especially if the No. 2 man has 8%!
What I envision happening is this. The top three candidates for ostracism (watch out for two-party system parity here!) head to a second election a year later, where they would try to justify their actions to the people and use their authority to try to clean up their act. In effect, these three candidates have been put on probation.
In the runoff election, voters may vote for one of the three people or none. This is the actual ostracism vote, and the voters must be aware that they should not vote for anyone unless they really mean it. Random votes cast will give every candidate 25%.
If a quorum is reached in the runoff and any candidate reaches 50%, the candidate is ostracized. He is given a month to pack up and is kicked out of office. He loses his citizenship and passport and is banished from the country for 10 years. He may apply for citizenship after 10 years, but he may no longer hold public office. If he reaches 33%, he is automatically enrolled in the runoff for the next year.
Although this is an interesting idea, consider what would happen with Bush. Bush is clearly unpopular, so he would make it to the runoff (along with maybe Cheney and some other people). That's fairly straightforward. The question becomes: does he merit ostracism? What would his replacement do? Is it wise to change your army's commander in chief during a war? Bush, as it turns out, would know he's got Cheney to rely on -- but wouldn't people kick HIM the year afterwards?
Granted, I know nothing about politics. But it's an interesting idea...
The Athenian democracy (open to all adult male citizens) had an unusual feature which never made it into the American constitution (nor that of
any other European country): ostracism, an institution which made sure that no one person got powerful enough to threaten the democratic institutions themselves.
Every so often, the Athenians could call for a vote. People were allowed to nominate people whom they (the voters) believed were acquiring too much power. If
enough votes were cast, the person who received the most votes was sentenced to either death
(which is what did in Socrates) or exile from Athens for 10 years. Regardless of what happens, the powerful figure would be neutralized, at least temporarily.
Could ostracism benefit America and democracies in general? Clearly, the Founding Fathers -- with their great knowledge of the classics -- must have known about it. Why did they not adopt it?
Suppose ostracism existed today. Clearly, Bush would be a prime candidate for ostracism. With a popularity index in the twenties, he could easily be kicked out -- think of it as impeachment by the populace instead of the Senate. Fortunately for American democracy, we have a vice president. This would put Cheney in as president. Whether or not he deserves ostracism is a separate issue. According to the current constitution, Bush is entitled to his office until 2009.
The constitution only permits impeachment of presidents who have committed crimes or other violations of the constitution. Being an ineffective leader, however, does not qualify. Granted, Bush is probably doing everything he can. However, everything is so global nowadays that no political leader can maintain control over his domain without external interference.
If the US adopted ostracism, how would it take effect? What would it look like?
Here is how I imagine it working. A special election is held once a year. Assuming a quorum (certain percentage of the voters) cast their ballots -- something which would be useful to encourage in any case as voter turnout is quite low in the US -- ostracism proceedings would begin.
Here, however, is where American ostracism would probably differ from its Athenian counterpart. There are so many people in the US that the number of candidates for ostracism would be extremely high (most of whom would likely not be deserving of it). This could result in the "winning" candidate having only 10% of the vote or something like that. 10% is certainly not enough to warrant ostracism, especially if the No. 2 man has 8%!
What I envision happening is this. The top three candidates for ostracism (watch out for two-party system parity here!) head to a second election a year later, where they would try to justify their actions to the people and use their authority to try to clean up their act. In effect, these three candidates have been put on probation.
In the runoff election, voters may vote for one of the three people or none. This is the actual ostracism vote, and the voters must be aware that they should not vote for anyone unless they really mean it. Random votes cast will give every candidate 25%.
If a quorum is reached in the runoff and any candidate reaches 50%, the candidate is ostracized. He is given a month to pack up and is kicked out of office. He loses his citizenship and passport and is banished from the country for 10 years. He may apply for citizenship after 10 years, but he may no longer hold public office. If he reaches 33%, he is automatically enrolled in the runoff for the next year.
Although this is an interesting idea, consider what would happen with Bush. Bush is clearly unpopular, so he would make it to the runoff (along with maybe Cheney and some other people). That's fairly straightforward. The question becomes: does he merit ostracism? What would his replacement do? Is it wise to change your army's commander in chief during a war? Bush, as it turns out, would know he's got Cheney to rely on -- but wouldn't people kick HIM the year afterwards?
Granted, I know nothing about politics. But it's an interesting idea...
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
An ant's view of the world
Now that spring has sprung in the northern hemisphere (and appears to have arrived for good even in New England), you may have spent time lying in the grass, smelling the flowers, and doing various other outdoor nature-related things.
I tried lying in the grass today when I saw several ants crawling over and around the blades of grass. They were all red, so I figured I'd better leave post-haste. But it made me start thinking.
What would the world look like to an ant? For the time being, we will assume that the animal is a little over half a centimeter in length.
1. The first thing you would notice is that the lawn has suddenly ballooned into a thick forest of green, spiky trees. A typical blade of grass is maybe three inches long. That's about 75 mm, about 15 times the size of the ant. This is the equivalent of humans being surrounded by trees 90 feet tall. That in itself is not surprising -- after all, we're familiar with 90-foot trees. What would be surprising, however, would be the fact that the trees are actually spaced 5-6 feet apart from your vantage point. This would make for a VERY dense forest. You may often wonder how often you'd get lost in such a forest.
2. The ground is very uneven. A small pebble would be a significant fraction of the size of your body. You know how hard is it walk around uneven ground. You should be thankful that you have six legs for traction.
3. You would be naturally adapted to climb trees. If there are "trees" all over the place and you've got the legs to do it, it would be wise to scamper up a tree to get a wider view of the world.
4. You have cities of your own, in some cases very large ones, which aren't that much different from fortified human cities -- one entrance, dense population, and so forth. So the humans don't see them as they are primarily underground. But does that make them any less sophisticated than us?
Suppose an anthill is (say) 1 cubic foot in size with tunnels and "roads" crisscrossing the area. When this is scaled up to human size, -- 5 mm becoming something like 1600 mm -- what do you have? You've basically gotten yourself a city block which looks like it's been taken right out of downtown Manhattan. 800 feet on a side, 80 stories high. It even has a mayor (or more likely a general in case of army ants), the queen.
5. The little 1-inch diameter dandelion which we tend to throw out or pick has just become a very source of shade. What it effectively will serve as is the equivalent of a 90-foot tall tree with a canopy providing 640,000 square inches of shade. 640,000 square inches is almost 5,000 square feet. That's the size of mansion. Who wants the shady apartment under the flower?
Just think about it...
I tried lying in the grass today when I saw several ants crawling over and around the blades of grass. They were all red, so I figured I'd better leave post-haste. But it made me start thinking.
What would the world look like to an ant? For the time being, we will assume that the animal is a little over half a centimeter in length.
1. The first thing you would notice is that the lawn has suddenly ballooned into a thick forest of green, spiky trees. A typical blade of grass is maybe three inches long. That's about 75 mm, about 15 times the size of the ant. This is the equivalent of humans being surrounded by trees 90 feet tall. That in itself is not surprising -- after all, we're familiar with 90-foot trees. What would be surprising, however, would be the fact that the trees are actually spaced 5-6 feet apart from your vantage point. This would make for a VERY dense forest. You may often wonder how often you'd get lost in such a forest.
2. The ground is very uneven. A small pebble would be a significant fraction of the size of your body. You know how hard is it walk around uneven ground. You should be thankful that you have six legs for traction.
3. You would be naturally adapted to climb trees. If there are "trees" all over the place and you've got the legs to do it, it would be wise to scamper up a tree to get a wider view of the world.
4. You have cities of your own, in some cases very large ones, which aren't that much different from fortified human cities -- one entrance, dense population, and so forth. So the humans don't see them as they are primarily underground. But does that make them any less sophisticated than us?
Suppose an anthill is (say) 1 cubic foot in size with tunnels and "roads" crisscrossing the area. When this is scaled up to human size, -- 5 mm becoming something like 1600 mm -- what do you have? You've basically gotten yourself a city block which looks like it's been taken right out of downtown Manhattan. 800 feet on a side, 80 stories high. It even has a mayor (or more likely a general in case of army ants), the queen.
5. The little 1-inch diameter dandelion which we tend to throw out or pick has just become a very source of shade. What it effectively will serve as is the equivalent of a 90-foot tall tree with a canopy providing 640,000 square inches of shade. 640,000 square inches is almost 5,000 square feet. That's the size of mansion. Who wants the shady apartment under the flower?
Just think about it...
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Goldish's Three Rules
The great philosopher Goldish has just discovered three fundamental truths of the universe which are far more relevant to most people than the three laws of thermodynamics.
1. Babies make you popular.
Example: You are arriving at a party and people are milling around not doing much. You walk in with your five-month old son in your arms. Suddenly, you will find yourself besieged by guests,
serenaded by comments like "He's SO CUTE!" and "Goo goo goo goo"! Babies are a sure way to enhance your popularity.
2. Pets make you popular.
Example: On the show Beauty and the Geek, Mr. Pocket Protector has absolutely no luck tryin to pick up girls.
He has no reason to worry -- the host is about to provide him with Cassandra, a cat who has been spayed or neutered at the request of Bob Barker. Imagine the chaos when about 8 gorgeous women start clustering around him simply because he's carrying a cat. Who's going to be petted more? Who's going to be purring more?
3. Food makes you popular.
Example: At a college party, people are sitting around waiting for the pizza to arrive. The door opens, and a guy comes in carrying pizza boxes. Pay close attention, and you will notice that the people start clustering around the guy BEFORE he puts the pizza boxes down. Goldish's Third Rule is also responsible for the prevalence of restaurants and other food service establishments. It is also responsible for the traditional synagogue practice where the worshiper comes in at the very end of the service to sample the snacks at the Kiddush, the ceremonial snack/meal after the service. God? Naaahh. Food? Yeah!
And of course the corollary:
To become extremely popular, carry around puppy food. This will draw juvenile dogs according to Goldish's Third Rule. Once the juvenile dogs arrive, you will have both a baby AND a pet in your arms at the same time!
1. Babies make you popular.
Example: You are arriving at a party and people are milling around not doing much. You walk in with your five-month old son in your arms. Suddenly, you will find yourself besieged by guests,
serenaded by comments like "He's SO CUTE!" and "Goo goo goo goo"! Babies are a sure way to enhance your popularity.
2. Pets make you popular.
Example: On the show Beauty and the Geek, Mr. Pocket Protector has absolutely no luck tryin to pick up girls.
He has no reason to worry -- the host is about to provide him with Cassandra, a cat who has been spayed or neutered at the request of Bob Barker. Imagine the chaos when about 8 gorgeous women start clustering around him simply because he's carrying a cat. Who's going to be petted more? Who's going to be purring more?
3. Food makes you popular.
Example: At a college party, people are sitting around waiting for the pizza to arrive. The door opens, and a guy comes in carrying pizza boxes. Pay close attention, and you will notice that the people start clustering around the guy BEFORE he puts the pizza boxes down. Goldish's Third Rule is also responsible for the prevalence of restaurants and other food service establishments. It is also responsible for the traditional synagogue practice where the worshiper comes in at the very end of the service to sample the snacks at the Kiddush, the ceremonial snack/meal after the service. God? Naaahh. Food? Yeah!
And of course the corollary:
To become extremely popular, carry around puppy food. This will draw juvenile dogs according to Goldish's Third Rule. Once the juvenile dogs arrive, you will have both a baby AND a pet in your arms at the same time!
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Chanukah and the Maccabees: The Real Story
My Alexander the Great Course has continued, and today the tapes discussed the Maccabeean revolt in 164 BC. I was astonished to learn that the Chanukah traditions and the Book of Maccabees only covered part of the story!
First, the basics. According to Jewish tradition and the Book of Maccabees, the evil Greek ruler Antiochus IV passed a decree preventing the Jews from practicing their traditions. Needless to say, the local religious community was not particular thrilled
about this. A family of religious brothers (the Maccabees) from the
from the small town of Modin organized a rebellion, killed Antiochus's general Nicanor, and
routed the Greek armies. They rededicated the Temple in Jerusalem (the Greeks had been
sacrificing pigs, worshiping Zeus, and doing other things which were contrary to Jewish
practice), and commemorated the event in the holiday of Chanukah. Everyone lived happily ever after. The tradition of giving gifts on Chanukah is derived from Christmas, and both holidays are likely derived from Saturnalia, a Roman winter solstice festival.
Here is what really happened, according to the Greek scholar on the tape.
Antiochus III, Antiochus IV's father, was actually a great friend of the Jews. He respected
the Jews' customs and reminded the Greeks not to desecrate the Temple. Antiochus was in
charge of the Seleucid Kingdom, one of the myriad kingdoms carved out of Alexander the
Great's conquests after Alexander's death. He considered Judea to be an autonomous,
relatively independent part of his kingdom.
That's when the Romans got involved.
The Romans started expanding into the eastern Mediterranean late in Antiochus III's
reign and defeated the Seleucids in battle. Antiochus III was forced to give up a large
chunk of his kingdom. Even worse, the Seleucid government was concerned that the
Romans would make an alliance with Ptolemaic Egypt, another Hellenistic kingdom.
Judea suddenly became a valuable buffer state between Egypt and Seleucia.
After Antiochus IV came to power, he took advantage of a minor ruling Egypt and tried to conquer the country. However, the Romans had become the power brokers of the region
by this point. A Roman soldier stepped in to protect Rome's possible ally and, quite simply,
bluffed Antiochus into stopping the invasion.
This left Antiochus in tough position. He had Rome on one side of his kingdom and Egypt on another. His eastern borders were also not particularly friendly. All Egypt needed to do to completely encircle Seleucia with a coalition of enemies was to take over Judea. Antiochus could not risk this, and as a result he determined to assume direct control over Judea. This would naturally
worsen Judeo-Seleucid relations, but Antiochus couldn't help it. He had no choice.
Antiochus realized that he would have to Hellenize Judea in order to maintain control over
the territory. This would help the Judean population assimilate into Seleucia and allow
the Greeks to establish a strong Greek government in the province. So, he started a major
Hellenization campaign, outlawing Jewish ritual and sacrificing pigs in the Temple.
The Hellenization campaign met with mixed reactions. Some people (including the
high priests of the Temple) took up Hellenistic culture enthusiastically. Other, more
traditional people, refused to go along with Antiochus's campaign.
As often the case with rural life, the people living in the Judean countryside were more traditional than those in the big cities. Most of the Greeks concentrated on the cities, and
as a result city dwellers were exposed to Hellenistic culture more often than country folk.
One day, a Greek came to the countryside town of Modin and urged Matthias, a prominent figure in the town, to adopt Greek customs. Matthias and his sons -- the future Maccabees -- refused. The issue should have ended there (the Greeks probably expected resistance).
However, at that point a townsman raced up to the Greeks' newly-erected altar to sacrifice
to the Greek gods. Matthias lost it and ran the townsman through (there is actually a
precedent for this in the Old Testament, where the zealot Phineas kills a community leader consorting with a non-Jewish woman in plain view of the community). Everything went
downhill from there and the revolt was on.
I won't go into the details of the revolt. Suffice it to say that guerrilla warfare is difficult
for any occupying power, and it was no different here. Eventually, the Maccabees win independence for Judea and rededicate the Temple. Obviously, the righteous have
triumphed and the Jewish tradition has survived the threat of Hellenization intact.
That's where the Chanukah story ends. History continues, however, and future events
reveal a startling different conclusion.
Realizing that he couldn't stop the Jewish rebels, Antiochus installed Jonathan, one of the
Maccabee brothers, as the Jewish high priest (was he even of the priestly caste?) to try to placate the Maccabees. This effectively put the Maccabees in charge of the kingdom, in a position of power.
Power corrupts.
Jonathan elected his son as his successor to the high priesthood. This was not unusual
in biblical times. However, when you're dealing with a man in charge of both church and
state here, it takes on another meaning: dynasty. The Hasmonean (Maccabee) dynasty
would go on for many, many, years.
Eventually, one of the Maccabee high priests became enamored of Hellenism and he
starts Hellenizing the community. He took on all the trappings of a Hellenistic ruler and
started abandoning orthodox Jewish traditions.
So there you have it. The Chanukah story talks about the Maccabees preserving Jewish
traditions and keeping Hellenistic forces from impacting Judea. What it doesn't say is that
the Maccabees eventually did their best to finish the job for Antiochus.
First, the basics. According to Jewish tradition and the Book of Maccabees, the evil Greek ruler Antiochus IV passed a decree preventing the Jews from practicing their traditions. Needless to say, the local religious community was not particular thrilled
about this. A family of religious brothers (the Maccabees) from the
from the small town of Modin organized a rebellion, killed Antiochus's general Nicanor, and
routed the Greek armies. They rededicated the Temple in Jerusalem (the Greeks had been
sacrificing pigs, worshiping Zeus, and doing other things which were contrary to Jewish
practice), and commemorated the event in the holiday of Chanukah. Everyone lived happily ever after. The tradition of giving gifts on Chanukah is derived from Christmas, and both holidays are likely derived from Saturnalia, a Roman winter solstice festival.
Here is what really happened, according to the Greek scholar on the tape.
Antiochus III, Antiochus IV's father, was actually a great friend of the Jews. He respected
the Jews' customs and reminded the Greeks not to desecrate the Temple. Antiochus was in
charge of the Seleucid Kingdom, one of the myriad kingdoms carved out of Alexander the
Great's conquests after Alexander's death. He considered Judea to be an autonomous,
relatively independent part of his kingdom.
That's when the Romans got involved.
The Romans started expanding into the eastern Mediterranean late in Antiochus III's
reign and defeated the Seleucids in battle. Antiochus III was forced to give up a large
chunk of his kingdom. Even worse, the Seleucid government was concerned that the
Romans would make an alliance with Ptolemaic Egypt, another Hellenistic kingdom.
Judea suddenly became a valuable buffer state between Egypt and Seleucia.
After Antiochus IV came to power, he took advantage of a minor ruling Egypt and tried to conquer the country. However, the Romans had become the power brokers of the region
by this point. A Roman soldier stepped in to protect Rome's possible ally and, quite simply,
bluffed Antiochus into stopping the invasion.
This left Antiochus in tough position. He had Rome on one side of his kingdom and Egypt on another. His eastern borders were also not particularly friendly. All Egypt needed to do to completely encircle Seleucia with a coalition of enemies was to take over Judea. Antiochus could not risk this, and as a result he determined to assume direct control over Judea. This would naturally
worsen Judeo-Seleucid relations, but Antiochus couldn't help it. He had no choice.
Antiochus realized that he would have to Hellenize Judea in order to maintain control over
the territory. This would help the Judean population assimilate into Seleucia and allow
the Greeks to establish a strong Greek government in the province. So, he started a major
Hellenization campaign, outlawing Jewish ritual and sacrificing pigs in the Temple.
The Hellenization campaign met with mixed reactions. Some people (including the
high priests of the Temple) took up Hellenistic culture enthusiastically. Other, more
traditional people, refused to go along with Antiochus's campaign.
As often the case with rural life, the people living in the Judean countryside were more traditional than those in the big cities. Most of the Greeks concentrated on the cities, and
as a result city dwellers were exposed to Hellenistic culture more often than country folk.
One day, a Greek came to the countryside town of Modin and urged Matthias, a prominent figure in the town, to adopt Greek customs. Matthias and his sons -- the future Maccabees -- refused. The issue should have ended there (the Greeks probably expected resistance).
However, at that point a townsman raced up to the Greeks' newly-erected altar to sacrifice
to the Greek gods. Matthias lost it and ran the townsman through (there is actually a
precedent for this in the Old Testament, where the zealot Phineas kills a community leader consorting with a non-Jewish woman in plain view of the community). Everything went
downhill from there and the revolt was on.
I won't go into the details of the revolt. Suffice it to say that guerrilla warfare is difficult
for any occupying power, and it was no different here. Eventually, the Maccabees win independence for Judea and rededicate the Temple. Obviously, the righteous have
triumphed and the Jewish tradition has survived the threat of Hellenization intact.
That's where the Chanukah story ends. History continues, however, and future events
reveal a startling different conclusion.
Realizing that he couldn't stop the Jewish rebels, Antiochus installed Jonathan, one of the
Maccabee brothers, as the Jewish high priest (was he even of the priestly caste?) to try to placate the Maccabees. This effectively put the Maccabees in charge of the kingdom, in a position of power.
Power corrupts.
Jonathan elected his son as his successor to the high priesthood. This was not unusual
in biblical times. However, when you're dealing with a man in charge of both church and
state here, it takes on another meaning: dynasty. The Hasmonean (Maccabee) dynasty
would go on for many, many, years.
Eventually, one of the Maccabee high priests became enamored of Hellenism and he
starts Hellenizing the community. He took on all the trappings of a Hellenistic ruler and
started abandoning orthodox Jewish traditions.
So there you have it. The Chanukah story talks about the Maccabees preserving Jewish
traditions and keeping Hellenistic forces from impacting Judea. What it doesn't say is that
the Maccabees eventually did their best to finish the job for Antiochus.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Inflation of pinball machine scores
People have complained about inflation for a long time. However, I'm going to be talking about a new form of inflation which not many people have realized exist: pinball machine scores.
Pinball machines in the 60's and 70's were entirely mechanical and had physical numeric reels to display the score. Most of the scores on such machines were five digit numbers, between 0 and 99,990. Back in those days, the "bonus" at the end of a given ball was actually a significant portion of the player's score -- likely an attempt to make the player feel he or she was doing better.
Pinball machine scores are just like personal finance in that it's just one person against the system trying to maximize a score. As a result, people are going to do whatever they can to get higher and higher scores. For finance, it's to feel more comfortable. For pinball, it is to make the people feel like their game has been a success.
With the advent of digital displays, it became easier to put more digits on the backboard of pinball machines. And this started the inflation craze. The first digital pinball machine I ever played was one called Xenon, a science-fiction themed machine named after an noble gas. I remember being astonished when I got 100,000 for the first time. I thought it was a major accomplishment. This machine had room for six digits in the display.
When I arrived at MIT, in 1990, I found a pinball machine in my dormitory. One of the major attractions of this machine was a 10,000,000 point shot. It was extremely difficult to hit. However, in those days 10,000,000 was a fantastic score. Nothing came close. Even jackpots rarely made it past a million.
Fast forward to the mid 1990's. One of my favorite games at this time was the Addams Family machine. This machine had "skill shots" -- shots the player could only hit once, when he or she shoot the ball into the playfield for the first time -- worth 3,000,000 points or more. Jackpots routinely ran into the 30,000,000 point range or more. Things were getting out of control.
A couple of years ago (it is now 2007) I bought a simple CD which allowed the user to play several different pinball machine tables on the computer. Typical scores now range in the 100,000,000 to 200,000,000 range. I recently got a billion on one of them.
What on earth do those extra zeroes do? Getting a billion points doesn't mean much anymore if all of the other machines give you a billion points. Just like in the financial world, multiplying your income (and costs of living) by 10 doesn't make you any richer than your neighbors or better off.
Unlike in the financial world, people can survive and still have a good challenge on a new machine with most of the zeroes lopped off the score. True, your score will rarely exceed 50,000, but when replays are at 30,000 and 80,000 you don't need to worry about getting an astronomical score.
It kind of makes want to play one of those old clunkers again, does it not? Especially since the old clunkers benefit from the second form of inflation: hardware rigged for two plays per quarter instead of two quarters per play.
Pinball machines in the 60's and 70's were entirely mechanical and had physical numeric reels to display the score. Most of the scores on such machines were five digit numbers, between 0 and 99,990. Back in those days, the "bonus" at the end of a given ball was actually a significant portion of the player's score -- likely an attempt to make the player feel he or she was doing better.
Pinball machine scores are just like personal finance in that it's just one person against the system trying to maximize a score. As a result, people are going to do whatever they can to get higher and higher scores. For finance, it's to feel more comfortable. For pinball, it is to make the people feel like their game has been a success.
With the advent of digital displays, it became easier to put more digits on the backboard of pinball machines. And this started the inflation craze. The first digital pinball machine I ever played was one called Xenon, a science-fiction themed machine named after an noble gas. I remember being astonished when I got 100,000 for the first time. I thought it was a major accomplishment. This machine had room for six digits in the display.
When I arrived at MIT, in 1990, I found a pinball machine in my dormitory. One of the major attractions of this machine was a 10,000,000 point shot. It was extremely difficult to hit. However, in those days 10,000,000 was a fantastic score. Nothing came close. Even jackpots rarely made it past a million.
Fast forward to the mid 1990's. One of my favorite games at this time was the Addams Family machine. This machine had "skill shots" -- shots the player could only hit once, when he or she shoot the ball into the playfield for the first time -- worth 3,000,000 points or more. Jackpots routinely ran into the 30,000,000 point range or more. Things were getting out of control.
A couple of years ago (it is now 2007) I bought a simple CD which allowed the user to play several different pinball machine tables on the computer. Typical scores now range in the 100,000,000 to 200,000,000 range. I recently got a billion on one of them.
What on earth do those extra zeroes do? Getting a billion points doesn't mean much anymore if all of the other machines give you a billion points. Just like in the financial world, multiplying your income (and costs of living) by 10 doesn't make you any richer than your neighbors or better off.
Unlike in the financial world, people can survive and still have a good challenge on a new machine with most of the zeroes lopped off the score. True, your score will rarely exceed 50,000, but when replays are at 30,000 and 80,000 you don't need to worry about getting an astronomical score.
It kind of makes want to play one of those old clunkers again, does it not? Especially since the old clunkers benefit from the second form of inflation: hardware rigged for two plays per quarter instead of two quarters per play.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
I often listen to courses on tape in the car to and from work. The course I am currently working on involves Alexander the Great and Hellenistic Greece. The current lecture discusses famous Greek philosophers.
The three best-known Greek philosophers are Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. A good way to tell that a philosopher is famous is that Bill and Ted spend their precious time sending their time-traveling phone booth back to ancient Greece to pick him up.
However, consider Epicurus. Epicurus is best known for hedonistic philosophy, where pleasure is good and adherents should spend all their time pursuing it. Needless to say, many traditional institutions frown upon this policy. To this day, Judaism uses the word "apikoros" -- a transliteration of Epicurus's name -- to refer to an apostate: someone who has abandoned his or her ancestral traditions.
Epicurus probably would have had a great deal of trouble dealing with his detractors. However, he managed to avoid it very easily. Why?
The answer is simple. He never advocated hedonism. The hedonism is actually a corruption of his teachings. Perhaps competing
philosophies and religions wanted to put a bad spin on his teachings.
Epicurus actually believed that overindulging in pleasure was actually a bad idea -- pleasure was desirable, but in MODERATION. He recognized that pleasure was addictive, and indulging could cause oneself to start yearning for it more and more. Too much pleasure could therefore make someone never feel content about anything.
The thing that is interesting about this is that this seems very similar to Buddhist philosophy, which indicates that desire is the major cause of suffering.
Could Epicurus have known of Buddhism?
Epicurus lived around 300 BC. Buddha lived in India in 620 BC or so -- and Alexander managed to make it to India. Could Buddhist philosophy have been transmitted,
to some extent to Greece via Alexander's armies?
Part of the hedonism misconception could have been from the fact that he also believed that there was no life after death and therefore death should not be feared. If there's no life after death, then you don't have to worry about Zeus coming after you for your misdeeds in the next world. So, live it up. He believed that the body simply decomposed into the smallest indivisible possible pieces of matter -- the original concept of atoms (which is itself a Greek word derived from this philosophy).
And that was it.
So if you are Jewish and someone tells you that you are an apikoros, don't think of it entirely as
negative -- particularly if you have the discipline to enjoy your happiness in moderation.
The three best-known Greek philosophers are Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. A good way to tell that a philosopher is famous is that Bill and Ted spend their precious time sending their time-traveling phone booth back to ancient Greece to pick him up.
However, consider Epicurus. Epicurus is best known for hedonistic philosophy, where pleasure is good and adherents should spend all their time pursuing it. Needless to say, many traditional institutions frown upon this policy. To this day, Judaism uses the word "apikoros" -- a transliteration of Epicurus's name -- to refer to an apostate: someone who has abandoned his or her ancestral traditions.
Epicurus probably would have had a great deal of trouble dealing with his detractors. However, he managed to avoid it very easily. Why?
The answer is simple. He never advocated hedonism. The hedonism is actually a corruption of his teachings. Perhaps competing
philosophies and religions wanted to put a bad spin on his teachings.
Epicurus actually believed that overindulging in pleasure was actually a bad idea -- pleasure was desirable, but in MODERATION. He recognized that pleasure was addictive, and indulging could cause oneself to start yearning for it more and more. Too much pleasure could therefore make someone never feel content about anything.
The thing that is interesting about this is that this seems very similar to Buddhist philosophy, which indicates that desire is the major cause of suffering.
Could Epicurus have known of Buddhism?
Epicurus lived around 300 BC. Buddha lived in India in 620 BC or so -- and Alexander managed to make it to India. Could Buddhist philosophy have been transmitted,
to some extent to Greece via Alexander's armies?
Part of the hedonism misconception could have been from the fact that he also believed that there was no life after death and therefore death should not be feared. If there's no life after death, then you don't have to worry about Zeus coming after you for your misdeeds in the next world. So, live it up. He believed that the body simply decomposed into the smallest indivisible possible pieces of matter -- the original concept of atoms (which is itself a Greek word derived from this philosophy).
And that was it.
So if you are Jewish and someone tells you that you are an apikoros, don't think of it entirely as
negative -- particularly if you have the discipline to enjoy your happiness in moderation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)