Years of Poems and Spirits

While listening to a debate on healthcare, I came to this question again – at what point an issue becomes complicated enough that people resort to their belief/faith and abandon reason altogether?

Apparently, this is a gradual process -

1. If the issue is simple enough, or there are only a few deciding factors, simple reasoning (”good common sense”)  would prevail. E.g. political grandstanding don’t always work.

2. When the issue getting more complex, there are more and more competing factors, biased reasoning started to kick in. People only listen to things they like to listen and argue with arguments become self-reinforcing (what is that term for this?) E.g. cable talk shows, healthcare, etc.

3. When the issue becomes too complex, it is all about beliefs and faith. There is little room for reason. It is no longer in the secular domain. E.g. religion, etc.

This ought to be an interesting question since there are only a few variables involved. And it is a very relevant question, particularly in democracy.

Watched A&D last night. It was pretty entertaining (perhaps because I never read the novel). Still, it wasn’t a movie worth blogging until I saw this piece on WaPo, Angels & Demons & Disclaimers.

While discussing why he didn’t watch Mel Gibson’s The Passion of Jesus Christ, the writer, David Waters, mentioned the idea of “the myth of redemptive violence” (by Water Wink, a religion professor), which begins with:

The belief that violence ”saves” is so successful because it doesn’t seem to be mythic in the least. Violence simply appears to be the nature of things. It’s what works. It seems inevitable, the last and, often, the first resort in conflicts. If a god is what you turn to when all else fails, violence certainly functions as a god. What people overlook, then, is the religious character of violence. It demands from its devotees an absolute obedience- unto-death.

A couple of years back, when I saw another movie, “A History of Violence”, I had the same feeling about the adoration of violence in Western culture. What drew my attention back then was the irony that a liberal, peace-loving Hollywood could have produced a rich body of work depicting violence so approvingly–almost poetically.

Of course, Walter Wink’s essay is much deeper than a dilettante’s blog. His inspiration comes from a Babylonian creation myth (instead of a Hollywood movie). Yet here comes another surprise-spark – in terms of depicting violence, redemption and order, don’t religious texts read awfully a lot like national history prepared for grade school students?!

Lastly, I was very impressed by David Waters’ writing. Found another admirer’s blog quite on target. I can sense a passion in religion reporting like mine in discovering the inner workings behind State and Society.

于建嵘：县政改革请自改变“异地为官”始

keywords：改流为土，异地为官，offset the effect of election,

官员更容易倾向于对上负责而不是对下负责, 在历史上,外地来的“官”常常需要用自己的私人班子———各种“师爷”来控制本乡本土的“吏”。

这些官员每个星期都要在家与单位两边跑,县乡政府在食宿、交通工具、娱乐设施等方面进行的巨大投资,已使某些地方的行政成本大量增加

“省直管县”改革并没有引起太大的关注就已经取得了较大进展 (查：vs. 市管县)

杨恒均：全民医保会不会让我们“国破人亡”？
keywords: 中国文化惹祸,

十五年前，帮一位香港朋友在国内联系外科医生动脑部肿瘤的手术，交了昂贵的费用后，医生暗示手术时还要送红包，最后那位香港朋友哆哆嗦嗦地送出了一万元的大红包，手术很成功啊。（有黑色幽默，可入当代《世说新语》）

不是这医保计划不好，而是我突然想，这医保说得比唱的还好听，从长远来看，几乎可以和西方国家如澳洲相媲美。可问题是，我们有适应这种从外面引进的全面医保的“文化”和“制度”吗？（正在跟踪医保改革，报大希望，可能是nation质变的开始。但这的确是盆（应有）的凉水）

我们一边和国际接轨，一边拼命把人家先进的东西搬进来（人权啊，劳动合同法啊，全民医保啊，教师待遇啊等等），一边却在那里拼命抵触支撑这些东西的价值观。（说的很有意思，又回到了“体用”之争。可引伸到法律，法制的软弱表现）

中国文化惹祸：A new Chinese immigrant in Australia wrote a letter to his son’s teacher, with regard to the pending reference for college entrance. Together with the letter, he stuffed A$2,500 in the envelope. When he was prosecuted for bribing a public servant, his defense was, “that is how we Chinese people show respect to teachers. It is a cultural thing. You don’t understand.”

It takes social entrepreneurs like such to help me understand some of the fundamentals better. I always had trouble finding a clear definition of “culture”. Not that I have found one thanks to him, but I do feel there is a new dimension along which I can see “culture” differently.

This new dimension is, for lack of better words, “symbolicism”–how much a cultural element is of only symbolic significance. For example, in my mind, filial piety (孝) is mostly “symbolic” in the sense that being so does not bring one any material reward but only moral credit.

Another example would be this “respect for teacher” thing. This cultural element has more secular significance than symbolic. You give money to your son’s teacher not to be praised for being an exemplary community member, but to help your son to get into a top notch but affordable public school.

What is interesting is how the two types of elements relate to each other. Can we assume that, before something becomes purely symbolic, it was for a long time a very secular thing? For example, could it be that in the early days of an agrarian society, seniors are treasured for their knowledge and experience in the field? But once it evolved into a symbolic value, it can afford certain level of “detachment” from reality. Even in the industrial age, for example, filial piety is still highly valued in traditional agrarian societies.

But the most interesting are the “secular” cultural traits.  That is where symbol, expectation, morality and political institution intersect. Just to use this teacher briber as an example, on the one hand, there is some truth to his argument, teaching is a “financially promiscuous” profession in China, a fact that is widely tolerated, if not accepted, which does give the phenomenon a cultural appearance.

On the other hand, however, not only is bribing illegal in HK (I believe), but also is not practiced by most immigrants from Mainland. I am trying to think of examples where political institutions did pluck budding a social trend before it becomes “culture”. But I am too tired to think now.