What is the implication of the concept of luck? Luck presents us with a duality inherent in its nature. That is what we would call, "good luck," and, "bad luck." Generally, when possible, we like to invoke these terms as they apply to the overall experiences and circumstances that a particular person may encounter within a given period of time within their lives, or their life proper and absolute. Yet, there is also the application of these terms as it applies to individual episodes or happenstances. Superstition transcends luck, in that particular occurrence can make a positive or negative influence upon a individuals luck. Thus, we see that luck and superstition are not the same thing. They cannot be divorced from each other, but are independent at the same time. Superstition denotes an effect upon a person's overall luck. In this context, luck is simply dependent on superstition, for superstition without an effect on luck can be classified by another term, "belief."
Certainly superstition has that defining characteristic as well. It is used to classify beliefs that are generally non-material, and perceived as outdated and disproven. Yet, because this has no bearing on luck, it is a different kind of superstition by definition and more so regards belief independent of the scientific method, rather than on luck. Thus, when I say, "superstition," one should be aware I mean it in the context of affecting luck, and not the, "outdated," belief classification.
The term, "luck," however, can nearly always be interchangeable with the term, "fortune." Thereby, good luck and good fortune can be considered one in the same, as too is the case with the antithesis, though this, the latter, is scarcely used. However, "fortunate," implies good luck in more an immediate sense, in that it regards a particular event. In the same but opposite manner, "unfortunate," presents a linguistic axiom which needs no further elaboration.
Luck, if not referring to the basic principle, absent its positive or negative modifier, is generally considered to be good rather than bad, and, "lucky," is obviously regarded the same. An example would be, "Your in luck." This all being the case, what we really find luck to imply is that there are events in our lives that are out of our control, and the overall nature of our attributed and assigned luck is left up to some providence besides ourselves, superstition, or chance. This is important to remember, in that it both contradicts some aspects of superstition as well as conforms.
Superstition, it being transcendent over luck, is the true subject of focus, for superstition as a whole is a representation of our a posteriori (knowledge from experience) lives within the material. However, we need to broaden our view of superstition a little. When we do this we find superstition to be quite aligned with our experience, in that it supposes cause and effect, as well as consequence from action. Also, it suggests that there are experiences and things that occur, beyond our control, which put us in favorable or precarious situations. This is certainly the case in life, so when we view superstition in general, we find it not so absurd as we may when considering particulars. In fact, it could be thought analogous for life itself.
Truth is many find superstitions to be silly and irrational. However, at the same time, many of us follow these superstitions, "just in case." We are aware of them and become anxious when one presents itself. However, the fact remains, that though cause and effect certainly governs much of the world and rational thought, the belief, or dare I say, superstition in and of itself, that mundane occurrence or mishap reverberates within the universe to affect the self in good luck or bad luck, doesn't make an iota of sense. Thus, there is an inherent tautology within superstition, that superstition equates to a superstition.
That one's luck be affected by such a tautologous and irrational belief, in and of itself, doesn't follow from the observable natures of cause and effect. In these observations, generally the greater the cause the greater the effect, while with superstition, it claims the cause, though it be minor, produces a greater effect. A direct contradiction concerning the nature of things. For example, I will invite the reader to employ the use of their imagination and picture a car crash test, which I will suppose we all have seen on TV or elsewhere. In my case I was fond of the crash test dummy itself to where I actually had the toys which were gruesome reminders of the importance of wearing a safety belt, and to which I credit to this very day my inability to drive without. We see that there are two objects, a car of which is the subject of the test, and a retaining wall. A variable of speed is added unto the relationship between the objects, and impact and damage is dependent not only on s, but also on the vehicles construct. The greater s, the greater the effect. In addition, the construct of the car contains many variables, x, y, z . . . and so on. Thereby, we find a dependency not just on s but on x, y, z, as well. Of course, as thermodynamics will attest, the energy manifest is eventually dispersed between the objects. This point does have a similarity with superstition, in that if one were to cross the boundary concerning a particular law of fortune, then an effect would be produced, but be dispersed after a period of time. As is the case with breaking a mirror which supposedly brings seven years bad luck before it's eventual dispersal.
This all applies in that superstitions are extremely vague. It simply states, x therefore y. It forgoes the intermediate variables which are so apparent in cause and effect, as I attempted to show in the crash test example. To exemplify this latter point I will use a couple popular examples. First, to walk under a ladder is considered bad luck. Therefore, as an exercise, we will pose several questions to inquire if there is a application of greater or lesser loss of luck depending on the ladder, which is the object promoting or suggesting a possible cause of deteriorating luck. Does it matter how tall the ladder is? How many rungs it has? What materials it is comprised? A standard "straight" ladder, or one with an "A-frame" like appearance? Does the distance from the top of the individuals head to the top of the ladder itself make any difference? In the nature of cause and effect, such simplistic rules are hardly the case. In other words, the simplicity of, "to walk under a ladder is bad luck," presents us no particular elements which may lessen or increase the effect. Its common by empirical observation that degrees and singular influence, or small details, can manifest a great range of degree in its ability to manifest the potential nature of the effect or result.
A broken mirror produces bad luck. Well, does it depend on the size of the mirror? What about the fragmenting? Is it dependent on how many shards are thrown from the frame? What if they aren't thrown from the frame at all? What about a black cat crossing your path? Does it have to be pure black? Long hair? Short hair? Tail or no tail? What about if your driving a jeep through the jungle and a black panther runs across the road, are you more doomed than if it were a house cat? In experience, we find such details do and would matter, but as mentioned this isn't the case with superstition.
If superstition is so irrational, then why its power over the human psyche? Why the penny loafers and rabbit's feet key chains (I would like rabbit's feet penny loafers come to think of it. Just in case.)? Truth is, it is simply our awareness of these popular superstitions that encourage and foster them. It is our own minds that attribute misfortune to bad luck, or good fortune to good luck. It is a presupposition we make, where we ignore any situations that might suggest the contrary. For instance, if we were to awake and discover it was Friday the thirteenth, we would presuppose that anything unfortunate occurring on that day has its initial cause in the calendar date alone. Anything positive which occurs that day on the other hand would be ignored and non-attributed.
It is simply the case that the bad circumstances in life erect strongholds and hurdles which need to be overcome. Thus, they tend to resonate in the mind more than those periods of prosperity, which because of a lack of challenge can and are generally approached with indifference. At least in relative terms. Another reason we find attribution to superstition to be a popular product of the paranoid mind, is we often come to a superstitious cause in a regressive reflection of events past. If calamity befalls us, we may search for reason, or the cause of which it came to pass. This search or inquiry of cause is a natural function of the human mind, and justly so. In this case, however, we will ascribe misfortune unto the mundane for means of explanation. Never mind that the explanation is irrational. It fulfills a desire to place blame on some event or occurrence to reach a conclusion or reason such events occur. Thus, the most popular superstitious myths are singled out as solely responsible for an unwanted result.
As philosopher and Rutgers professor Walter T. Marvin observed:
"What is true of the superstitious is in part true of all men. In light of our knowledge or the darkness of our ignorance we explain what we perceive and then assert existence. In doing so we are presupposing some world hypothesis or another, perhaps a crude and primitive one, or perhaps one of a modern and enlightened adult. Moreover, we fit the thing which we assert to exist somehow into this world conception and into the system of other existents in which we believe. As long as we feel satisfied with the result we do not question the thing's existence."
Again, superstition ignores facts to the contrary. Being in the fishing business, I can tell you that alongside mining, a life at sea contains the most superstitions than any other profession. Some of these have basis in mythology or real occurrence, which has echoed down through the ages, eventually manifesting as a superstition, which are still highly regarded today. There are many superstitions that go along with a life at sea. As Peter D. Jeans puts it in his fabulous book, "Seafaring Lore & Legend":
"Considering the demands of superstition and the subsequent prohibition of so many different articles and practices aboard a ship . . . it might be thought surprising that a vessel ever weighed anchor and set sail in the first place."
These superstitions include, but are not limited to (for there're hundreds):
The breaking of a bottle of champagne across the bow of a vessel prior to launch, which has its gruesome origins in the Vikings practice of launching a boat over their prisoners or slaves, that their blood may be an offering to the gods.
A ship builder should make sure to have a coin placed under the mast. An interesting side note to this is that our boat, built in the mid-sixties, does indeed have a coin under the mast, which we discovered when we had the mast taken off to be shortened, rewired, and equipped with new lights, ladder and platforms. This was discovered this year. I had known about this superstition for quite some time, and inquired if there was a coin under our mast. Not because of any superstitious element on my part, but because I was curious if the superstition was still in practice. The answer was one of mystery, for it was not known if there was or not. Turns out despite its relative recent construction that there was. We don't know of any other "recently" built boat that has this peculiar hidden inclusion. The origins of this superstition are that a coin is required to pay Charon the ferryman of the river Styx to cross into the underworld. The custom was adopted by shipwrights who placed a coin under the mast to appease Poseidon or Neptune, depending on whether you follow Greek or Roman mythology. This was done that the gods might grant a safe voyage. In our case, the coin was a silver dollar, really highlighting the inflation of American currency which Charon apparently keeps up with.
One is not to name their boat after a storm or any atmospheric phenomenon. In addition, it is considered bad luck to change the name of a boat. One wonders then the right course of action if a captain determines the name of their boat is unlucky. Yet, to revisit my point that evidence on the contrary is largely ignored concerning superstition, the vessel, "Norseman," built in 1893 went through a dozen name changes with no ill effects. Also, the boat of Sir Francis Drake changed its name from the, "Pelican," to, "Golden Hind," and made its journey successfully.
Most famously, it is believed unlucky to depart from port on a Friday. This is because it is the day Christ was crucified. In fact, Fridays in general used to be considered unlucky, but now that it symbolizes the end of the work week, this is no longer as relevant. This used to be such the case, that if a vessel in the British Navy did embark on a Friday, they were immediately called back to port by the Admiral. Yet, what is lesser known is that it is lucky to leave on a Wednesday. "Wednesday," we get from, "Wodin's Day," a deity worshipped by the Vikings. This god was supposedly a benevolent one to ocean going and thus to leave on his day would present good fortune.
One is not to have bananas on a ship, nor umbrellas, coffins, any furry creature other than a cat or dog, flowers, priests, and by all means never whistle. There are three reasons for the latter. First, in the early days of sailing, audible sounds from a pipe or instrument were used to communicate commands. Thus, a whistle could be confused with a command leading to potentially disastrous results. Secondly, it is even believed to this day that a whistle, or forceful blow of air, stirs up an air current, which will inevitably result in a gale. So singing along to Guns and Roses', "Patience," isn't recommended. In addition, if this is true, why isn't there a superstitious ban on passing gas? Thirdly, it was believed that the god of winds and breezes would believe he was being mocked and punish those whom dared be disrespectful.
No priests aboard a ship obviously has its biblical origins, much like not leaving on a Friday. Jeans sites the reason of Jonah. God commanded the prophet Jonah to go to Nineva, but instead Jonah attempted to flee to Tarshish, which was located in Southern Spain, which biblically emphasizes the extent of the desire of Jonah to flee from God, for it was literally considered the ends of the earth at that time. We all know what happens then. God, punishing Jonah's disobedience, brings a tempest upon the vessel which Jonah is traveling and the sailors learning of Jonah's trespass against God immediately toss him overboard where he is swallowed by a great fish or whale. Turns out this is a possible occurrence (See the 1891 account of the "Star of The East" and one James Bartley). However, I would also like to add another biblical reason. It is quite possible, that adding to this superstition, is the fact that the apostle Paul was shipwrecked off the coast of Malta, which he stayed upon and converted much of the population to Christianity.
"And I had done a hellish thing,
And it would work 'me woe;
For all averred, I had killed the bird
That made the breeze to blow!"
I myself have known of many mishaps that have occurred on boats which have had a storm or tempest implied in their title. In addition, heard accounts of problematic voyages when their departure date coincided with a Friday. However, ill-fated voyages occur despite all superstitious precaution. Yet, let it be known that, as the saying goes, commercial fishing boats are as, "holes in the ocean," through which a owner's bank account is always depleted. So, at some time, more likely than not, the crew of a fishing boat is to feel unlucky at some point. This correlates with our general lives for we have all had, "bad days," which suggest that our, "luck has ran out." This being the idea that there is a ethereal trove of luck that we tap into once and a while. How we let it build is unknown. Perhaps by picking up a lucky penny or so forth. Yet somehow we unknowingly use up our mystical storage unit of luck and fall on bad times henceforth. It's supposed that a transgression concerning the cosmic laws of luck and superstition will negate the good and leave the bad. However, such a concept is irrational, as most of us will agree, but we follow these, "laws of fortune," deceiving ourselves into thinking that we can procure a pleasant future by adherence to these laws.
There are times where our fortune is dependent upon perception. A single event can indeed be said to be either lucky or unlucky. This cohabitation is apparent in the example of getting the knife in my foot, which I address in my previous post. Taking this example into account, it could be said that the knife falling into my boot blade up, and my foot settling down upon it was an unlucky incident. Yet, it could also be said without fallibility that I was extremely fortunate that the blade didn't go through my foot, or cause any greater injury than it did. There is a close relationship in this incident between the duality of luck, and we can see evidence to the contrary in even one instance, regardless of which side you take. Even to the point of near death, which I have experienced and wrote extensively about I had great misfortune in my illness as well as being extremely fortunate.
There're other vessels whose name changes and original names, which the ancients would never had dared put on the bow of a boat, have produced profitable careers and are back year after year. The negative incidents on boats which clash with the law of fortune, however, are marked, underlined, and highlighted by the mind, so they stand out above and in contrast to those who have, "escaped," the wrath of luck.
Some superstitions do have practicality to them, so the adherence to superstition isn't necessarily a bad thing. Walking under a ladder you may get something dropped on your head, you knock over a person upon it, or any variety of dangers one might think of. In addition, who wants to break a mirror anyway? You could cut yourself and some mirrors shouldn't be broken. Your rear view mirror is a great tool, and logically it follows if you break that one, some bad, "luck," might follow. These might actually suggest an inherent clumsiness on your part which may correlate with a perceived visage of, "bad luck," as I can attest. Furthermore, killing an albatross like Coleridge's Ancient Mariner is just cruel and I would advise against it. A carcass with a 15 foot wing span is quite a formidable obstacle and storage space is sure to be an issue.
Cats are good luck on board a ship because of their ability to keep the rat population at, "bay," while bananas are still considered bad luck, though this superstition has its origins in that mariners used to be privy to disease from the insects and bugs that would routinely hide out in the delicious bushels. Less of a problem today, though still observed by many. In fact, this very year I saw a boat with a large, "No Bananas," sign posted within the doorway.
Generally, in the end, our paranoid minds, and even the passage of time, are to blame for the belief in superstition and luck. Perhaps, you can even apply this lesson to yourself, where a particular action you avoid because you believe something bad will occur and manifest itself in the aftermath. For instance, I hate those soup and cat food tins that have the pull tab on them. I gashed myself once and bled into some kibble. I now have associated cat food lids with something terrible and I will never again use my bare hands to open one. Now I opt for a tool instead. We actually see similarities to this and to superstition. In my example, I first became paranoid of some occurrence in the past and essentially have believed (as we have said belief itself can sometimes be classified as superstition) this occurrence to be in perfect unification with what occurs in the future. Simply, I have made the judgement that if I open one of those lids in a like manner, I am going to cut myself. Absolutely. Thus, I avoid them, creating the rule, "never open a cat food tin lid by a pull tab while only utilizing your bare hands." Thus, I have identified an object, and a behavior that is appropriate in interaction, and thereby, produced a kind of superstition.
Some superstitions are this exact, like the superstition of sharks following a boat. This is said to mean someone on board is going to die. Yet, at the same time, where my example differs in other examples concerns the specificity. Many superstitions are quite vague in how they will manifest bad luck. This, again, may be due to the passage of time in that a belief or practice gave rise to a general feeling of bad luck, when the practitioners of eras past might have perceived an exact consequence of a particular action, due to their time, space, conditions, knowledge, and particular activities. As epochs go by however, it becomes askew and while the causal object of the superstition may be similar to its ancient origins in some degree, and the meaning or purpose has been lost concerning the effect supposed by a trespass against this particular law of fortune. Thereby, to apply it to my example, in 7000 years perhaps my idea will be transformed into a plain, "cat food tins are unlucky." Though in 7000 I suspect food will just materialize in a dish via some Jetson-like food ordering ATM like machine and sharp tins will be dug up by archeologists and anthropologists, rather than utilized in our own condominiums which will by then probably orbit our own planet in a form of an giant artificial ring. If we last that long. Just in case, let us not break too many mirrors.
No comments:
Post a Comment