When I imagine the format of short entries, side notes, and sketches... there are actually two varieties I think of.
The one is a clearly organized presentation of a set (like bugs, ferns, artifacts). This style is focused on classification and categorization... more like a pictorial encyclopedia. The other is a form is more like a journal plus sketchbook. Organized chronologically, this is an ongoing literary and artistic account of a set of events.
When I initially thought of the field guide, I was entertaining the first style. But the second is also possible. Now, this would involve writing them into a vague story... not that the story would be explicitly told... but that it would seem like there was one going on behind the scenes.
Now, I could make one up. Basically a fictional subplot. But... I could also tell the real one. It could involve the transformation going on in the youth group, my struggles with vegetarianism, trying to simplify my life. It could even end with my reflections about traveling in South America, the poverty there, and our power to fix it.
This could also include pictures, either straight in the document, or taken then rendered into sketches.
Hmmm.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Struggles for Modern Man (and Woman)
Sit through an intro literature class. There are five classic struggles that man (and women, though they were created back before women were quite worth mentioning) could face in the scope of a story. These struggles are no way limited to the narrative. They also sum up pretty well the challenges of real life.
As humankind has developed through history, so to has its ability to cope with these challenges. Indeed, today we are much safer from many of the things that worried our ancestors.
Let's take them one at a time...
Man vs. Nature
Poisonous plants, hostile elements, hungry beasts.
Through systematic classifications, better building practices, meteorology, weapons of self defense and disaster planning we have vastly improved our ability to cope with the natural world. Do you often doubt if you will "make it through winter?" Nope. While the occasional extreme climate event may displace millions, the causalities are usually kept to a minimum in countries with efficient and reactive rescue infrastructures.
Man vs. Man
Theft, murder, deceit.
While our fellow humans still can pose a threat to us, we have locks on our doors, personal firearms, security systems, fraud protection, banks, and safety service personnel. Apart from getting stuck in long lines behind masses of your fellow humans, we tend not to be put at odds with each other as often as in the past. Murder, after all, has been on a steady decline on the western world for 700 years.
Man vs. Society
Oppressive social norms and practices.
This one still gets us from time to time, but things are getting a bit better. The internet offers community for the outcasts, social mobility allows people to relocate and start anew, courts exist to try to bring justice to all. While we are certainly still subject to the world in which we live, there seems to be a growing sense of multiplicity, at least allowing people to have more choice about what world that is.
Man vs. the Supernatural
God, destiny, demons, the Fae.
If these entities are real... they have gotten trickier over the years. We rarely face the supernatural in an overt showing of power, and there are many who outright deny their existence and refuse to deal with them as such. I certainly don't discount their existence, and while I wouldn't say that humanity on the whole has improved in its coping with these struggles, it is true that many religions have "softened" their hard lines in favor of a more open ideology.
and finally...
Man vs. Himself
Restraint, fear, doubt
I don't believe that in the thousands of years of human existence we have improved in regard to this challenge. In fact, in the modern world, this is the prevailing worry. Is Mother Nature going to squash humanity under her thumb? Not likely. But could humanity, in its unrestrained self indulgence, destroy the world and itself in the process? Its seems a growing possibility.
In the midst of developing technology, developing social structures, developing interpersonal models, developing health care, developing building techniques, developing science, developing economics, developing spiritual communities, developing governments, and developing infrastructures... humans aren't really developing.
Imagine the possibilities of better tools, better communities, better relationships, better medicine, better housing, better learning, better business, better prayer, better laws, and better transportation. Wouldn't it seem that with all that better, the world would be so much better?
But is it? Some days I think so. But other days I look around, and I see people up to the same old tricks. New systems become sites for new domination. New resources create new poverties. New rules create new bad rulers. Without self restraint, without the ability to challenge the self, no advancement in the struggle against nature, others, society or the supernatural will ever lead to better lives. The man with no self mastery will squander most of the resources afforded by the other advancements... and the ones that he cannot somehow toss aside, he will learn to ignore out of indolent ingratitude. Soon, the near utopia around him comes to reflect the inner wasteland he never addressed.
We need to quit driving and eating the world into glacieral melting. Quit spending into oppressive deficit. Quit channeling our stress and negativity onto all around.
We are among the most powerful people to have ever walked the earth. We have risen to nearly every challenge. Now its its time to meet the one power who's power grows as fast as us. Our own. Humans are no longer infants wailing for their next meal. We have advanced and developed power in this world.
It is time we wielded that power with a more mature outlook.
Sometimes it seems, that the more powerful someone becomes, the more self righteous they become. The great can do no wrong. But in reality, this is precisely the opposite of true. As we become great, our actual ability to do wrong increases with our power.
If we ever want to see the greatest good come to pass, we must commit ourselves to besting ourselves. We must be devoted to live out our better natures, seek our better destinies, and become our better selves.
True. We have yet to explore space at warp speed. Yet it is our inner struggle, Man vs. Himself, not space, that in our future days will prove to be the final frontier.
As humankind has developed through history, so to has its ability to cope with these challenges. Indeed, today we are much safer from many of the things that worried our ancestors.
Let's take them one at a time...
Man vs. Nature
Poisonous plants, hostile elements, hungry beasts.
Through systematic classifications, better building practices, meteorology, weapons of self defense and disaster planning we have vastly improved our ability to cope with the natural world. Do you often doubt if you will "make it through winter?" Nope. While the occasional extreme climate event may displace millions, the causalities are usually kept to a minimum in countries with efficient and reactive rescue infrastructures.
Man vs. Man
Theft, murder, deceit.
While our fellow humans still can pose a threat to us, we have locks on our doors, personal firearms, security systems, fraud protection, banks, and safety service personnel. Apart from getting stuck in long lines behind masses of your fellow humans, we tend not to be put at odds with each other as often as in the past. Murder, after all, has been on a steady decline on the western world for 700 years.
Man vs. Society
Oppressive social norms and practices.
This one still gets us from time to time, but things are getting a bit better. The internet offers community for the outcasts, social mobility allows people to relocate and start anew, courts exist to try to bring justice to all. While we are certainly still subject to the world in which we live, there seems to be a growing sense of multiplicity, at least allowing people to have more choice about what world that is.
Man vs. the Supernatural
God, destiny, demons, the Fae.
If these entities are real... they have gotten trickier over the years. We rarely face the supernatural in an overt showing of power, and there are many who outright deny their existence and refuse to deal with them as such. I certainly don't discount their existence, and while I wouldn't say that humanity on the whole has improved in its coping with these struggles, it is true that many religions have "softened" their hard lines in favor of a more open ideology.
and finally...
Man vs. Himself
Restraint, fear, doubt
I don't believe that in the thousands of years of human existence we have improved in regard to this challenge. In fact, in the modern world, this is the prevailing worry. Is Mother Nature going to squash humanity under her thumb? Not likely. But could humanity, in its unrestrained self indulgence, destroy the world and itself in the process? Its seems a growing possibility.
In the midst of developing technology, developing social structures, developing interpersonal models, developing health care, developing building techniques, developing science, developing economics, developing spiritual communities, developing governments, and developing infrastructures... humans aren't really developing.
Imagine the possibilities of better tools, better communities, better relationships, better medicine, better housing, better learning, better business, better prayer, better laws, and better transportation. Wouldn't it seem that with all that better, the world would be so much better?
But is it? Some days I think so. But other days I look around, and I see people up to the same old tricks. New systems become sites for new domination. New resources create new poverties. New rules create new bad rulers. Without self restraint, without the ability to challenge the self, no advancement in the struggle against nature, others, society or the supernatural will ever lead to better lives. The man with no self mastery will squander most of the resources afforded by the other advancements... and the ones that he cannot somehow toss aside, he will learn to ignore out of indolent ingratitude. Soon, the near utopia around him comes to reflect the inner wasteland he never addressed.
We need to quit driving and eating the world into glacieral melting. Quit spending into oppressive deficit. Quit channeling our stress and negativity onto all around.
We are among the most powerful people to have ever walked the earth. We have risen to nearly every challenge. Now its its time to meet the one power who's power grows as fast as us. Our own. Humans are no longer infants wailing for their next meal. We have advanced and developed power in this world.
It is time we wielded that power with a more mature outlook.
Sometimes it seems, that the more powerful someone becomes, the more self righteous they become. The great can do no wrong. But in reality, this is precisely the opposite of true. As we become great, our actual ability to do wrong increases with our power.
If we ever want to see the greatest good come to pass, we must commit ourselves to besting ourselves. We must be devoted to live out our better natures, seek our better destinies, and become our better selves.
True. We have yet to explore space at warp speed. Yet it is our inner struggle, Man vs. Himself, not space, that in our future days will prove to be the final frontier.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Random Crap Answers to Questions People Aren't Asking Me
Is this a self help book?
Well, kind of. Its trying to be just as cheesily inspirational as a self help book... its just an other help book.
Is it like Chicken Soup for the Soul?
More like Ducttape and Crowbar for the Soul.
Well, kind of. Its trying to be just as cheesily inspirational as a self help book... its just an other help book.
Is it like Chicken Soup for the Soul?
More like Ducttape and Crowbar for the Soul.
Friday, November 14, 2008
How to Change the World
Whenever I talk about changing the world, I get mixed reactions. Some people are stirred by the idea. Many, however, scoff... and on some days, its hard for me not to agree.
When I flick on the tv, the world that comes streaming through seems pretty immune to improvement. Politics with no accountability. Unchecked warfare. Injustice abounds. Nothing new under the sun, they say, and those days where I hopelessly try to stare down the despair flashing out of that box, I tend to agree.
As I try to peddle my optimistic outlook a hundred stations beam though my body at 200 MHz, offering a picture of the world that is invulnerable to any meaningful change. Is I a fool? Can we really change the world?
The answer to that question depends entirely on which world we are living in.
The world of the tv is a mediated and immediate representation of events on a national and global scale. Huge geographical scope. Tiny temporal scope. Tv answers the question, "What is happening now everywhere?"
So think about it. Can you, on your own, change everywhere now? Of course not! If you live in the world portrayed by your television, proactive movement to improve the quality of the world doesn't even makes sense. Tv channels only go one way. There's no way to interact. No sites for change. And the sheer geographical size of the televisioned world makes it unassailable in the rush of information.
But what if you lived in a neighborhood? What if you paid attention to that which was going on in the next couple of months? Think you could change that world, given that amount of time?
Mass media seductively offers us the ability to interface with the world at large in nearly real time. But what we cannot do is effect that world. Now, I'm not knocking mass media. The free flow if information is a corner stone to the democratic process and improving the accountability of the powerful. But if you live only there, if that is all that you consider important and real, you have decided to live in a place that is too fast moving in respect to its vastness for you to make any meaningful impact.
No wonder people are pessimistic concerning their ability to make change.
Wanna change the world? Set your sights first on that which is around you. Develop a sense of the local. Learn the things that the people around you need. Find out what resources are nearby. Improve the world you pass when you walk, bike, bus or drive yourself to work. Improve your block. Your office building. Your coworkers. Friends. Family.
Change yourself for the better.
Now, I'm not a reductionist. When I said we could change the world, I didn't mean only the local one. Changing that vast world represented by the media is possible. It just takes more time. The timeline of the tube is an unstopping stream of events. No way for ordinary people to influence the whole world that fast. But if you have clarity of vision, sustainable motivation, and a galvanized group... why, you can't help but to make a difference.
So develop a sense of the local. Ask questions about what those nearby you need. Work on your own problems. And when you watch the news... keep your eyes open for ways you can make a difference. When you see it, bitch and brainstorm, find a few others who see it your way, get together, and makes something happen.
That's how you change the world.
When I flick on the tv, the world that comes streaming through seems pretty immune to improvement. Politics with no accountability. Unchecked warfare. Injustice abounds. Nothing new under the sun, they say, and those days where I hopelessly try to stare down the despair flashing out of that box, I tend to agree.
As I try to peddle my optimistic outlook a hundred stations beam though my body at 200 MHz, offering a picture of the world that is invulnerable to any meaningful change. Is I a fool? Can we really change the world?
The answer to that question depends entirely on which world we are living in.
The world of the tv is a mediated and immediate representation of events on a national and global scale. Huge geographical scope. Tiny temporal scope. Tv answers the question, "What is happening now everywhere?"
So think about it. Can you, on your own, change everywhere now? Of course not! If you live in the world portrayed by your television, proactive movement to improve the quality of the world doesn't even makes sense. Tv channels only go one way. There's no way to interact. No sites for change. And the sheer geographical size of the televisioned world makes it unassailable in the rush of information.
But what if you lived in a neighborhood? What if you paid attention to that which was going on in the next couple of months? Think you could change that world, given that amount of time?
Mass media seductively offers us the ability to interface with the world at large in nearly real time. But what we cannot do is effect that world. Now, I'm not knocking mass media. The free flow if information is a corner stone to the democratic process and improving the accountability of the powerful. But if you live only there, if that is all that you consider important and real, you have decided to live in a place that is too fast moving in respect to its vastness for you to make any meaningful impact.
No wonder people are pessimistic concerning their ability to make change.
Wanna change the world? Set your sights first on that which is around you. Develop a sense of the local. Learn the things that the people around you need. Find out what resources are nearby. Improve the world you pass when you walk, bike, bus or drive yourself to work. Improve your block. Your office building. Your coworkers. Friends. Family.
Change yourself for the better.
Now, I'm not a reductionist. When I said we could change the world, I didn't mean only the local one. Changing that vast world represented by the media is possible. It just takes more time. The timeline of the tube is an unstopping stream of events. No way for ordinary people to influence the whole world that fast. But if you have clarity of vision, sustainable motivation, and a galvanized group... why, you can't help but to make a difference.
So develop a sense of the local. Ask questions about what those nearby you need. Work on your own problems. And when you watch the news... keep your eyes open for ways you can make a difference. When you see it, bitch and brainstorm, find a few others who see it your way, get together, and makes something happen.
That's how you change the world.
Day 103
Ok.
November 14th.
Been thinking on a handful of ideas. I am at 33,000 words, and I have begun to really like one of the possible angles for this work.
A field guide for good works.
Field guide works for a few reasons:
Its allows for personal reflections about events (which I think necessary for this particular subject).
It has a focus on practicality (which pervades this project).
It creates a more one on one relationship with the reader.
It could have really cool drawings and overall production edginess.
It encourages the notion of personal responsibility for social change (like, alright, you've picked up the book... read it while you are out doing some good).
Those are my reasons for liking the field book idea.
My vision at this point is a kind of combination of entries, ranging from personal reflections (like field book observations), works within moral philosophical thinking (like the scientific content of field books), tips and pointers on practical moral issues, and prayers or self/group development activities and social change resources.
Whadda you think?
November 14th.
Been thinking on a handful of ideas. I am at 33,000 words, and I have begun to really like one of the possible angles for this work.
A field guide for good works.
Field guide works for a few reasons:
Its allows for personal reflections about events (which I think necessary for this particular subject).
It has a focus on practicality (which pervades this project).
It creates a more one on one relationship with the reader.
It could have really cool drawings and overall production edginess.
It encourages the notion of personal responsibility for social change (like, alright, you've picked up the book... read it while you are out doing some good).
Those are my reasons for liking the field book idea.
My vision at this point is a kind of combination of entries, ranging from personal reflections (like field book observations), works within moral philosophical thinking (like the scientific content of field books), tips and pointers on practical moral issues, and prayers or self/group development activities and social change resources.
Whadda you think?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
True Genius
One of my life's great concerns has been the pursuit of true genius. Much of this quest comes out of my identity... I think of myself as exceptionally intelligent, and I really enjoy any activity that promises to challenge or expand my brain power.
There is also a strange cast of brilliance that has played major roles in my life. From my mother's simultaneously absent and present consciousness to my brothers' differing intellectual sensibilities (the younger; a common sense, human truth, the older; a radical, transhuman truth). The elusive yet key wisdom of teaching, namely, that there are different kinds of intellect, is more like a day to day aspect of my life.
Happy or sad, good or bad, intellect has been a foundation of my identity from the beginning. In my younger years I felt isolated by my mindfulness. My peers seemed interested in that which was trivial, and though I had passing fancies about being a part of their world, I was grateful for being smarter than all that. (This whole thing makes me smile nowadays. Think it was my intellect, or my arrogant and shitty attitude that isolated me? You be the judge.)
By my sophomore year in high school, I fancied myself a misanthrope. I think this is the teenaged ego defense to years of being the weird one. Anyhow, I really had a pretty elaborate disdain for people, including myself. I only did good things that way people would think me a good person, and this was a deception that had worked perfectly... everybody thought I was nice... even though inside me lurked a barely checked demon (no joke, this is how I thought of myself). And other people, other people were pale reflections of their selves, projecting false identities and failing to see the true value of other people (as evidenced by my inability to get a date).
All the while I quested for genius. Though I'm not the most fastidious student ever, I learned ravenously, soaking in every subject I could. Most people had a class or two that they hated and were bad at. I may have hated a few, but I was relentless in really getting my head around every idea I came to. At one point early in my search for genius I would have defined it as the ability to learn anything.
But I quickly moved on from there. Unsatisfied with being fed truths from the bounty of past thinkers, I moved into the persuasion that true genius was not to learn knowledge, but discover it. No longer was I content to simply soak in facts and figures. Rather, I would invent schemas and theories and test them against the facts and figures. Creativity became my intellectual centerpiece.
Somewhere in my loathing of my tortured immorality (which was, in reality a twisted form of ego trip), I toyed with the notion that the evil thinker was less restrained than the good thinker. Take a moment on it. The good person can't really consider all the possibilities that an evil person can. They have a moral restriction on their creativity. True genius, it seemed, rested in amoral thinking.
Early in my college career I managed to get over my immoral overdrama. I had been "pretending" to be a good person for long enough that I figured it had finally stuck, and I no longer fantasized that my evil brain was more powerful than a good one. Now my mind was onto a new form of genius. Philosophical fearlessness. No belief was safe. No societal norm uncritiqued. I got inside my head with a crowbar, prying off all the preconceived notions I had ever had and stripping them back.
While I wasn't nearly as bitter as when in high school, I had moved on to a new form of judgement. People who accepted things without question. I was now far smarter than those people who obediently believed that which they were told. True genius was intellectual Independence, and most of the people who I passed in the halls were vessels of unconsidered ideologies and uninvestigated ideas.
That notion of intellect failed when I started actually listening to the way those people thought. Funny thing. Despite never using a mote of philosophical language or academic framing, people I had once considered as inwardly blind were strikingly reflective. It turns out "regular" people think brilliant things all the time. Talking about it at length may not be their favored pastime... and they may not struggle with these issues on a daily business... but they do struggle with them... and if you stop trying to say it your way and listen, they will talk about them.
It was about that time that my head broke open. What had been an entirely solitary process for twenty some years suddenly had many new contributors. I started really listening to lots of people. Everyone, if I paid attention to how they thought, had something to teach me. There were also divine agents at work in my conciseness. God showed me things, angles spoke to me, and the elements of the world revealed lessons about the universe.
Honestly, since that moral/intellectual/spiritual daybreak, I've worried a lot less about the search for true genius. Don't get me wrong, being a smarty pants is still an important part of my identity, and I still struggle with issues of egotism. But as I sit here tap tap tapping away at my computer, I can confidently tell you that true genius isn't a particular way of thinking. More, lots of different kinds of genius that serve in different ways. True genius, for lack of a better phrase, is a particular "why" of thinking. Here's what I mean.
True genius is love.
Think on it. Love pays attention. Love is relentless in solving problems. Real love is fearless in the face of the truth and refuses to live in illusion.
I had once idealized the evil thinker for their unfettered creativity. Now I realize that it is the good thinker that is the true genius, because their intellectual task is harder. Moral thinking demands more creativity because it requires multiplicity, an attention to many different goods. Immoral thinking isn't better... it's lazier. Someone who only thinks of them selves is free to consider all kinds of violations of others. But this isn't unique to the selfish mind. Some of the most intellectually twisted people I know are the most moral. Good people can also imagine bad things.
But where the moral thinker shows their colors is not in fixating on the many immoral paths they can take, but the many moral ones. The paths of righteousness are no less complex. In fact, right actions are far more intricate, as they weave between the simultaneous goods of all involved. You want a chance to prove your brilliance? Start acting as though every speck of the universe is holy and worthy of respect and well being, then start living you life.
Interestingly, the word genius has only meant a person of brilliance since 1649. For hundreds of years before that, the word was used to describe the guardian spirits that protected people and places.
What?
Tutelary spirits. Guardian deities. Tasked to watch over people from the moment of birth and protecting the well being of places and things. These spirits were blessings, bestowing upon their charges boons and guiding their lives. Its not hard to see how the word genius came to mean "strong leaning" (from the spirits' guidings) and "natural talent" (from the spirits' blessings).
So, if you want to be a genius in the richest sense for the word, you must be more than just a smarty pants. You have to put your intellect into the service of others. You have to define your life not by the possibilities of your brain, but the necessities of those it protects.
If you want to be a true genius, you have to do more than think well. You have to think well about the well being of others. You have to love.
True genius?
Love.
There is also a strange cast of brilliance that has played major roles in my life. From my mother's simultaneously absent and present consciousness to my brothers' differing intellectual sensibilities (the younger; a common sense, human truth, the older; a radical, transhuman truth). The elusive yet key wisdom of teaching, namely, that there are different kinds of intellect, is more like a day to day aspect of my life.
Happy or sad, good or bad, intellect has been a foundation of my identity from the beginning. In my younger years I felt isolated by my mindfulness. My peers seemed interested in that which was trivial, and though I had passing fancies about being a part of their world, I was grateful for being smarter than all that. (This whole thing makes me smile nowadays. Think it was my intellect, or my arrogant and shitty attitude that isolated me? You be the judge.)
By my sophomore year in high school, I fancied myself a misanthrope. I think this is the teenaged ego defense to years of being the weird one. Anyhow, I really had a pretty elaborate disdain for people, including myself. I only did good things that way people would think me a good person, and this was a deception that had worked perfectly... everybody thought I was nice... even though inside me lurked a barely checked demon (no joke, this is how I thought of myself). And other people, other people were pale reflections of their selves, projecting false identities and failing to see the true value of other people (as evidenced by my inability to get a date).
All the while I quested for genius. Though I'm not the most fastidious student ever, I learned ravenously, soaking in every subject I could. Most people had a class or two that they hated and were bad at. I may have hated a few, but I was relentless in really getting my head around every idea I came to. At one point early in my search for genius I would have defined it as the ability to learn anything.
But I quickly moved on from there. Unsatisfied with being fed truths from the bounty of past thinkers, I moved into the persuasion that true genius was not to learn knowledge, but discover it. No longer was I content to simply soak in facts and figures. Rather, I would invent schemas and theories and test them against the facts and figures. Creativity became my intellectual centerpiece.
Somewhere in my loathing of my tortured immorality (which was, in reality a twisted form of ego trip), I toyed with the notion that the evil thinker was less restrained than the good thinker. Take a moment on it. The good person can't really consider all the possibilities that an evil person can. They have a moral restriction on their creativity. True genius, it seemed, rested in amoral thinking.
Early in my college career I managed to get over my immoral overdrama. I had been "pretending" to be a good person for long enough that I figured it had finally stuck, and I no longer fantasized that my evil brain was more powerful than a good one. Now my mind was onto a new form of genius. Philosophical fearlessness. No belief was safe. No societal norm uncritiqued. I got inside my head with a crowbar, prying off all the preconceived notions I had ever had and stripping them back.
While I wasn't nearly as bitter as when in high school, I had moved on to a new form of judgement. People who accepted things without question. I was now far smarter than those people who obediently believed that which they were told. True genius was intellectual Independence, and most of the people who I passed in the halls were vessels of unconsidered ideologies and uninvestigated ideas.
That notion of intellect failed when I started actually listening to the way those people thought. Funny thing. Despite never using a mote of philosophical language or academic framing, people I had once considered as inwardly blind were strikingly reflective. It turns out "regular" people think brilliant things all the time. Talking about it at length may not be their favored pastime... and they may not struggle with these issues on a daily business... but they do struggle with them... and if you stop trying to say it your way and listen, they will talk about them.
It was about that time that my head broke open. What had been an entirely solitary process for twenty some years suddenly had many new contributors. I started really listening to lots of people. Everyone, if I paid attention to how they thought, had something to teach me. There were also divine agents at work in my conciseness. God showed me things, angles spoke to me, and the elements of the world revealed lessons about the universe.
Honestly, since that moral/intellectual/spiritual daybreak, I've worried a lot less about the search for true genius. Don't get me wrong, being a smarty pants is still an important part of my identity, and I still struggle with issues of egotism. But as I sit here tap tap tapping away at my computer, I can confidently tell you that true genius isn't a particular way of thinking. More, lots of different kinds of genius that serve in different ways. True genius, for lack of a better phrase, is a particular "why" of thinking. Here's what I mean.
True genius is love.
Think on it. Love pays attention. Love is relentless in solving problems. Real love is fearless in the face of the truth and refuses to live in illusion.
I had once idealized the evil thinker for their unfettered creativity. Now I realize that it is the good thinker that is the true genius, because their intellectual task is harder. Moral thinking demands more creativity because it requires multiplicity, an attention to many different goods. Immoral thinking isn't better... it's lazier. Someone who only thinks of them selves is free to consider all kinds of violations of others. But this isn't unique to the selfish mind. Some of the most intellectually twisted people I know are the most moral. Good people can also imagine bad things.
But where the moral thinker shows their colors is not in fixating on the many immoral paths they can take, but the many moral ones. The paths of righteousness are no less complex. In fact, right actions are far more intricate, as they weave between the simultaneous goods of all involved. You want a chance to prove your brilliance? Start acting as though every speck of the universe is holy and worthy of respect and well being, then start living you life.
Interestingly, the word genius has only meant a person of brilliance since 1649. For hundreds of years before that, the word was used to describe the guardian spirits that protected people and places.
What?
Tutelary spirits. Guardian deities. Tasked to watch over people from the moment of birth and protecting the well being of places and things. These spirits were blessings, bestowing upon their charges boons and guiding their lives. Its not hard to see how the word genius came to mean "strong leaning" (from the spirits' guidings) and "natural talent" (from the spirits' blessings).
So, if you want to be a genius in the richest sense for the word, you must be more than just a smarty pants. You have to put your intellect into the service of others. You have to define your life not by the possibilities of your brain, but the necessities of those it protects.
If you want to be a true genius, you have to do more than think well. You have to think well about the well being of others. You have to love.
True genius?
Love.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
What Is and What Should Be
What is. The state of things. Reality. Now.
What should be. Our moral goal. The ideal state of things. Our hopeful future.
Knowing what is can be quite handy. Its what makes us realistic. Its what allows us to effectively respond to the world. We should all try to know what is. Exhaustive research, thorough investigation, and devoted inquiry all help transform our minds in a way that brings us more inline with the world as it is.
But in our pursuit of knowing what is, we must not loose sight of what should be.
Knowing what should be involves aligning ourselves to a different kind of reality. The world as it should be may not exist in the now, and it may have never existed, but is an expression of values that are eternally true. Trying to discover the world as it should be involves earnest discernment, hopeful imaginings, and far-reaching empathy. We seek to transform our desires to be inline with the world as it should be.
Some people think that realism and idealism (meant here in the common sense context, not the philosophical context) are at odds.
Those who favor the world as it is claim that the idealists are foolish. "Why pine about what isn't true?" they ask. The realists believe we should learn to deal with the harsh realities and learn to enjoy the sweet realities of our world.
Idealists are quite the opposite. They favor living in a world that reflects their ideals, rejecting that which does not fit into their mindset. Lovers of the world as it should be filter their actions through the ideals they profess.
Both of these mindsets are wrong. He who only sees what is has been bullied by the reality of now, and looses his ability to imagine that which could be. But woe to she who only sees the world as it should be. Her denial of what is dooms her actions to ineffectiveness.
Striving to do the greatest good involves loving both what is and what should be. We must see the world as it is if we wish to transform it into what should be, that way we know what we are working with (and how it works). Likewise, we must see the world as it should be, that way our actions have a tranformative end.
Take a medical example. Without an understanding of what is, the most compassionate person in the world is powerless to intervene. Similarly, without understanding what should be the most well studied person in the world will fail to act. Medicine is the synthesis of biological science and healing. That which is and what should be.
What about teaching. Without seeing who the students are, the teacher fails to address them effectively. But without understanding who the students should be, the teacher fails to develop any standards. Teaching is the synthesis of understanding students and challenging them. That which is and what should be.
The examples go on.
What does this mean to us? If we find ourselves only seeing the world as it is, we must shake off the persuasiveness of the now. Not let reality statically dictate its importance. Strive to open ourselves to things that are not yet real. And if we find ourselves only seeing the world as it should be, we must shatter our little world. Not let our yearnings blind us to what is, which would only doom us to impotently and clumsily flail about in our pursuit of good.
What should be. Our moral goal. The ideal state of things. Our hopeful future.
Knowing what is can be quite handy. Its what makes us realistic. Its what allows us to effectively respond to the world. We should all try to know what is. Exhaustive research, thorough investigation, and devoted inquiry all help transform our minds in a way that brings us more inline with the world as it is.
But in our pursuit of knowing what is, we must not loose sight of what should be.
Knowing what should be involves aligning ourselves to a different kind of reality. The world as it should be may not exist in the now, and it may have never existed, but is an expression of values that are eternally true. Trying to discover the world as it should be involves earnest discernment, hopeful imaginings, and far-reaching empathy. We seek to transform our desires to be inline with the world as it should be.
Some people think that realism and idealism (meant here in the common sense context, not the philosophical context) are at odds.
Those who favor the world as it is claim that the idealists are foolish. "Why pine about what isn't true?" they ask. The realists believe we should learn to deal with the harsh realities and learn to enjoy the sweet realities of our world.
Idealists are quite the opposite. They favor living in a world that reflects their ideals, rejecting that which does not fit into their mindset. Lovers of the world as it should be filter their actions through the ideals they profess.
Both of these mindsets are wrong. He who only sees what is has been bullied by the reality of now, and looses his ability to imagine that which could be. But woe to she who only sees the world as it should be. Her denial of what is dooms her actions to ineffectiveness.
Striving to do the greatest good involves loving both what is and what should be. We must see the world as it is if we wish to transform it into what should be, that way we know what we are working with (and how it works). Likewise, we must see the world as it should be, that way our actions have a tranformative end.
Take a medical example. Without an understanding of what is, the most compassionate person in the world is powerless to intervene. Similarly, without understanding what should be the most well studied person in the world will fail to act. Medicine is the synthesis of biological science and healing. That which is and what should be.
What about teaching. Without seeing who the students are, the teacher fails to address them effectively. But without understanding who the students should be, the teacher fails to develop any standards. Teaching is the synthesis of understanding students and challenging them. That which is and what should be.
The examples go on.
What does this mean to us? If we find ourselves only seeing the world as it is, we must shake off the persuasiveness of the now. Not let reality statically dictate its importance. Strive to open ourselves to things that are not yet real. And if we find ourselves only seeing the world as it should be, we must shatter our little world. Not let our yearnings blind us to what is, which would only doom us to impotently and clumsily flail about in our pursuit of good.
Hiding from Yourself Amid the Crowd
It's called the Bystander Effect...
... and sometimes it makes me sad to be a human.
Basically, the Bystander Effect is the phenomenon that occurs when a group of people witness a crime. See, when a single person sees something bad happen to someone else, they tend to act. But put that person in a small group, and not only are they less likely to act, the likelihood that any person is smaller than the single witness scenario. The trend continues as the group of people grows.
At first, this seems weird. Why is a huge group of people unlikely to yield a single helper? Even a group of people who, had they been the solitary witness, each would have been willing to help.
It's all about deferral of responsibility. See, the lone witness knows that if they don't help, no one will. But in a group you know that there is someone better suited, more knowledgeable, or more apt to be the hero. In the end, everyone stands there, the responsibility smoothly distributed amongst all who stand by, just enough to make each one to feel uncomfortable, but not enough to make them help.
In all honesty, this nuance of human psychology makes me angry. I want to believe the group would come in and kick ass as a group. 10,000 strong, solving the problem. I want to be a member of race that is unfalteringly responsive to the needs of the world. But I'm not.
The thing that gets me is that the Bystander Effect is a product of social science. It isn't some idea about people, its the product of empirical study. This is how people behave. It would seem that I am doomed to be the coward in the crowd, hiding from my own conscience amid the masses.
So it would seem.
Unless you know a little about social science. Whenever scientists study the world there is all kinds of crazy crap that happens. Some of it fits into the system they are trying to test... some doesn't. If all research had to deal with all the occurrences, research would very rarely get done. So they only keep the data that allows forward movement. Basically, you are allowed to throw out the radicals, those unpredictably far from the mean.
Translation. A study can throw out weird subjects in order to make a cohesive picture. Mark it off to oddity, unforeseen variables, and extraordinary circumstances.
This is a ray of hope. Scientific conclusions need not be fates concerning your behaviors. That statistical radicals. That can be you.
See, my father is immune to the Bystander Effect. Perhaps its because he is a fire fighter, and he is used to being the one in the crowd actually responsible for helping. Perhaps its because of his strong sense of service that prompts him to act. Maybe its a foolishness or a fearlessness that keeps him from worrying about it long enough to not want to act.
Whatever it is, when something is going wrong, he is on the scene. No hesitation. No deferral of responsibility. Just action. Does this make the Bystander Effect wrong? Not exactly. It just makes my father part of the 5% that the researchers had to throw out in order to make sense of it all.
Strive to be that 5%. Idealize those people who are unwilling to let injustice and danger come to pass without acting. Act.
Ironically, me learning about the Bystander Effect has made it less true, at least in my life. Nowadays, when I am in a situation where many people aren't responding, and I start thinking, "Isn't someone going to do something?" I suddenly think, "Oh, crap, the Bystander Effect!" and I jump into action. I also try to consciously hone my identity so I don't even have the first thought. I try to develop my compassion for others and the courage within me so that when something bad happens, by first response is help. Hopefully one day I will only entertain thoughts like, "What is the way to do the greatest good?"
Besides, the Bystander Effect speaks nothing of human nature. It only describes human actions. This means that it could simply be a nuance of our culture, and that if enough people strove to live beneath the alpha level, eventually the Bystander Effect would no longer true.
What a great goal, huh? To be part of a people who at the first sign of trouble, solved it as one. Part of a race that refused to let the reigns of responsibility slip from their fingers, acting as though it was our sacred calling to right every wrong, no matter what caused it.
If I want to be a member of that group, I had better start with me. Waiting for other people to defy the Bystander Effect would be missing the point.
... and sometimes it makes me sad to be a human.
Basically, the Bystander Effect is the phenomenon that occurs when a group of people witness a crime. See, when a single person sees something bad happen to someone else, they tend to act. But put that person in a small group, and not only are they less likely to act, the likelihood that any person is smaller than the single witness scenario. The trend continues as the group of people grows.
At first, this seems weird. Why is a huge group of people unlikely to yield a single helper? Even a group of people who, had they been the solitary witness, each would have been willing to help.
It's all about deferral of responsibility. See, the lone witness knows that if they don't help, no one will. But in a group you know that there is someone better suited, more knowledgeable, or more apt to be the hero. In the end, everyone stands there, the responsibility smoothly distributed amongst all who stand by, just enough to make each one to feel uncomfortable, but not enough to make them help.
In all honesty, this nuance of human psychology makes me angry. I want to believe the group would come in and kick ass as a group. 10,000 strong, solving the problem. I want to be a member of race that is unfalteringly responsive to the needs of the world. But I'm not.
The thing that gets me is that the Bystander Effect is a product of social science. It isn't some idea about people, its the product of empirical study. This is how people behave. It would seem that I am doomed to be the coward in the crowd, hiding from my own conscience amid the masses.
So it would seem.
Unless you know a little about social science. Whenever scientists study the world there is all kinds of crazy crap that happens. Some of it fits into the system they are trying to test... some doesn't. If all research had to deal with all the occurrences, research would very rarely get done. So they only keep the data that allows forward movement. Basically, you are allowed to throw out the radicals, those unpredictably far from the mean.
Translation. A study can throw out weird subjects in order to make a cohesive picture. Mark it off to oddity, unforeseen variables, and extraordinary circumstances.
This is a ray of hope. Scientific conclusions need not be fates concerning your behaviors. That statistical radicals. That can be you.
See, my father is immune to the Bystander Effect. Perhaps its because he is a fire fighter, and he is used to being the one in the crowd actually responsible for helping. Perhaps its because of his strong sense of service that prompts him to act. Maybe its a foolishness or a fearlessness that keeps him from worrying about it long enough to not want to act.
Whatever it is, when something is going wrong, he is on the scene. No hesitation. No deferral of responsibility. Just action. Does this make the Bystander Effect wrong? Not exactly. It just makes my father part of the 5% that the researchers had to throw out in order to make sense of it all.
Strive to be that 5%. Idealize those people who are unwilling to let injustice and danger come to pass without acting. Act.
Ironically, me learning about the Bystander Effect has made it less true, at least in my life. Nowadays, when I am in a situation where many people aren't responding, and I start thinking, "Isn't someone going to do something?" I suddenly think, "Oh, crap, the Bystander Effect!" and I jump into action. I also try to consciously hone my identity so I don't even have the first thought. I try to develop my compassion for others and the courage within me so that when something bad happens, by first response is help. Hopefully one day I will only entertain thoughts like, "What is the way to do the greatest good?"
Besides, the Bystander Effect speaks nothing of human nature. It only describes human actions. This means that it could simply be a nuance of our culture, and that if enough people strove to live beneath the alpha level, eventually the Bystander Effect would no longer true.
What a great goal, huh? To be part of a people who at the first sign of trouble, solved it as one. Part of a race that refused to let the reigns of responsibility slip from their fingers, acting as though it was our sacred calling to right every wrong, no matter what caused it.
If I want to be a member of that group, I had better start with me. Waiting for other people to defy the Bystander Effect would be missing the point.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Orders
When questioned about the heinous actions performed at the concentration camps, the German soldiers responsible deferred the culpability, claiming that they were simply following orders.
Its not an uncommon event in wartime. A soldier is given some kind of order that is morally questionable or down right wrong. We have some sympathy, of course. Soldiers are trained to take orders, after all. With a little imagining, we can feel the difficulty that must go on in that moment. Dissent, fail to obey, and do good... or concede, successfully obey, and do evil.
Imagine the mental process of the moral soldiers who execute such orders. Desiring to do good, they must highlight in their minds the origin of said order. They were being good soldiers... following orders. The one giving the orders... that is the one who is ultimately responsible for the travesty.
I think people are often willing to give these unfortunate men and women something of a break. Perhaps we really hope they would disobey the order, but we can understand the difficulty involved in it. Hitler, after all, was giving the orders.
For many years, that was the end of that issue for me. The head of the snake is the source of the monstrousness. That was until I heard this story.
Apparently, when Hitler would take a train across the country side he would at times pass these death camps. Knowing that they were coming, he would order the train attendants to close the blinds.
Wait. I thought he was a monster. Wouldn't he want to see the destruction he was wrecking? Wasn't he an unholy terror, lusting to warp the world into bloodshed? An insane dictator reaping death. Why would such a twisted man want to blind himself to the horrors he is orders created?
Now, it is not my aim to defend the actions of Hitler. Nor do I want to claim he was well intentioned. But I think this closing the curtains anecdote offers important insight to how humans are capable of committing great evil.
By turning a blind eye, leaders can distance themselves from the reality of their directives. They keep in mind the end, and put each of their strategic steps in service of that end. By staying focused on that distant goal they unfocus on what actually must be done to accomplish it. This is a basic abstraction that protects them from facing their actions. They are, after all, just giving orders. Its the soldiers who are the murderers.
But wait. Aren't the soldiers just following orders? Can this really be happening? Yes, actually, and it does. The commander says to him or herself, "My idea, but not my hands," while the commanded says to him or herself, "My hands, but not my idea." Each doing their best to silently defer the responsibility to the other. Maybe they can sleep at night, maybe they can't. But in the end, the evil gets done.
What to learn from this? Systems of human organization can facilitate great evil if the members of the organization do not each take moral responsibility for all the organizations activities. Also, we are called to publicly dissent when we see our organization go astray. By giving voice to these issues you guarantee that they do not silently pass, and that those involved see the impact of their actions.
Its not an uncommon event in wartime. A soldier is given some kind of order that is morally questionable or down right wrong. We have some sympathy, of course. Soldiers are trained to take orders, after all. With a little imagining, we can feel the difficulty that must go on in that moment. Dissent, fail to obey, and do good... or concede, successfully obey, and do evil.
Imagine the mental process of the moral soldiers who execute such orders. Desiring to do good, they must highlight in their minds the origin of said order. They were being good soldiers... following orders. The one giving the orders... that is the one who is ultimately responsible for the travesty.
I think people are often willing to give these unfortunate men and women something of a break. Perhaps we really hope they would disobey the order, but we can understand the difficulty involved in it. Hitler, after all, was giving the orders.
For many years, that was the end of that issue for me. The head of the snake is the source of the monstrousness. That was until I heard this story.
Apparently, when Hitler would take a train across the country side he would at times pass these death camps. Knowing that they were coming, he would order the train attendants to close the blinds.
Wait. I thought he was a monster. Wouldn't he want to see the destruction he was wrecking? Wasn't he an unholy terror, lusting to warp the world into bloodshed? An insane dictator reaping death. Why would such a twisted man want to blind himself to the horrors he is orders created?
Now, it is not my aim to defend the actions of Hitler. Nor do I want to claim he was well intentioned. But I think this closing the curtains anecdote offers important insight to how humans are capable of committing great evil.
By turning a blind eye, leaders can distance themselves from the reality of their directives. They keep in mind the end, and put each of their strategic steps in service of that end. By staying focused on that distant goal they unfocus on what actually must be done to accomplish it. This is a basic abstraction that protects them from facing their actions. They are, after all, just giving orders. Its the soldiers who are the murderers.
But wait. Aren't the soldiers just following orders? Can this really be happening? Yes, actually, and it does. The commander says to him or herself, "My idea, but not my hands," while the commanded says to him or herself, "My hands, but not my idea." Each doing their best to silently defer the responsibility to the other. Maybe they can sleep at night, maybe they can't. But in the end, the evil gets done.
What to learn from this? Systems of human organization can facilitate great evil if the members of the organization do not each take moral responsibility for all the organizations activities. Also, we are called to publicly dissent when we see our organization go astray. By giving voice to these issues you guarantee that they do not silently pass, and that those involved see the impact of their actions.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Moral Scope
Most discussions of morality question how much good or bad is being done. While this is certainly an important aspect of the conversation, it is really only part. In my estimation, this question is a question of degree. To what degree are you doing good?
There is also a question of scope. What is the scope of your good? What is the range of your moral actions?
See, an ethical act need only performed on that which is worth ethical consideration. Few would be offended by the breaking of a dead tree branch, for dead plant matter is outside the scope of moral consideration.
But when someone breaks your child's arm, there is trouble. One's children are within the scope of almost everyone's moral consideration. Common moral scopes are self, family, town, nation, particular race, human race, mammal, chordates, all living things.
When pursuing the greatest possible good is is imperative that we not only do good, but that we do it for the good of the most possible things. Actively strive to widen the range of your compassion. Tear down the walls that limit your ethical consideration, and let your love matter for all.
There is also a question of scope. What is the scope of your good? What is the range of your moral actions?
See, an ethical act need only performed on that which is worth ethical consideration. Few would be offended by the breaking of a dead tree branch, for dead plant matter is outside the scope of moral consideration.
But when someone breaks your child's arm, there is trouble. One's children are within the scope of almost everyone's moral consideration. Common moral scopes are self, family, town, nation, particular race, human race, mammal, chordates, all living things.
When pursuing the greatest possible good is is imperative that we not only do good, but that we do it for the good of the most possible things. Actively strive to widen the range of your compassion. Tear down the walls that limit your ethical consideration, and let your love matter for all.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Giving Good a Try
Can't tell you how many times people have tried to get me to indulge a vice by telling me, "Dude, you don't know what you are missing."
Chances are, they are right. There are some experiences that don't make any sense to an outsider. They may seem odd, or downright dangerous, but to the people in the know, it's really the only way to live.
Funny thing is, virtues are much the same way. You really can't explain how good they feel to someone who has never tried. From the outside they seem odd, or downright dangerous, but to people in the know, its really the only way to live.
There are even virtues and vices that aren't even fulfilling in the beginning. Beer, I hear, is an acquired taste. So is vegetarianism. In fact, ironically, on multiple occasions I've had the eventual good taste of booze professed to me by the same person who rejected the initial taste of soy milk or veggie burgers. I find it interesting the disparate causes that convict different people to acquire a taste.
One of the reasons virtuous behavior has unforeseen benefits is because we tend to protect our egos from the bad that we do. Often we won't let ourselves admit our wrong doing until after we have stopped.
So the next time you are being called to a virtuous action, instead of asking is it really morally necessary, just give it a try. You might just find that your new virtue frees your mind to find justifications that you would have never believed had they been offered as motivation before you gave it a try.
So give it a try. Trust me, you don't know what you are missing.
Chances are, they are right. There are some experiences that don't make any sense to an outsider. They may seem odd, or downright dangerous, but to the people in the know, it's really the only way to live.
Funny thing is, virtues are much the same way. You really can't explain how good they feel to someone who has never tried. From the outside they seem odd, or downright dangerous, but to people in the know, its really the only way to live.
There are even virtues and vices that aren't even fulfilling in the beginning. Beer, I hear, is an acquired taste. So is vegetarianism. In fact, ironically, on multiple occasions I've had the eventual good taste of booze professed to me by the same person who rejected the initial taste of soy milk or veggie burgers. I find it interesting the disparate causes that convict different people to acquire a taste.
One of the reasons virtuous behavior has unforeseen benefits is because we tend to protect our egos from the bad that we do. Often we won't let ourselves admit our wrong doing until after we have stopped.
So the next time you are being called to a virtuous action, instead of asking is it really morally necessary, just give it a try. You might just find that your new virtue frees your mind to find justifications that you would have never believed had they been offered as motivation before you gave it a try.
So give it a try. Trust me, you don't know what you are missing.
Sacred Senses
While abiding by unchecked desires will lead us astray, it should be made perfectly clear that we are designed to have pleasure. While it is not precisely a birthright (as it is inevitable that we should experience pain), pleasure is one of our callings, as well as it is our destiny.
Of course we are created to humbly serve others. But what an odd world it would be if we were all called to foster the pleasure of others and never ourselves. How inefficient! How paradoxical, too!
No, one of our tasks is to pursue our pleasure, so long as that pursuit does not place our well being above the good of another.
Consider the fruits of pleasure. The sweet sensation of the wise develops gratitude. When our senses are coaxed by beauty we see the work of our creator. Joy and laughter mend some wounds that consolation only tends.
We are made to be happy! In fact, it is when we are intentionally joyful and sensually engaged that we come to know the ecstasy that pervades all things. Our senses are divine, and they help us soak in the divinity in the world.
We must only be suspicious of our pleasure when it harms ourselves or others. Even then, it is not the pleasure that is bad, but the harm. Our greatest calling is to serve, and we will find much satisfaction in the pursuit of that end. We must also not harm ourselves in pursuit of our pleasure, for our senses are part of our bodily and spiritual selves, and any physical or spiritual harm wounds the senses we were trying to indulge.
Do not loose sight of the sacredness of our senses. Experience is a treasure unto itself, as well as in invaluable tool in doing good in the world. Treat yourself well, and fill your world with good feeling.
Of course we are created to humbly serve others. But what an odd world it would be if we were all called to foster the pleasure of others and never ourselves. How inefficient! How paradoxical, too!
No, one of our tasks is to pursue our pleasure, so long as that pursuit does not place our well being above the good of another.
Consider the fruits of pleasure. The sweet sensation of the wise develops gratitude. When our senses are coaxed by beauty we see the work of our creator. Joy and laughter mend some wounds that consolation only tends.
We are made to be happy! In fact, it is when we are intentionally joyful and sensually engaged that we come to know the ecstasy that pervades all things. Our senses are divine, and they help us soak in the divinity in the world.
We must only be suspicious of our pleasure when it harms ourselves or others. Even then, it is not the pleasure that is bad, but the harm. Our greatest calling is to serve, and we will find much satisfaction in the pursuit of that end. We must also not harm ourselves in pursuit of our pleasure, for our senses are part of our bodily and spiritual selves, and any physical or spiritual harm wounds the senses we were trying to indulge.
Do not loose sight of the sacredness of our senses. Experience is a treasure unto itself, as well as in invaluable tool in doing good in the world. Treat yourself well, and fill your world with good feeling.
Free Slaves
When I was young, I railed at the notion of serving God before myself. I thought, "Why did God make me free, just to give that freedom away and serve him?"
I didn't want God telling me what to do, what to think, or what to say. I wanted to be free to do what I want.
In my elder years, I have learned there is no such thing as "free to do what I want." Oh, sure, I can do what I want. Its the freedom bit that isn't so much a reality. Living through my desires is not an expression of freedom. It is simply being a slave to my desires.
It makes sense when I think about it. In the beginning acting on my desires is fulfilling, but as I continue to only serve myself I develop addictive attachments and must repay resources tapped in my excess. Choosing to express my freedom through submitting to my desires feels like liberation at first, but is ultimately slavery.
Submitting to the divine law of the universe is hard. Asked to do what I don't want. Not getting to have what I want. Moving in directions to which I see no point. But as I continue to labor in service of God and others, I begin to see the value in what I do. I start having an appreciation for the plan I am now part of. In the end, I want, I desire the good of those I was asked to serve. Choosing to express my freedom though submitting to my God feels like slavery at first, but is ultimately liberation.
My desires change! Treating my momentary fixation as sacrosanct is the road to suffering. My desires aren't eternal and holy, God is. When I live within the light of the creator, though the power of grace I find what I want transforming. In the end, I do exactly what God wants, and exactly what I want.
That's freedom.
I didn't want God telling me what to do, what to think, or what to say. I wanted to be free to do what I want.
In my elder years, I have learned there is no such thing as "free to do what I want." Oh, sure, I can do what I want. Its the freedom bit that isn't so much a reality. Living through my desires is not an expression of freedom. It is simply being a slave to my desires.
It makes sense when I think about it. In the beginning acting on my desires is fulfilling, but as I continue to only serve myself I develop addictive attachments and must repay resources tapped in my excess. Choosing to express my freedom through submitting to my desires feels like liberation at first, but is ultimately slavery.
Submitting to the divine law of the universe is hard. Asked to do what I don't want. Not getting to have what I want. Moving in directions to which I see no point. But as I continue to labor in service of God and others, I begin to see the value in what I do. I start having an appreciation for the plan I am now part of. In the end, I want, I desire the good of those I was asked to serve. Choosing to express my freedom though submitting to my God feels like slavery at first, but is ultimately liberation.
My desires change! Treating my momentary fixation as sacrosanct is the road to suffering. My desires aren't eternal and holy, God is. When I live within the light of the creator, though the power of grace I find what I want transforming. In the end, I do exactly what God wants, and exactly what I want.
That's freedom.
How can we be so sure...
One of the classic questions in philosophy concerns certainty. How is it that we know what we know? Can we prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that which we believe? What of our knowledge is beyond skepticism?
In essence, how can we be so sure...
The usual epistemic (fancy adjective meaning knowledge related) strategy is to seek logical support. Now, depending on the particular philosopher, the logic is founded in different spheres. Some desire systematic sensory evidence (we call those ones empiricists). Others want to use the depths of the human mind and spirit to summon basic principles (rationalists). Generally speaking, even though these philosophers may really disagree on the kind of justification needs, they all agree that such justification is needed.
I support belief justification... but I also know another way to increase confidence in a belief, although professing it may in fact make me a poor philosopher.
Courage.
Want certainty? Get some. Sometimes we do not solidly hold our beliefs because they are misshapen or unjustified. Sometimes we waver because we are weak. It takes courage to defend an idea that comes under assault, and it takes courage to act on an idea when the stakes are high.
Be wary. Courage without any skeptical mechanism is unguided fanaticism. This can cause problems of a different ilk. Its important to have some skepticism if you want to prevent yourself from doing bad.
But you need courage to do good.
In essence, how can we be so sure...
The usual epistemic (fancy adjective meaning knowledge related) strategy is to seek logical support. Now, depending on the particular philosopher, the logic is founded in different spheres. Some desire systematic sensory evidence (we call those ones empiricists). Others want to use the depths of the human mind and spirit to summon basic principles (rationalists). Generally speaking, even though these philosophers may really disagree on the kind of justification needs, they all agree that such justification is needed.
I support belief justification... but I also know another way to increase confidence in a belief, although professing it may in fact make me a poor philosopher.
Courage.
Want certainty? Get some. Sometimes we do not solidly hold our beliefs because they are misshapen or unjustified. Sometimes we waver because we are weak. It takes courage to defend an idea that comes under assault, and it takes courage to act on an idea when the stakes are high.
Be wary. Courage without any skeptical mechanism is unguided fanaticism. This can cause problems of a different ilk. Its important to have some skepticism if you want to prevent yourself from doing bad.
But you need courage to do good.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Adulthood
When I was a youth, I often wondered when I would become an adult. While certainly I had met some adults not worth admiring, I imagined my transformation to adulthood as being characterized by the acquisition of some special quality, some intuitive knack, some problem solving ability that would set me apart.
As I aged, I noticed a distinct lack of transformative moments. My extended education did put me half way into my twenties before I was done, which may have strung out any single moment of adultification into harder to distinguish phases. Whatever the cause, there seemed to be no defining moment, and more disappointingly, no special mechanism for coping with the world.
How, then, would I cope with the world in an adult way? What then was the source of that indefinable... maturity that adults seemed to conduct themselves with? It didn't seem to be a particular piece of knowledge.
And then, one day, it hit me. I had been making decisions about the future, and I remember thinking, "Well, I really wish someone else would solve this problem... but that's not going to happen... and I'm not just going let it pass to others... so, ok, its on me." In that moment, I became an adult.
Adulthood carries with it a certitude and fortitude, not generated from any special ability, but rather the resolution that when there is a problem, to choose otherwise is simply not an option. It grants no special ability to cope with responsibility, but simply the willingness to earnestly accept responsibility.
Now, this role as the bottom line is facilitated by an emotional fortitude that boarders on emotional dishonesty. I have found that adults have the amazing ability to lie to themselves and others about the truth of their being. It seems that the healthy adult must recognize the moments others are relying on them and there is no choice but to deal, but also recognize those moments where they can decompress in a safe way and refresh their souls.
Looking back, I see why the attribute of adulthood eluded my investigation. In different situations, and with different people, it is different traits that accomplish acts of adult steadiness. Additionally, any one of these traits could be just as easily be possessed by a child. But the commitment of maturity facilitates the transition from trait to trait, even as particular adult has no idea how they are going to solve the problem at hand. They simply know that to not solve the problem is not an option.
As I aged, I noticed a distinct lack of transformative moments. My extended education did put me half way into my twenties before I was done, which may have strung out any single moment of adultification into harder to distinguish phases. Whatever the cause, there seemed to be no defining moment, and more disappointingly, no special mechanism for coping with the world.
How, then, would I cope with the world in an adult way? What then was the source of that indefinable... maturity that adults seemed to conduct themselves with? It didn't seem to be a particular piece of knowledge.
And then, one day, it hit me. I had been making decisions about the future, and I remember thinking, "Well, I really wish someone else would solve this problem... but that's not going to happen... and I'm not just going let it pass to others... so, ok, its on me." In that moment, I became an adult.
Adulthood carries with it a certitude and fortitude, not generated from any special ability, but rather the resolution that when there is a problem, to choose otherwise is simply not an option. It grants no special ability to cope with responsibility, but simply the willingness to earnestly accept responsibility.
Now, this role as the bottom line is facilitated by an emotional fortitude that boarders on emotional dishonesty. I have found that adults have the amazing ability to lie to themselves and others about the truth of their being. It seems that the healthy adult must recognize the moments others are relying on them and there is no choice but to deal, but also recognize those moments where they can decompress in a safe way and refresh their souls.
Looking back, I see why the attribute of adulthood eluded my investigation. In different situations, and with different people, it is different traits that accomplish acts of adult steadiness. Additionally, any one of these traits could be just as easily be possessed by a child. But the commitment of maturity facilitates the transition from trait to trait, even as particular adult has no idea how they are going to solve the problem at hand. They simply know that to not solve the problem is not an option.
Q and A
Some fundamentalist believers discourage questioning the ways of God. They reason that God's ways are above our ways, and that it is not our place to question, but rather accept and obey.
I take a different stance. I encourage questioning. Generate questions. Foster doubt. Destabilize assumptions. There are a few benefits to questioning.
One, it cuts back on dangerous religious practices. By building in a little skepticism there is a let off valve for the pressure that can otherwise become explosive. Questions have a way of softening the hard edge of faith, and when that hard edge is about to be used in violence a little softening is in order.
Secondly, questioning can deepen faith. A person who has delved into the difficult aspects of their beliefs is more likely to have a sense of ownership about their ideology than someone who has not. Questioning is also something of a self-inoculation to attacks on the faith.
Overall, I more than support questioning God. I endorse it.
But here's the thing...
Questioning God is only half the equation. We are also called to answer God.
You know the types. In fact, you may be one. People who have a truck load of inquiries, ranging from earnest to cynical to snide. They ask, ask, ask, playing the Devil's advocate concerning all faith claims, committed to ever looking, ever challenging.
Consider this: will someone committed to ever looking ever find? Will someone ever challenging ever accept? No. If you are determined to ever seek, even when you find that for which you yearn, you will leave it to continue seeking. If you are determined to challenge, even if you meet your match, you will refuse to accept and continue beyond.
Rather, if you look, look for the sake of finding what is right. If you challenge, challenge for the sake of accepting what is true. Otherwise your quest is doomed to frivolity and empty failure.
Once again, I have no issue with questioning. But when I cast my eyes upward and ask, "My father, why did you bring them suffering?" I had better be ready for when God answers, "My son, so that you could bring them satisfaction."
It is human nature to question the universe. But it is also human nature to serve the universe. If you have the urge to grill your creator, by all means. That is however, only step one. Actually listening for the answer is step two. Step three, transform your life in response to what was revealed to you.
It takes pride to question God. It takes humility to accept the answer. This is one of the fundamental pillars of relating to the divine, and we are called to strive in both endeavors. If you find yourself doing one or the other, it may be time for some for some real Q and A.
I take a different stance. I encourage questioning. Generate questions. Foster doubt. Destabilize assumptions. There are a few benefits to questioning.
One, it cuts back on dangerous religious practices. By building in a little skepticism there is a let off valve for the pressure that can otherwise become explosive. Questions have a way of softening the hard edge of faith, and when that hard edge is about to be used in violence a little softening is in order.
Secondly, questioning can deepen faith. A person who has delved into the difficult aspects of their beliefs is more likely to have a sense of ownership about their ideology than someone who has not. Questioning is also something of a self-inoculation to attacks on the faith.
Overall, I more than support questioning God. I endorse it.
But here's the thing...
Questioning God is only half the equation. We are also called to answer God.
You know the types. In fact, you may be one. People who have a truck load of inquiries, ranging from earnest to cynical to snide. They ask, ask, ask, playing the Devil's advocate concerning all faith claims, committed to ever looking, ever challenging.
Consider this: will someone committed to ever looking ever find? Will someone ever challenging ever accept? No. If you are determined to ever seek, even when you find that for which you yearn, you will leave it to continue seeking. If you are determined to challenge, even if you meet your match, you will refuse to accept and continue beyond.
Rather, if you look, look for the sake of finding what is right. If you challenge, challenge for the sake of accepting what is true. Otherwise your quest is doomed to frivolity and empty failure.
Once again, I have no issue with questioning. But when I cast my eyes upward and ask, "My father, why did you bring them suffering?" I had better be ready for when God answers, "My son, so that you could bring them satisfaction."
It is human nature to question the universe. But it is also human nature to serve the universe. If you have the urge to grill your creator, by all means. That is however, only step one. Actually listening for the answer is step two. Step three, transform your life in response to what was revealed to you.
It takes pride to question God. It takes humility to accept the answer. This is one of the fundamental pillars of relating to the divine, and we are called to strive in both endeavors. If you find yourself doing one or the other, it may be time for some for some real Q and A.
Getting Right Right
One of the pervasive problems with trying to do the right thing in the world is that sometimes you get what is right wrong. Motivated out of a particular conviction, acting in accord with a particular idea, its how we galvanize our moral actions.
But sometimes we get it wrong. Sometimes what we think is right is actually not, as we behave to shortsightedly, or pay too much attention to the big picture. In each of us now are warped beliefs about what is good, habits that prevent us from truly reflecting on the nature of the universe, and poorly fostered desires drawing us toward ill.
The fucker of it all is that it is really hard to figure out which ideas, habits, and desires lead us to good, and which lead us to the bad. Its hard to see past shortsightedness, as it were.
But all is not lost. The structure of our creeds and the movement of our intuitions may not always be true, be they can be improved.
A few starting points:
Pray. Pray in a way that makes your ideology vulnerable to love of the universe.
Learn. Learn in a way that makes your assumptions vulnerable to the truth of the universe.
Commune. Commune with those like you, and those apart from you.
Think. Think both tentatively and courageously.
Ask. Ask people you admire, and those you do not. Treat everyone as a teacher.
Feel. Feel around inside your soul for how you really feel.
Pray again.
Learn again.
Commune again.
Think again.
Ask again.
Feel again.
Pray one last time.
If you honestly, and I do mean honestly, move through these different modes of being in a way open to transformation, very often the warped aspects of our belief structures straighten, and our slumbering intuitions awaken. Now, you won't always get it right, but you will be moving in the right direction. Done regularly, you will grapple with ideas as they come into question, and over time you will find yourself slowly moving into a less warped sense of being.
You won't succeed the moment you start...
You won't always get right right...
But praying, learning communing, thinking, asking, and feeling are all done now.
Now.
Now is a fine time to start.
But sometimes we get it wrong. Sometimes what we think is right is actually not, as we behave to shortsightedly, or pay too much attention to the big picture. In each of us now are warped beliefs about what is good, habits that prevent us from truly reflecting on the nature of the universe, and poorly fostered desires drawing us toward ill.
The fucker of it all is that it is really hard to figure out which ideas, habits, and desires lead us to good, and which lead us to the bad. Its hard to see past shortsightedness, as it were.
But all is not lost. The structure of our creeds and the movement of our intuitions may not always be true, be they can be improved.
A few starting points:
Pray. Pray in a way that makes your ideology vulnerable to love of the universe.
Learn. Learn in a way that makes your assumptions vulnerable to the truth of the universe.
Commune. Commune with those like you, and those apart from you.
Think. Think both tentatively and courageously.
Ask. Ask people you admire, and those you do not. Treat everyone as a teacher.
Feel. Feel around inside your soul for how you really feel.
Pray again.
Learn again.
Commune again.
Think again.
Ask again.
Feel again.
Pray one last time.
If you honestly, and I do mean honestly, move through these different modes of being in a way open to transformation, very often the warped aspects of our belief structures straighten, and our slumbering intuitions awaken. Now, you won't always get it right, but you will be moving in the right direction. Done regularly, you will grapple with ideas as they come into question, and over time you will find yourself slowly moving into a less warped sense of being.
You won't succeed the moment you start...
You won't always get right right...
But praying, learning communing, thinking, asking, and feeling are all done now.
Now.
Now is a fine time to start.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Unburdened
I am not burdened by morality.
I do not see ethical behavior as an onus.
Rather, my calling is a way of life. It is much about the way I see the world as the way I behave in the world. Certainly there are struggles, as there are in any travel. The moral life calls for us to move toward good, and while that road is long, there are few burdens.
The choice to be good is in many ways actually the casting away of burdens. When I do good I cast away the complexities needed to justify my behavior. I simplify my desires, wanting only what is good. The way is hard because it is long and grueling, and at times the provisions are few. But I accept the length of the journey knowing that much of what I once carried is no longer necessary, and that the rest is carried for me.
I do not see ethical behavior as an onus.
Rather, my calling is a way of life. It is much about the way I see the world as the way I behave in the world. Certainly there are struggles, as there are in any travel. The moral life calls for us to move toward good, and while that road is long, there are few burdens.
The choice to be good is in many ways actually the casting away of burdens. When I do good I cast away the complexities needed to justify my behavior. I simplify my desires, wanting only what is good. The way is hard because it is long and grueling, and at times the provisions are few. But I accept the length of the journey knowing that much of what I once carried is no longer necessary, and that the rest is carried for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)