Professor J,
"Mad Dame M" made me laugh out loud, literally. Clever! :)
In the media it seems that the Sunday morning round table discussion shows are the only place to hear any kind of thoughtful idea exchange between reasonable individuals. In real life it seems nearly extinct. How very sad. As for it being the reason we founded this blog, well, no one can say we didn't try. :)
Your Roe vs. Wade example is the one that comes closest to illustrating my problem with some judges and their decisions. To me the difficulty arises when a federal judge overturns something a state has come to a decision on. A great many things that divide us as a nation should be left up to the states to work out, the best option available for allowing the full expression of the plurality of ideas and morality in such a diverse country. Those unable to abide the idea of abortion being illegal or same sex marriage being legal could move to another state which would be (logistically) not all that difficult and would save all those celebrities from idly threatening to leave the country every time an election doesn't go their way. It even seems plausible that in some areas within a state where an entrenched culture of one kind or another already exists that may be at odds with the rest of the state (San Francisco or New Orleans for instance), that a city could declare itself a sort of "city state" and its residents could maintain authority over themselves on certain issues. It would be a bit chaotic, perhaps as a way of governing but would allow optimum freedom for individuals and decentralize thinking and control on any number of issues. Isn't freedom always going to be kind of messy?
I could not help wondering while reading Obama's book how I might have felt about it had I read it prior to his presidency. Knowing what he has chosen to do once he had the chance and the condescending air with which he has treated some of his critics caused me to scoff at times. While the hope for bipartisanship (though the book is more partisan than I expected), understanding, and reaching out were worthy goals for Senator Obama, President Obama's hope for those things in the last two years has been less than audacious. He has refused to listen and then seems shocked that an angry populace gave him (and his party) a "shellacking" in November. A cool demeanor is fine but the kind of dis-ingenuousness involved when a leader claims not to be aware of tens (or hundreds depending on whose numbers you believe) of thousands of citizens on the mall protesting his policies and asking to be heard, is not. People resent being dismissed out of hand even by a charismatic leader, and as you pointed out he has turned out to be less of that than we might have expected.
My favorite parts of his book haven't been his political or social commentary but his charming descriptions of his relationships with his wife and daughters to whom he appears completely devoted, and his worries about if he's doing it well (which by all outward indications he is) given the lack of a reliable father figure in his own life. A man being honest about such things is endlessly fascinating to women, a rare glimpse into the struggle from the other side. We so desperately need in this country examples of family men especially in our inner city communities. I find it troubling however that he stalwartly defends many of the policies that have ravaged poor families families over the last 50 yrs, policies that have often pushed fathers to the sidelines only to be replaced with a government program and some massive bureaucracy to go with it. In his chapter on family he lays out statistics that show how families have been damaged by these policies but refuses to connect the two, which I found to smack of intellectual dishonesty. More about all of THAT in future posts. :)
If Obama reads cool and restrained, Beck runs hot and pokes his finger in your chest. He's trying to get an emotional reaction which is due in part to his determination to shake the electorate from its apathy. I get that and I think it is necessary to some extent. It has been nearly impossible to get people emotionally stirred up enough to be vocal with their elected officials about the debt and the demise of the dollar (look how long Ron Paul has been saying the same thing) or for people to think about it and talk about it in their daily lives. It's fairly dire water cooler talk. And of course, what sort of people launch into this kind of discussion with someone they just met? (Oh, wait...;)) So I do think he does a great service in that, just as he does in getting people to study history or to read something not normally on bedside tables like The Federalist Papers and biographies of the founders. As for his "historical interpretations" that give you and other historians pause, they must be viewed alongside his admonitions not to listen to him, but for people to read and study for themselves. He loses ME when the lines on the chalk board on his show become too connected. Everything can't be a conspiracy. Even Freud said "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." (Insert your own Clintonian joke here. ;))
You call him on the "mocking dismissal of teachers, and
particularly professors, a sort of reverse intellectual discrimination" and rightly so. He does frequently blame the "tweed jackets" for quite a lot and in a few cases he may have a valid point. Some of what Beck complains of and parents of college students fret over however is a distinct lack of preparation for, or exposure to, a variety of other world views prior to the college experience. A direct result perhaps, of people doing what you point out and only listening to/reading those whose opinions they agree with. An alternate view then presented by a professor to the student may, in fact, feel like an attack. I do find it interesting that for all his fear of our barreling headlong into socialism and communism making fun of intellectuals doesn't bother him. Just a passing familiarity with the cultural revolution of China should make the hair on the back of the necks of his audience stand up when he does it.
If I had a big problem with Obama NOT mentioning the national debt often enough and CERTAINLY not strongly enough in his book I also had a little problem with his constant use of the word democracy. Democracy. Democracy. I seemed to find it on every other page but I kept looking for another word. Republic. No where to be found, though he does use the phrase "republican form of government" in his chapter, "The World Beyond Our Borders". Aside from that he shies away from using the correct term for the kind of government the founders gave us, even in an entire chapter on the Constitution written by an (shall we say) instructor of Constitutional law. I found it hard to believe that would be an accident. Why mislead instead of instruct if given the chance?
Blast! And I was so keen on letting YOU continue to be the windbag. ;)
"A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority. There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men." ~ Henry David Thoreau
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Windy and Scriv
Madame M:
There is an apparently popular book out about snarkiness. I saw it in passing at a bookstore. It even has the word “Snark” in the title.
Well, Obama was never a full-time professor, but perhaps that’s parsing a little too much. :)
Such a rare thing, yes. It seldom matters anymore what facts are presented. People are so emotionally invested in their positions, that upon the first thing they read that they emotionally disagree with (and often feel, predictably—if erringly—enough in our disconnected society, to be attacking them as a person, requiring a full scale salvo on the other person’s person, not the position taken), they stop reading and begin dismissing and attacking. They rarely attack the presented facts, however; they attack the writer of them, often accusing that writer of “pushing an agenda,” or worse, of being some aspect of evil. Even on the rare occasions that they do address the facts, it is usually only in general form—they almost never discuss specific facts. At best, they cherry pick a few, and even then, often twist them into bizarre interpretations. It is so rare, isn’t it, to find a discussion that does not degenerate into this pattern? Guess that’s one of the reasons we founded this blog, hmm? :)
Irritated? I almost changed your address to Mad Dame M! ;) Seriously, I am irritated at most of the things you listed as well. I am a bit on the fence about federal judges, however. While I recognize that judges of various political persuasions have seemed a bit pro-active in their rulings and interpretations, I often (although certainly nowhere near always) find upon reading their opinions that they have applied serious thought and consideration and both appreciation for precedent and wording of the law. Yet there do seem instances where matters have clearly been stretched beyond reasonableness, and perhaps even into manipulation, with Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission and Kelo vs. City of New London probably among the most egregious of examples. Roe vs. Wade might also be put in that category (for its trumping of states’ rights more than the issue at hand), although at least its legal arguments could be followed, if not agreed with. Yet the “will of the people” is not always a clear thing, and their emotional variability and susceptibility are some of the reasons the Framers made federal judges have lifetime appointments not subject to whims of the moment or emotional override of the law and Constitution, but rather unhurried and reasoned legal review (that was the goal, anyway).
You ask, after listing all the things you (and largely I too) are irritated with, “is this who we are?” While I suspect that underneath much of the crass veneer, there still exists much real or potential clearheaded goodness of the American people, perhaps too much has already been given over to the shift (including about understanding, as you’ve indicated) analyzed in Chris Hedges’ “Empire of Illusion” (a book I suspect will be the next thing we discuss after we have discussed these books).
Obama’s writing style, and Beck’s, reflect the tight yet easy hand of a lawyer who has written a lot of briefings, and who has had the benefit of many good editors and critiquing friends—Obama because he is a lawyer, Beck because his writing assistant is one.
Beck is a bit of an enigma to me. Partly because he has been accepted by many, and dismissed by just as many, there is much about him and his assertions to both like and dislike. He points out things that need pointing out and emphasized, and should be lauded for trying to spur people to take an interest in their gasping democracy, in their history, in the “system.” His efforts are especially laudatory for emphasizing, as you say, the massive debt hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles (and which Obama has been deficient in emphasizing, not only in his book, but since). And for pointing out the near-criminal hypocrisy, denial, and visionless stupidity of Washington and its associates, so sickeningly demonstrated by the congresswoman you mentioned. More on this in future posts.
Beck and I often part ways, however, when he carries his assertions, or the causes of those assertions, to ends I can’t agree with logically, or to historical interpretations that don’t stand up to this historian’s (and many’s) understandings. And Beck has regrettably/disturbingly transgressed on more than one occasion from trumpeting self-taught to mocking dismissal of teachers, particularly professors--a sort of reverse intellectual discrimination. I am not sure he could ever share such a forum as this one. Although he does invite certain professors to his show, they usually seem carefully selected to not question the goods (or the assumptions) in the apple cart. More on this in future posts.
Obama writes and reasons generally well in his book, and although emphasis and implication and desired action can sometimes be disagreed with, the reasonableness and common interest often comes across (one of the reasons, I take it, that his book energized so many).
Yet Obama, in well over the last year, has been either prickly or defensive, like he’s not listening. He’s more than a bit narcissistic in both public and in his writings, although in his writing it is more an odd mixture of introspection and narcissism. When questioned, he wants to explain HIS view on a lot of things, and extensively, and he wants to drive HIS objectives. He rubs people the wrong way partly because he no longer speaks or acts in the approachable manner he did before, and yet, at the same time, hasn’t transformed to fully presidential either. He hasn’t really communicated things well, and hasn’t been publicly active like a Ronald Reagan, for instance, or a Bill Clinton. He doesn’t smile nearly enough. He hasn’t connected. And his lack of executive experience has shown a great deal, not to mention his reliance on the same general cadre of Ivy-League establishment insiders, with the same general ideas, the same general policies, the same serving of the corporate consortium, and the same cynical attempts at manipulation (including manipulating him). If he doesn’t seem the same person he was when he wrote his book, he probably isn’t. Not just for the way the presidency changes everyone who holds it, but he is probably more alone, and has made himself more alone, than he ever bargained for.
I guess I am starting off as not really keen on either of the gentlemen. Yet I will try to analyze and critique their works on what is written, and not extrapolate too much. I predict, however, that this post may be the shortest one on this from the Windbag! :)
There is an apparently popular book out about snarkiness. I saw it in passing at a bookstore. It even has the word “Snark” in the title.
Well, Obama was never a full-time professor, but perhaps that’s parsing a little too much. :)
Such a rare thing, yes. It seldom matters anymore what facts are presented. People are so emotionally invested in their positions, that upon the first thing they read that they emotionally disagree with (and often feel, predictably—if erringly—enough in our disconnected society, to be attacking them as a person, requiring a full scale salvo on the other person’s person, not the position taken), they stop reading and begin dismissing and attacking. They rarely attack the presented facts, however; they attack the writer of them, often accusing that writer of “pushing an agenda,” or worse, of being some aspect of evil. Even on the rare occasions that they do address the facts, it is usually only in general form—they almost never discuss specific facts. At best, they cherry pick a few, and even then, often twist them into bizarre interpretations. It is so rare, isn’t it, to find a discussion that does not degenerate into this pattern? Guess that’s one of the reasons we founded this blog, hmm? :)
Irritated? I almost changed your address to Mad Dame M! ;) Seriously, I am irritated at most of the things you listed as well. I am a bit on the fence about federal judges, however. While I recognize that judges of various political persuasions have seemed a bit pro-active in their rulings and interpretations, I often (although certainly nowhere near always) find upon reading their opinions that they have applied serious thought and consideration and both appreciation for precedent and wording of the law. Yet there do seem instances where matters have clearly been stretched beyond reasonableness, and perhaps even into manipulation, with Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission and Kelo vs. City of New London probably among the most egregious of examples. Roe vs. Wade might also be put in that category (for its trumping of states’ rights more than the issue at hand), although at least its legal arguments could be followed, if not agreed with. Yet the “will of the people” is not always a clear thing, and their emotional variability and susceptibility are some of the reasons the Framers made federal judges have lifetime appointments not subject to whims of the moment or emotional override of the law and Constitution, but rather unhurried and reasoned legal review (that was the goal, anyway).
You ask, after listing all the things you (and largely I too) are irritated with, “is this who we are?” While I suspect that underneath much of the crass veneer, there still exists much real or potential clearheaded goodness of the American people, perhaps too much has already been given over to the shift (including about understanding, as you’ve indicated) analyzed in Chris Hedges’ “Empire of Illusion” (a book I suspect will be the next thing we discuss after we have discussed these books).
Obama’s writing style, and Beck’s, reflect the tight yet easy hand of a lawyer who has written a lot of briefings, and who has had the benefit of many good editors and critiquing friends—Obama because he is a lawyer, Beck because his writing assistant is one.
Beck is a bit of an enigma to me. Partly because he has been accepted by many, and dismissed by just as many, there is much about him and his assertions to both like and dislike. He points out things that need pointing out and emphasized, and should be lauded for trying to spur people to take an interest in their gasping democracy, in their history, in the “system.” His efforts are especially laudatory for emphasizing, as you say, the massive debt hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles (and which Obama has been deficient in emphasizing, not only in his book, but since). And for pointing out the near-criminal hypocrisy, denial, and visionless stupidity of Washington and its associates, so sickeningly demonstrated by the congresswoman you mentioned. More on this in future posts.
Beck and I often part ways, however, when he carries his assertions, or the causes of those assertions, to ends I can’t agree with logically, or to historical interpretations that don’t stand up to this historian’s (and many’s) understandings. And Beck has regrettably/disturbingly transgressed on more than one occasion from trumpeting self-taught to mocking dismissal of teachers, particularly professors--a sort of reverse intellectual discrimination. I am not sure he could ever share such a forum as this one. Although he does invite certain professors to his show, they usually seem carefully selected to not question the goods (or the assumptions) in the apple cart. More on this in future posts.
Obama writes and reasons generally well in his book, and although emphasis and implication and desired action can sometimes be disagreed with, the reasonableness and common interest often comes across (one of the reasons, I take it, that his book energized so many).
Yet Obama, in well over the last year, has been either prickly or defensive, like he’s not listening. He’s more than a bit narcissistic in both public and in his writings, although in his writing it is more an odd mixture of introspection and narcissism. When questioned, he wants to explain HIS view on a lot of things, and extensively, and he wants to drive HIS objectives. He rubs people the wrong way partly because he no longer speaks or acts in the approachable manner he did before, and yet, at the same time, hasn’t transformed to fully presidential either. He hasn’t really communicated things well, and hasn’t been publicly active like a Ronald Reagan, for instance, or a Bill Clinton. He doesn’t smile nearly enough. He hasn’t connected. And his lack of executive experience has shown a great deal, not to mention his reliance on the same general cadre of Ivy-League establishment insiders, with the same general ideas, the same general policies, the same serving of the corporate consortium, and the same cynical attempts at manipulation (including manipulating him). If he doesn’t seem the same person he was when he wrote his book, he probably isn’t. Not just for the way the presidency changes everyone who holds it, but he is probably more alone, and has made himself more alone, than he ever bargained for.
I guess I am starting off as not really keen on either of the gentlemen. Yet I will try to analyze and critique their works on what is written, and not extrapolate too much. I predict, however, that this post may be the shortest one on this from the Windbag! :)
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Civility, Hope, and Common Sense
Professor J,
I can't help but notice that you have chosen one book by a self educated snark and one by a former professor. :)
In Life Without Principle Thoreau wrote, "The greatest compliment that was ever paid me was when one asked me what I thought and attended to my answer."
Such a simple, yet rare thing.
You've asked me to start off which I'll do with a bit of disclosure. I'm irritated. I'm irritated by a lack of journalistic standards and objectivity, I'm irritated by commentators and pundits who toe the party line religiously, no matter what. I'm irritated by conspiracy theories espoused by those on the fringy edges of both sides. I'm irritated by the kind of ideological group think that demands everyone think alike, before anything can be solved, by the attitude of whichever party is in power that it is somehow "payback time" and federal judges that override the will of the people more and more frequently. And I'm downright worried about the constant slide toward crassness in entertainment, cynicism in thought, and shallowness everywhere.
Is this who we are?
When these two men write about opportunity, faith, family, and the American dream I can agree with both of them that those things, among others, are core values. Common ground we can all agree on. When people refuse to make an attempt at understanding it is exhausting on a personal level and disheartening on a communal one.
I had read Glenn Beck's Common Sense before. I like him. I don't always agree with him, but overall I think he's just a guy who cares about the Constitution and the kind of country we are leaving our children and grandchildren. Most important of all, to me, he worries about the debt, the massive crushing debt hanging over us like some ominous storm cloud that might burst at any moment (so precarious the situation we've gotten ourselves into). He is willing to tell the truth, and a hard truth it is. His ratings and success are a testament to the fact that lots of our fellow countrymen are ready to hear what those in Washington don't think we can take (or are afraid we'll figure out). Let's just take a cold hard look at how bad things really are and stop pretending that it will just magically work itself out. Or worse, like the Congresswoman I saw interviewed about the ever ballooning unfunded liabilities who said she was sure our kids would be smarter than we are and they would figure out a solution. They'll really appreciate us having such confidence in them, I'm sure. I believe Beck when he says he hopes he's wrong. I think a lot of us hope we are too.
As I'm rereading Beck alongside the book written by, then Senator Obama, I find the similarities interesting. At times certain phrases, even entire paragraphs could have been written by either one of them. I'm surprised by Obama's casual writing style especially when relating personal stories and his honesty about how he feels about things. But while I'm glad to have Beck (or anyone) continuously beat the drum on debt and try to get us to rise from our collective stupor I would like to have heard more about it from the Senator. He mentions it only six times. Overall I found much I agreed with (at least in theory) but other things left me questioning his reasoning.
But more about all that in future posts. It's difficult to focus on anything serious as I currently have "visions of sugarplums" and other Christmas related nonsense dancing around in my head. I also don't want to give you any competition for the title of "windbag." which I am only too happy to let you keep. ;)
The Windbag and The Scrivener wouldn't have been a bad name for this blog! LOL
I can't help but notice that you have chosen one book by a self educated snark and one by a former professor. :)
In Life Without Principle Thoreau wrote, "The greatest compliment that was ever paid me was when one asked me what I thought and attended to my answer."
Such a simple, yet rare thing.
You've asked me to start off which I'll do with a bit of disclosure. I'm irritated. I'm irritated by a lack of journalistic standards and objectivity, I'm irritated by commentators and pundits who toe the party line religiously, no matter what. I'm irritated by conspiracy theories espoused by those on the fringy edges of both sides. I'm irritated by the kind of ideological group think that demands everyone think alike, before anything can be solved, by the attitude of whichever party is in power that it is somehow "payback time" and federal judges that override the will of the people more and more frequently. And I'm downright worried about the constant slide toward crassness in entertainment, cynicism in thought, and shallowness everywhere.
Is this who we are?
When these two men write about opportunity, faith, family, and the American dream I can agree with both of them that those things, among others, are core values. Common ground we can all agree on. When people refuse to make an attempt at understanding it is exhausting on a personal level and disheartening on a communal one.
I had read Glenn Beck's Common Sense before. I like him. I don't always agree with him, but overall I think he's just a guy who cares about the Constitution and the kind of country we are leaving our children and grandchildren. Most important of all, to me, he worries about the debt, the massive crushing debt hanging over us like some ominous storm cloud that might burst at any moment (so precarious the situation we've gotten ourselves into). He is willing to tell the truth, and a hard truth it is. His ratings and success are a testament to the fact that lots of our fellow countrymen are ready to hear what those in Washington don't think we can take (or are afraid we'll figure out). Let's just take a cold hard look at how bad things really are and stop pretending that it will just magically work itself out. Or worse, like the Congresswoman I saw interviewed about the ever ballooning unfunded liabilities who said she was sure our kids would be smarter than we are and they would figure out a solution. They'll really appreciate us having such confidence in them, I'm sure. I believe Beck when he says he hopes he's wrong. I think a lot of us hope we are too.
As I'm rereading Beck alongside the book written by, then Senator Obama, I find the similarities interesting. At times certain phrases, even entire paragraphs could have been written by either one of them. I'm surprised by Obama's casual writing style especially when relating personal stories and his honesty about how he feels about things. But while I'm glad to have Beck (or anyone) continuously beat the drum on debt and try to get us to rise from our collective stupor I would like to have heard more about it from the Senator. He mentions it only six times. Overall I found much I agreed with (at least in theory) but other things left me questioning his reasoning.
But more about all that in future posts. It's difficult to focus on anything serious as I currently have "visions of sugarplums" and other Christmas related nonsense dancing around in my head. I also don't want to give you any competition for the title of "windbag." which I am only too happy to let you keep. ;)
The Windbag and The Scrivener wouldn't have been a bad name for this blog! LOL
Christmas blessings to you and to our readers.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Peep and Peeps
Madame M,
I do the same thing. I lack the sensitivity and common sense to hide behind a book or magazine however, and I just observe. Some probably think it’s staring, so I guess I better watch it or I will end up on some creep alert list, lol.
Your story of the power outage is a testament to our search for balance. The connection is there, yet we lose most all sense of proportion and place and limits once electricity is restored.
Ah, I sense our expression on this topic winding down (at least for the moment). I have this idea. In this age of polarization, what if we do a book discussion of two books at the same time? I was thinking of Glenn Beck’s Common Sense and Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope. While I understand that a number of people do not consider them artful or sufficient contrasts, enough do, and perhaps it might be instructive to discuss them together. In our polarized world, too many of us citizens read things written by only one “side,” with the other “side” dismissed with reading at best a few sentences or listening to a few sound bites (and even many of those come chosen by the opposing “side”). How is that going to increase understanding? Perhaps we could take a lesson from Adams and Jefferson. Rivals and political enemies can often be surprised they have things in common, but are even more surprised that those on the other side sometimes have worthy things to say and even some valid points. As we said in the beginning, perhaps we can contribute to some civil disagreeing! :)
Since I am the windbag of us two, and you are the mercifully appropriate word-length scriviner, would you like to start us off? I am thinking this is going to be a very long thread! :)
I do the same thing. I lack the sensitivity and common sense to hide behind a book or magazine however, and I just observe. Some probably think it’s staring, so I guess I better watch it or I will end up on some creep alert list, lol.
Your story of the power outage is a testament to our search for balance. The connection is there, yet we lose most all sense of proportion and place and limits once electricity is restored.
Ah, I sense our expression on this topic winding down (at least for the moment). I have this idea. In this age of polarization, what if we do a book discussion of two books at the same time? I was thinking of Glenn Beck’s Common Sense and Barack Obama’s The Audacity of Hope. While I understand that a number of people do not consider them artful or sufficient contrasts, enough do, and perhaps it might be instructive to discuss them together. In our polarized world, too many of us citizens read things written by only one “side,” with the other “side” dismissed with reading at best a few sentences or listening to a few sound bites (and even many of those come chosen by the opposing “side”). How is that going to increase understanding? Perhaps we could take a lesson from Adams and Jefferson. Rivals and political enemies can often be surprised they have things in common, but are even more surprised that those on the other side sometimes have worthy things to say and even some valid points. As we said in the beginning, perhaps we can contribute to some civil disagreeing! :)
Since I am the windbag of us two, and you are the mercifully appropriate word-length scriviner, would you like to start us off? I am thinking this is going to be a very long thread! :)
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Prioritizing People
Professor J,
"The more elaborate our means of communication, the less we communicate.” Joseph Priestly
In airports and coffee shops I see people with iPods on and laptops in use. They sit there in a completely connected yet oddly disconnected world of their own, oblivious to all going on around them. Everything about them says "Leave me alone." But perhaps they are communicating with friends, writing a book, or taking an online class. I'd like to think so.
People's diverted attention at the airport always astounds me. I am practically incapable of concentrating on anything when traveling because people watching is fascinating to me. Books and magazines become merely props to hide behind while I take in the passing human parade, wonder about their lives, and try to imagine what their stories might be.
Your story about the geography professor is disheartening on many levels and perhaps more so to the mother of a college student. The escape from reality you describe is perhaps the new "gin" that Shirky compared television to, though he thinks the internet a great boon to society for all the reasons we've already discussed.
We are in a battle always, it seems, to find balance.
You are correct when you say that it may be a crisis that corrects much of this social isolation. We often experience that truth on a smaller scale. Several years ago we had a fierce storm that knocked out power all over the city for days. While putting up with all the problems that go along with a lack of electricity our family also played board games, talked, spent time in the same room together, checked on neighbors, and my son and I took the opportunity to sit in our cove and look at the night sky. Light pollution normally dulls the heavens to the point where it seems all you regularly see is the moon. An entire city plunged into darkness suddenly revealed what we are blind to. A couple of days later when power was restored my son noted that it was "kind of sad". While the comfort of air conditioning is always welcome in July in the south he was sensing that there is a price attached to our modern climate controlled lifestyles. He had a temporary glimpse of another way of being a neighborhood and a family.
Exactly two minutes after power was restored what did we all do? Of course, we powered up all our electronic devices and retreated to separate rooms with them.
If we could learn to hold our relationships in the highest esteem and foster our creativity (making the best use of technology to do those things) while recognizing our need for connection to the natural world we'd improve things greatly. Discussing it and giving it some thought can't be a bad place to start, my friend.
"The more elaborate our means of communication, the less we communicate.” Joseph Priestly
In airports and coffee shops I see people with iPods on and laptops in use. They sit there in a completely connected yet oddly disconnected world of their own, oblivious to all going on around them. Everything about them says "Leave me alone." But perhaps they are communicating with friends, writing a book, or taking an online class. I'd like to think so.
People's diverted attention at the airport always astounds me. I am practically incapable of concentrating on anything when traveling because people watching is fascinating to me. Books and magazines become merely props to hide behind while I take in the passing human parade, wonder about their lives, and try to imagine what their stories might be.
Your story about the geography professor is disheartening on many levels and perhaps more so to the mother of a college student. The escape from reality you describe is perhaps the new "gin" that Shirky compared television to, though he thinks the internet a great boon to society for all the reasons we've already discussed.
We are in a battle always, it seems, to find balance.
You are correct when you say that it may be a crisis that corrects much of this social isolation. We often experience that truth on a smaller scale. Several years ago we had a fierce storm that knocked out power all over the city for days. While putting up with all the problems that go along with a lack of electricity our family also played board games, talked, spent time in the same room together, checked on neighbors, and my son and I took the opportunity to sit in our cove and look at the night sky. Light pollution normally dulls the heavens to the point where it seems all you regularly see is the moon. An entire city plunged into darkness suddenly revealed what we are blind to. A couple of days later when power was restored my son noted that it was "kind of sad". While the comfort of air conditioning is always welcome in July in the south he was sensing that there is a price attached to our modern climate controlled lifestyles. He had a temporary glimpse of another way of being a neighborhood and a family.
Exactly two minutes after power was restored what did we all do? Of course, we powered up all our electronic devices and retreated to separate rooms with them.
If we could learn to hold our relationships in the highest esteem and foster our creativity (making the best use of technology to do those things) while recognizing our need for connection to the natural world we'd improve things greatly. Discussing it and giving it some thought can't be a bad place to start, my friend.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Awareness and A Wariness
Madame M,
No, fewer and fewer do realize it is rude. Fewer even care. It bodes ill for authentic relationships and sociability, let alone civility. What if we become too much these semi-isolated and insulated individuals who only occasionally (perhaps even reluctantly) interact with others and their surroundings? When a society becomes too individualistic, that is, when community becomes more and more merely a hope, perhaps Hobbes’ anarchy is nearer than thought.
I walk to the track and go by males (and occasionally females) who look the other way, or do not respond when I give them a greeting. I go to the gym and see most working out by themselves, with most shut off by the earpods of isolation, marching (or in this case, exercising) to their own tune(s). Even when someone doesn’t have earpods in, they exude an aura of concern that you might actually talk to them! Some of it, I’m sure, is this fear-ridden dysfunctionality we’ve constructed between men and women, but some of it is just people to people too. Our social skills are becoming a bit enfeebled or stunted.
Fortunately, these are some of the easiest things to correct, but we’ll have to fashion a new social paradigm in the doing. Unfortunately, it is a crisis which often does that…
I know of a geography professor, a newly minted fairly young PhD, who is bright, but exhibit A for this phenomenon. On the day that Call of Duty: Black Ops came out, he cancelled class so he could buy it and play it. I know many young professionals like this. I know legions more who have no job, aren’t looking for one, and show no goals, who are even more like this. The seductive and diversionary entertainment and endless communication (FB, Twit, IM, etc.) has replaced their thinking about reality and their real life (which, admittedly, this society and its system have done an increasingly poor job in making attractive).
There are many harmful facets to this, but the most pressing one to me is that the urgent and vital work of the society and world is being neglected because these people are on the Net or their video game and it is using up all their time, energy, and focus. Few sound the trumpet, and fewer hear it. And those that do flounder around in frustrating disconnection.
We don’t need anyone to conquer us, we are conquering ourselves.
Ah, go with envy to the vast library of your friend, to her cooking, and to the wine!
And I have not read Scroogenomics, but have read extensive reviews on it. Like similar books I’ve read (Affluenza, The Two-Income Trap, etc.), it calls into question this consumer madness, a madness that does not advance the things in our lives that matter.
No, fewer and fewer do realize it is rude. Fewer even care. It bodes ill for authentic relationships and sociability, let alone civility. What if we become too much these semi-isolated and insulated individuals who only occasionally (perhaps even reluctantly) interact with others and their surroundings? When a society becomes too individualistic, that is, when community becomes more and more merely a hope, perhaps Hobbes’ anarchy is nearer than thought.
I walk to the track and go by males (and occasionally females) who look the other way, or do not respond when I give them a greeting. I go to the gym and see most working out by themselves, with most shut off by the earpods of isolation, marching (or in this case, exercising) to their own tune(s). Even when someone doesn’t have earpods in, they exude an aura of concern that you might actually talk to them! Some of it, I’m sure, is this fear-ridden dysfunctionality we’ve constructed between men and women, but some of it is just people to people too. Our social skills are becoming a bit enfeebled or stunted.
Fortunately, these are some of the easiest things to correct, but we’ll have to fashion a new social paradigm in the doing. Unfortunately, it is a crisis which often does that…
I know of a geography professor, a newly minted fairly young PhD, who is bright, but exhibit A for this phenomenon. On the day that Call of Duty: Black Ops came out, he cancelled class so he could buy it and play it. I know many young professionals like this. I know legions more who have no job, aren’t looking for one, and show no goals, who are even more like this. The seductive and diversionary entertainment and endless communication (FB, Twit, IM, etc.) has replaced their thinking about reality and their real life (which, admittedly, this society and its system have done an increasingly poor job in making attractive).
There are many harmful facets to this, but the most pressing one to me is that the urgent and vital work of the society and world is being neglected because these people are on the Net or their video game and it is using up all their time, energy, and focus. Few sound the trumpet, and fewer hear it. And those that do flounder around in frustrating disconnection.
We don’t need anyone to conquer us, we are conquering ourselves.
Ah, go with envy to the vast library of your friend, to her cooking, and to the wine!
And I have not read Scroogenomics, but have read extensive reviews on it. Like similar books I’ve read (Affluenza, The Two-Income Trap, etc.), it calls into question this consumer madness, a madness that does not advance the things in our lives that matter.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Screening Process
Professor J,
When our nifty new gadgets aren't connecting us or helping keep us connected they divide and often conquer. I'm on the verge of purchasing some iPod Earbuds just so I can wear them around and look blankly at people who speak to me, take one out, and mutter..."huh?" Does anyone realize how rude that is? Manners seem to be among the earliest casualties of technology from where I sit.
I'm beginning to wonder if as a culture we continue to spend more and more time alone in front of flickering screens of one kind or another, we are going to end up incapable of behaving decently toward one another and lose any sense of the little niceties and unwritten rules that are tacitly written into our various social interactions. The human connections that you so rightly point out that we crave can never be completely fulfilled without face to face interaction. No matter how eloquent the words on a flickering screen, what can replace the joy of hearing the sound of a friend's laughter or seeing the gleam of understanding and connection in some one's eye? There is always good and bad in everything and our new challenges/blessings are no exception.
I am at this very moment sitting in the home of a friend I keep up with regularly on Facebook. This week however, it has been such a joy to SEE the person I'm sharing with and TALK/LISTEN. Although the frequency and volume of our combined laughter and incessant storytelling may not be appreciated by those within earshot, it is to us, practically medicinal.
I am also fortunate to get to browse her vast library, eat her amazing cooking, and share delicious wine and espresso with her. You can't reproduce any of THAT sitting at a computer screen.
That is INDEED the shortest answer ever to appear on this blog from you! I hope you are not ill.
Did you ever read the book Scroogenomics I recommended to you? The thought of having to do Christmas shopping has me remembering how much I liked it and how much sense it made. :)
When our nifty new gadgets aren't connecting us or helping keep us connected they divide and often conquer. I'm on the verge of purchasing some iPod Earbuds just so I can wear them around and look blankly at people who speak to me, take one out, and mutter..."huh?" Does anyone realize how rude that is? Manners seem to be among the earliest casualties of technology from where I sit.
I'm beginning to wonder if as a culture we continue to spend more and more time alone in front of flickering screens of one kind or another, we are going to end up incapable of behaving decently toward one another and lose any sense of the little niceties and unwritten rules that are tacitly written into our various social interactions. The human connections that you so rightly point out that we crave can never be completely fulfilled without face to face interaction. No matter how eloquent the words on a flickering screen, what can replace the joy of hearing the sound of a friend's laughter or seeing the gleam of understanding and connection in some one's eye? There is always good and bad in everything and our new challenges/blessings are no exception.
I am at this very moment sitting in the home of a friend I keep up with regularly on Facebook. This week however, it has been such a joy to SEE the person I'm sharing with and TALK/LISTEN. Although the frequency and volume of our combined laughter and incessant storytelling may not be appreciated by those within earshot, it is to us, practically medicinal.
I am also fortunate to get to browse her vast library, eat her amazing cooking, and share delicious wine and espresso with her. You can't reproduce any of THAT sitting at a computer screen.
That is INDEED the shortest answer ever to appear on this blog from you! I hope you are not ill.
Did you ever read the book Scroogenomics I recommended to you? The thought of having to do Christmas shopping has me remembering how much I liked it and how much sense it made. :)
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Dysfunction Junction
Madame M,
Perpetuating certain problems? Those kinds of criticisms have been leveled at everything from The American Cancer Society to the “war on drugs,” and I can’t say I disagree much with the critics!
You have identified in ready form some deep drawbacks to our new tools and how we use/misuse them and may be enfeebling or even losing key interpersonal skills. Maybe society will become nearly entirely changed, and we the people will become like the sounds of nature—greatly altered, and a great portion not for the better. Like Rachel Carson lamenting that the sounds of true songbirds that she had heard in the springtimes of her youth had been silenced in her adulthood (but that too few noticed), so too might society become this connected/disconnected workable dysfunction, without much awareness (historians possibly excepted) of what has been altered and lost, nor much awareness of its dysfunction.
Comforting and enjoyable to know that you are/were doing pretty much the same things at the same time? Yes. Inside, we crave connection and community, the very things we disrupt by what we often do and do not do. Ever wonder why somehow it seems more fulfilling to watch a movie that is ON the television, or AT the theater, rather than pop it in or stream it? It is the shared experience, and of the moment, that we humans crave.
As for your question: The problems are not often the identical ones, but they are usually very similar. The human condition has at best changed only a little in all these thousands of years of recorded history.
That is the probably the shortest answer from me to ever appear on this blog. But that is all that is required for this particular question. See? Sometimes answers really are short and simple, albeit not always sweet! But as can be seen, those shorties are few and far between (what would that make that one, 1 in a 100?). Of course, undoubtedly there are critics who would up or lower that percentage! :)
Perpetuating certain problems? Those kinds of criticisms have been leveled at everything from The American Cancer Society to the “war on drugs,” and I can’t say I disagree much with the critics!
You have identified in ready form some deep drawbacks to our new tools and how we use/misuse them and may be enfeebling or even losing key interpersonal skills. Maybe society will become nearly entirely changed, and we the people will become like the sounds of nature—greatly altered, and a great portion not for the better. Like Rachel Carson lamenting that the sounds of true songbirds that she had heard in the springtimes of her youth had been silenced in her adulthood (but that too few noticed), so too might society become this connected/disconnected workable dysfunction, without much awareness (historians possibly excepted) of what has been altered and lost, nor much awareness of its dysfunction.
Comforting and enjoyable to know that you are/were doing pretty much the same things at the same time? Yes. Inside, we crave connection and community, the very things we disrupt by what we often do and do not do. Ever wonder why somehow it seems more fulfilling to watch a movie that is ON the television, or AT the theater, rather than pop it in or stream it? It is the shared experience, and of the moment, that we humans crave.
As for your question: The problems are not often the identical ones, but they are usually very similar. The human condition has at best changed only a little in all these thousands of years of recorded history.
That is the probably the shortest answer from me to ever appear on this blog. But that is all that is required for this particular question. See? Sometimes answers really are short and simple, albeit not always sweet! But as can be seen, those shorties are few and far between (what would that make that one, 1 in a 100?). Of course, undoubtedly there are critics who would up or lower that percentage! :)
Saturday, December 4, 2010
We're Still Here!
Today is the 5 month anniversary of our blog. You were probably expecting us to celebrate some trite milestone like 6 months or a year. Don't you know us by now?
There is a little story behind celebrating this particular amount of time. I (Housewife speaking) was at a party a couple of months ago and was chatting with someone a friend had introduced me to with "She has a blog with a friend of hers who is a professor, I think you would find it interesting." Then to me, "He reads 11 blogs a day!" The voracious blog reader chimed in to let me know that those were his "regulars," he did read others but he added how disappointing it is to find a blog he likes, get attached to the bloggers and then have them just abandon the site. "Five months seems to be the cut off. If they are still blogging after that they are usually going to stick with it."
So with that in mind we thought we'd celebrate this momentous occasion and let you know we expect to be around until we run out of things to write about. Which, according to the Professor's calculations, will be sometime around the year 2654. The date might be extended if new subjects come up between now and then. :)
Have you been keeping up? It could be a while.
Thanks for stopping by and as always, thanks for reading!
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Can You Hear Me Now?
I have a feeling the Romans might feel right at home (frighteningly so) much like the barbarians in those credit card commercials. :)
The first priority of any organization or institution is indeed to exist and grow. One has to wonder at what point such an entity becomes interested in perpetuating certain problems in order to guarantee its own survival. Oh dear, I sound like a cynic.
As we're discussing the pros and cons of all our new found connectivity via communication now available in the blink of an eye I must say, like you, I'm torn. On one hand I love having the connection to people I haven't seen in years or don't get to see anywhere nearly as often as I would like but on the other hand it is addicting, as you point out, hard to walk away from and at times a massive time waster. A couple of illustrations come to mind. Let's bring it home, literally.
Recently my ultra busy daughter made time to watch a movie with me at home. While I curled up in a chair anxious to give this precious time with her my undivided attention, she arrived to take up temporary residence on the sofa smart phone AND laptop in tow. She texted, looked up information about all the actors (the internet eliminates the "what was that other movie he was in?" discussion my parents used to have), updated her Facebook status, and did some shopping. I had a multitasking headache just watching her since I am only capable of doing one thing at a time. She finds it amusing (and irritating) that if she is telling me something I STOP what I'm doing to listen. To her, the inability to multitask is practically a character flaw while her diverted attention seems to me to border on rudeness, a generation gap of sorts. It's not just as an entire culture we can't seem to find the balance but in our personal relationships as well. How many times have you seen a couple, obviously on a first date, BOTH texting other people? It does seem as if our hyper-connectivity is damaging our ability to actually connect in any profound way. It is becoming harder and harder to simply enjoy someone's presence and to listen, as well as to be heard, both primary relationship skills. Well, at least they used to be. :)
Ah, but there are always two sides, aren't there? On Thanksgiving, I was the one craving a moment to catch up on Facebook which I did the first chance I got. There was a community there. Friends near and far were posting greetings and recipes, pictures of family, kind words and blessings were exchanged instantly between a large group of people whose day would not have included time to pick up the phone for a more personal greeting and with whom real "face" time proved impossible. In a way I felt that I had been a part of my friends' celebrations and it was nice to know that everyone was doing pretty much the same thing at the same time. Comforting somehow. It isn't the same as sitting across the table from someone, but something is better than nothing and it does fill in the gaps nicely between those times, allowing conversation to pick up in the "now" instead of having to "catch up" first.
As for "polarization that can come from accessing primarily only one (or one kind of) source," again that's something I think we saw the first roots of with cable. The advent of the 24 hour cable news channels became places where we now have "our" news and "their" news as opposed to THE news (facts are such annoying little things after all). All of which, as you allude to has carried over and mushroomed on the internet, in many ways worse because people can remain anonymous while spewing venom or ridiculous lies.
So once again we find ourselves searching for balance made all the more difficult by the constantly shifting sand of technology and isolation.
Here's a question for you my civic minded, history loving friend: Whether we're discussing ancient Rome, a Star Trek like future, or the issues we're discussing here, don't the problems seem to be the same ones over and over (or at least very similar)? We change the speed of course, and the window dressing but other than that it all always seems so...familiar.
Or am I wrong? (I'm sure you'll tell me. :))
The first priority of any organization or institution is indeed to exist and grow. One has to wonder at what point such an entity becomes interested in perpetuating certain problems in order to guarantee its own survival. Oh dear, I sound like a cynic.
As we're discussing the pros and cons of all our new found connectivity via communication now available in the blink of an eye I must say, like you, I'm torn. On one hand I love having the connection to people I haven't seen in years or don't get to see anywhere nearly as often as I would like but on the other hand it is addicting, as you point out, hard to walk away from and at times a massive time waster. A couple of illustrations come to mind. Let's bring it home, literally.
Recently my ultra busy daughter made time to watch a movie with me at home. While I curled up in a chair anxious to give this precious time with her my undivided attention, she arrived to take up temporary residence on the sofa smart phone AND laptop in tow. She texted, looked up information about all the actors (the internet eliminates the "what was that other movie he was in?" discussion my parents used to have), updated her Facebook status, and did some shopping. I had a multitasking headache just watching her since I am only capable of doing one thing at a time. She finds it amusing (and irritating) that if she is telling me something I STOP what I'm doing to listen. To her, the inability to multitask is practically a character flaw while her diverted attention seems to me to border on rudeness, a generation gap of sorts. It's not just as an entire culture we can't seem to find the balance but in our personal relationships as well. How many times have you seen a couple, obviously on a first date, BOTH texting other people? It does seem as if our hyper-connectivity is damaging our ability to actually connect in any profound way. It is becoming harder and harder to simply enjoy someone's presence and to listen, as well as to be heard, both primary relationship skills. Well, at least they used to be. :)
Ah, but there are always two sides, aren't there? On Thanksgiving, I was the one craving a moment to catch up on Facebook which I did the first chance I got. There was a community there. Friends near and far were posting greetings and recipes, pictures of family, kind words and blessings were exchanged instantly between a large group of people whose day would not have included time to pick up the phone for a more personal greeting and with whom real "face" time proved impossible. In a way I felt that I had been a part of my friends' celebrations and it was nice to know that everyone was doing pretty much the same thing at the same time. Comforting somehow. It isn't the same as sitting across the table from someone, but something is better than nothing and it does fill in the gaps nicely between those times, allowing conversation to pick up in the "now" instead of having to "catch up" first.
As for "polarization that can come from accessing primarily only one (or one kind of) source," again that's something I think we saw the first roots of with cable. The advent of the 24 hour cable news channels became places where we now have "our" news and "their" news as opposed to THE news (facts are such annoying little things after all). All of which, as you allude to has carried over and mushroomed on the internet, in many ways worse because people can remain anonymous while spewing venom or ridiculous lies.
So once again we find ourselves searching for balance made all the more difficult by the constantly shifting sand of technology and isolation.
Here's a question for you my civic minded, history loving friend: Whether we're discussing ancient Rome, a Star Trek like future, or the issues we're discussing here, don't the problems seem to be the same ones over and over (or at least very similar)? We change the speed of course, and the window dressing but other than that it all always seems so...familiar.
Or am I wrong? (I'm sure you'll tell me. :))
Sunday, November 28, 2010
For Every Action...
Now that I too have partaken of Gluttony and Gladiators (we just can’t seem to stop following Rome!) holiday times, I can return to the subject at hand!
The bus company that saw only busses as the solution: Yes, that is the parochial nature of many (nearly all?) organizations. As Churchill says, he advocated different things as the Lord of the Admiralty than he did as Home Secretary, even when he knew in his mind that he should be thinking broader. The society should decide what is best, not its selfish components. But, and this is a big but, the information in making those decisions must be accurate. That is where we fall down severely, especially in accounting for the actual costs of something. And THAT is a subject for another discussion! :)
We are diverted and amused. Little different, just far more alluring and inoculating, than Rome and its gladiator contests, circuses, and other sports and entertainment. Since it is "creative" and "interactive," the internet serves as even better diversion for the masses than television. Now, it does have empowering and contributing aspects to it as well, and I am hopeful for them. Whether they shift the balance remains to be seen. So far, judging from the state of the country and world, perhaps not.
Television was rightly criticized for being a passive and disconnected thing, with much connectivity and productivity wasted. But it also often curiously had some connective processes as well. As in, "did you see X last night?" and then an entire discussion would ensue. In that respect, it could reinforce some common culture and connectivity. In today's fractured streams, attention spans are wide and thin. It is rarer and rarer that people have a common entertainment/informative reference. That fact can drive people not only apart,but in a polarizing fashion. Rather a bit like we have today.
Television and the internet and our “smart” phones have driven wedges in our senses of community. Seeming to connect us, they often rather DISconnect us. And I agree with Shirky that time has been wasted in past TV watching. It has taken us away from each other, from the society, and from communal responsibility. It has reinforced an individualism that did not need reinforcing. The needs of the society have suffered because fewer are doing them, and fewer WANT to. Everything is atomized, the nuclear family ever more an insular and disconnected hard shell moving in a very loose collection of hard shells. Stress, defensiveness, suspicion, fear, exhaustion: all way up because we are this way. Public places and the commons—they are too often suffering from either neglect or overuse.
Yet all that is in many ways magnified even more by the internet.
The internet is far more addictive than TV has ever been, and one can certainly never say of the internet “there’s nothing on.” It is far harder to summon the will to “shut off” than TV has been, and because it has also invaded the workplace, its pervasive allure and availability is somewhat boundless and timeless.
And while occasionally someone has been unable to shut off the TV and go to bed, those instances are a far distant second to instances of that being the case with the internet and other instantly interactive communication/exploring. Whether it’s IMing, tweeting, reading and posting, online gaming, or just surfing, a large number of adults (let alone tweens and teens) have difficulty setting limits and parameters. Sleep, work, family, finances, and other responsibilities of non-electronic reality have often suffered. For a culture that knew the definitions of “balance” and “enough,” it would be a hard test. For this culture that knows not those definitions, it is often the perfect brand of addictive electronic heroin, and each “hit,” only increases the craving more. And certainly this writer is not immune to its lure.
I fully agree that the entrepreneurial aspects of the internet are both great and wonderful, with superb possibilities for the individual that did not exist before. My concern about economic productivity comes not from those possibilities, but how little they are in play compared to the diversionary aspects. Both entrepreneurial initiative and traditional work productivity seem to be sagging per capita (although not always per worker, a whole ‘nother discussion!), and the oft-trumpeted “spike” in entrepreneurial activity is, unfortunately, far too often merely the independent contractor facet from laid off workers having to work (without benefits) for their former employers.
With the internet, email, smart phones, etc., we have seemingly endless possibilities, but the simple truth is that we are still humans, with limitations on what we can absorb and accomplish. Just recognizing that fact might go a very long ways toward rectifying our maniacal obsession with doing ever more and more.
The bag is mixed. While the alternative information outlets of the internet are largely welcome in this age of big media in the hands of the few, there are also twin poles to consider: 1) polarization that can come from accessing primarily only one (or one kind of) source, and 2) confusion and disempowerment that can result from the deluge of misinformation, deliberately planted deflection, and twisting bile-producers.
Like Shirky, I too hope that we continue to find ways to create and connect using the internet, and I do greatly admire his vision. I thoroughly treasure having email and the internet. I think they are wonderful tools, with many provens and many possibilities. Like all tools however, they can be used excessively or inappropriately. Let us hope that we sift them sensibly—and along the way find our balance between reality and virtual reality, between society and ourselves.
The bus company that saw only busses as the solution: Yes, that is the parochial nature of many (nearly all?) organizations. As Churchill says, he advocated different things as the Lord of the Admiralty than he did as Home Secretary, even when he knew in his mind that he should be thinking broader. The society should decide what is best, not its selfish components. But, and this is a big but, the information in making those decisions must be accurate. That is where we fall down severely, especially in accounting for the actual costs of something. And THAT is a subject for another discussion! :)
We are diverted and amused. Little different, just far more alluring and inoculating, than Rome and its gladiator contests, circuses, and other sports and entertainment. Since it is "creative" and "interactive," the internet serves as even better diversion for the masses than television. Now, it does have empowering and contributing aspects to it as well, and I am hopeful for them. Whether they shift the balance remains to be seen. So far, judging from the state of the country and world, perhaps not.
Television was rightly criticized for being a passive and disconnected thing, with much connectivity and productivity wasted. But it also often curiously had some connective processes as well. As in, "did you see X last night?" and then an entire discussion would ensue. In that respect, it could reinforce some common culture and connectivity. In today's fractured streams, attention spans are wide and thin. It is rarer and rarer that people have a common entertainment/informative reference. That fact can drive people not only apart,but in a polarizing fashion. Rather a bit like we have today.
Television and the internet and our “smart” phones have driven wedges in our senses of community. Seeming to connect us, they often rather DISconnect us. And I agree with Shirky that time has been wasted in past TV watching. It has taken us away from each other, from the society, and from communal responsibility. It has reinforced an individualism that did not need reinforcing. The needs of the society have suffered because fewer are doing them, and fewer WANT to. Everything is atomized, the nuclear family ever more an insular and disconnected hard shell moving in a very loose collection of hard shells. Stress, defensiveness, suspicion, fear, exhaustion: all way up because we are this way. Public places and the commons—they are too often suffering from either neglect or overuse.
Yet all that is in many ways magnified even more by the internet.
The internet is far more addictive than TV has ever been, and one can certainly never say of the internet “there’s nothing on.” It is far harder to summon the will to “shut off” than TV has been, and because it has also invaded the workplace, its pervasive allure and availability is somewhat boundless and timeless.
And while occasionally someone has been unable to shut off the TV and go to bed, those instances are a far distant second to instances of that being the case with the internet and other instantly interactive communication/exploring. Whether it’s IMing, tweeting, reading and posting, online gaming, or just surfing, a large number of adults (let alone tweens and teens) have difficulty setting limits and parameters. Sleep, work, family, finances, and other responsibilities of non-electronic reality have often suffered. For a culture that knew the definitions of “balance” and “enough,” it would be a hard test. For this culture that knows not those definitions, it is often the perfect brand of addictive electronic heroin, and each “hit,” only increases the craving more. And certainly this writer is not immune to its lure.
I fully agree that the entrepreneurial aspects of the internet are both great and wonderful, with superb possibilities for the individual that did not exist before. My concern about economic productivity comes not from those possibilities, but how little they are in play compared to the diversionary aspects. Both entrepreneurial initiative and traditional work productivity seem to be sagging per capita (although not always per worker, a whole ‘nother discussion!), and the oft-trumpeted “spike” in entrepreneurial activity is, unfortunately, far too often merely the independent contractor facet from laid off workers having to work (without benefits) for their former employers.
With the internet, email, smart phones, etc., we have seemingly endless possibilities, but the simple truth is that we are still humans, with limitations on what we can absorb and accomplish. Just recognizing that fact might go a very long ways toward rectifying our maniacal obsession with doing ever more and more.
The bag is mixed. While the alternative information outlets of the internet are largely welcome in this age of big media in the hands of the few, there are also twin poles to consider: 1) polarization that can come from accessing primarily only one (or one kind of) source, and 2) confusion and disempowerment that can result from the deluge of misinformation, deliberately planted deflection, and twisting bile-producers.
Like Shirky, I too hope that we continue to find ways to create and connect using the internet, and I do greatly admire his vision. I thoroughly treasure having email and the internet. I think they are wonderful tools, with many provens and many possibilities. Like all tools however, they can be used excessively or inappropriately. Let us hope that we sift them sensibly—and along the way find our balance between reality and virtual reality, between society and ourselves.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Action and Distraction
Professor J,
I'm posting early in the week since I'm sure that we, as well as our readers, will all be using our time over the next few days to catch up with friends and family, eat, and of course,watch copious amounts of football! :)
Shirky is using the term "cognitive surplus" mainly to refer to what is created out of time previously spent watching television in one's spare time after work, caring for children etc. He notes that worldwide the 3 main uses of time are: work, sleep, TV. While some people may be using the internet as a means of escape and denial, they are very likely the same people who would have previously been using television for the same purposes. But for many when the opportunities change, the behavior changes. One of the points he makes is that while people make fun of a woman who blogs about her knitting or a man who plays role playing games online, few people would have made fun of anyone sitting comatose on the sofa passively soaking up programming from the six o'clock news to the Late Show. Somehow THAT was acceptable.
While I agree with you that a lack of focus is troublesome, as there are endless diversions and distractions, I'd say we've been moving down that road since the introduction of cable TV and the remote. The competition for attention today IS a bit overwhelming and IS having an effect. Here's an article (that includes an informative video) suggesting that this generation's brain may actually be wired differently as a result of their constant connections.
The internet does indeed both connect and isolate, yet television mainly just isolates as watching is a solitary activity for the most part with the exception of family viewing (rare today with TVs in every room) or the occasional gathering to watch something like election coverage or major sporting events. So our computers far surpass the idiot box as a means of connection, whatever isolating pitfalls there may be. While everyone predicted that isolation would be one of the biggest impacts of the internet, it is actually being used to coordinate real world contact more often than anyone imagined. Even within the category of connection however there are positives and negatives. While we get Pick Up Pal, which is sort of the Craig's list of carpooling, and the ability to easily connect with friends, we also get cyber-bullying and the fact that last year in the U.K. Facebook was mentioned in 1 in 5 divorce petitions according to this article.
An interesting observation Shirky makes about Pick Up Pal is that the bus company in the city where this program was implemented originally tried to get the site shut down. He submits that the bus company wasn't interested in solving the transportation problem. They were interested in solving the transportation problem WITH BUSES. Any organization designed to solve some dilemma, also has an interest in seeing that the difficulty is never actually solved. But, that is a whole other discussion!
One of the things that the author brings up is that we don't know how technology will be used until people are given access to it. Previously held notions often fail to hold up and he uses the example of what he calls "milkshake mistakes". A fast food company that sells a lot of milkshakes did some research and was shocked to learn that the sales were most brisk during morning rush hour. While the executives had only imagined the milkshake as a treat or dessert customers were using it as a breakfast food. They had failed to ask "What is the customer hiring the milkshake to do?" The milkshake was a breakfast staple for many because it was; easily obtained at a drive through, filling, not messy to eat, and could be consumed with one hand.
Economic productivity: You are right in some respects but I think that the benefits in this area far outweigh the negatives. That woman with the blog about her knitting can now post pictures and take orders, bypassing the "gatekeeper" store owner who would have had to agree to carry her items before. If that avenue was blocked, her only access to customers would have been friends and family and maybe word of mouth. Anyone with a little entrepreneurial spirit can open a virtual storefront now,self publish a book which can be printed on demand eliminating the need for inventory, or just boost the name recognition of a brick and mortar small business.
"We are quickly becoming one another's infrastructure."
~Clay Shirky
Shirky has hope that we will keep finding more ways to create and connect using the internet. His book contains many stories about how people are increasingly using the CS/tech combination to solve problems that are communal and he sees endless possibilities in how it could be used to find solutions that would be beneficial on a global scale. Now that may be overly optimistic, but I had to love that the guy had VISION, as you've said before, something so needed today.
A bit of housekeeping: We've added a search gadget to help you find a previous post you may be looking for or a link that we've provided you'd like to quickly locate. Also you will now see a box "Currently Up For Discussion" that will allow you to quickly see what the topic du jour is.
I'm posting early in the week since I'm sure that we, as well as our readers, will all be using our time over the next few days to catch up with friends and family, eat, and of course,watch copious amounts of football! :)
Shirky is using the term "cognitive surplus" mainly to refer to what is created out of time previously spent watching television in one's spare time after work, caring for children etc. He notes that worldwide the 3 main uses of time are: work, sleep, TV. While some people may be using the internet as a means of escape and denial, they are very likely the same people who would have previously been using television for the same purposes. But for many when the opportunities change, the behavior changes. One of the points he makes is that while people make fun of a woman who blogs about her knitting or a man who plays role playing games online, few people would have made fun of anyone sitting comatose on the sofa passively soaking up programming from the six o'clock news to the Late Show. Somehow THAT was acceptable.
While I agree with you that a lack of focus is troublesome, as there are endless diversions and distractions, I'd say we've been moving down that road since the introduction of cable TV and the remote. The competition for attention today IS a bit overwhelming and IS having an effect. Here's an article (that includes an informative video) suggesting that this generation's brain may actually be wired differently as a result of their constant connections.
The internet does indeed both connect and isolate, yet television mainly just isolates as watching is a solitary activity for the most part with the exception of family viewing (rare today with TVs in every room) or the occasional gathering to watch something like election coverage or major sporting events. So our computers far surpass the idiot box as a means of connection, whatever isolating pitfalls there may be. While everyone predicted that isolation would be one of the biggest impacts of the internet, it is actually being used to coordinate real world contact more often than anyone imagined. Even within the category of connection however there are positives and negatives. While we get Pick Up Pal, which is sort of the Craig's list of carpooling, and the ability to easily connect with friends, we also get cyber-bullying and the fact that last year in the U.K. Facebook was mentioned in 1 in 5 divorce petitions according to this article.
An interesting observation Shirky makes about Pick Up Pal is that the bus company in the city where this program was implemented originally tried to get the site shut down. He submits that the bus company wasn't interested in solving the transportation problem. They were interested in solving the transportation problem WITH BUSES. Any organization designed to solve some dilemma, also has an interest in seeing that the difficulty is never actually solved. But, that is a whole other discussion!
One of the things that the author brings up is that we don't know how technology will be used until people are given access to it. Previously held notions often fail to hold up and he uses the example of what he calls "milkshake mistakes". A fast food company that sells a lot of milkshakes did some research and was shocked to learn that the sales were most brisk during morning rush hour. While the executives had only imagined the milkshake as a treat or dessert customers were using it as a breakfast food. They had failed to ask "What is the customer hiring the milkshake to do?" The milkshake was a breakfast staple for many because it was; easily obtained at a drive through, filling, not messy to eat, and could be consumed with one hand.
Economic productivity: You are right in some respects but I think that the benefits in this area far outweigh the negatives. That woman with the blog about her knitting can now post pictures and take orders, bypassing the "gatekeeper" store owner who would have had to agree to carry her items before. If that avenue was blocked, her only access to customers would have been friends and family and maybe word of mouth. Anyone with a little entrepreneurial spirit can open a virtual storefront now,self publish a book which can be printed on demand eliminating the need for inventory, or just boost the name recognition of a brick and mortar small business.
"We are quickly becoming one another's infrastructure."
~Clay Shirky
Shirky has hope that we will keep finding more ways to create and connect using the internet. His book contains many stories about how people are increasingly using the CS/tech combination to solve problems that are communal and he sees endless possibilities in how it could be used to find solutions that would be beneficial on a global scale. Now that may be overly optimistic, but I had to love that the guy had VISION, as you've said before, something so needed today.
A bit of housekeeping: We've added a search gadget to help you find a previous post you may be looking for or a link that we've provided you'd like to quickly locate. Also you will now see a box "Currently Up For Discussion" that will allow you to quickly see what the topic du jour is.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Possibility and Diversion
Madame M:
IS God trying to impart those truths? Maybe He is leaving it up to the souls of the immortal world to do that? But I guess that would mean He would still be doing it indirectly, so maybe that is parsing the part about impart. :)
Moving from passive to active is usually a better thing, I agree. And having some avenue for a creative process, especially to organize and land thoughts, is superb and needed.
Socialization and the web and the contribution of “surplus,” seem to me to be a mixture, part good and part not so good. As for related aspects of the psychology of socialization and “contribution” and the web, here again I see a mixture, although a less even one: part is good in that it gives you free thinking access, part is bad in that it both connects and isolates, can hide you and blind you.
Shirky for his part seems to be giddy with all the possibilities of active and free contribution. I am excited about that as well, yet there are other aspects to consider. First, not all cognitive surplus is a net gain—not by a long shot. Many who don’t have jobs but should (or should be looking for, or preparing), divert their time and energy in marginality and live an ultimately unsustainable and unrealistic pseudo-life via the web. The process of obsessive “surplussing” can also contribute to the already nearly epidemic lack of focus by fanatics of electronic involvement. Second, but maybe it should be first, is relegating of economic productivity. People who are contributing surplus are often not contributing basic economic productivity, but should be. Life is not virtual, and certainly economic life isn’t. This country already has a big enough problem with denial. Third, there is a concept of balance that is perhaps being missed.
However, I am somewhat handicapped in all this because I have not read the full works, and shall defer to you to fill in the blanks or correct misperceptions!
While I might sympathize with a portion of what your aforementioned critic intimates, such crass arrogance, narrow materialism, and fealty to controllers/”managers” so undermines any point(s) he might make, I will not only share your disdain, I will say that his attitude is why Gross Domestic Product and general economic thought are each not worthwhile measures of the economic health and productivity of a society. For far too long we have not figured in or much valued the highly valuable (and often essential) unpaid work of society, the work that undergirds society and makes possible so much, and that indeed, the society could not function without.
IS God trying to impart those truths? Maybe He is leaving it up to the souls of the immortal world to do that? But I guess that would mean He would still be doing it indirectly, so maybe that is parsing the part about impart. :)
Moving from passive to active is usually a better thing, I agree. And having some avenue for a creative process, especially to organize and land thoughts, is superb and needed.
Socialization and the web and the contribution of “surplus,” seem to me to be a mixture, part good and part not so good. As for related aspects of the psychology of socialization and “contribution” and the web, here again I see a mixture, although a less even one: part is good in that it gives you free thinking access, part is bad in that it both connects and isolates, can hide you and blind you.
Shirky for his part seems to be giddy with all the possibilities of active and free contribution. I am excited about that as well, yet there are other aspects to consider. First, not all cognitive surplus is a net gain—not by a long shot. Many who don’t have jobs but should (or should be looking for, or preparing), divert their time and energy in marginality and live an ultimately unsustainable and unrealistic pseudo-life via the web. The process of obsessive “surplussing” can also contribute to the already nearly epidemic lack of focus by fanatics of electronic involvement. Second, but maybe it should be first, is relegating of economic productivity. People who are contributing surplus are often not contributing basic economic productivity, but should be. Life is not virtual, and certainly economic life isn’t. This country already has a big enough problem with denial. Third, there is a concept of balance that is perhaps being missed.
However, I am somewhat handicapped in all this because I have not read the full works, and shall defer to you to fill in the blanks or correct misperceptions!
While I might sympathize with a portion of what your aforementioned critic intimates, such crass arrogance, narrow materialism, and fealty to controllers/”managers” so undermines any point(s) he might make, I will not only share your disdain, I will say that his attitude is why Gross Domestic Product and general economic thought are each not worthwhile measures of the economic health and productivity of a society. For far too long we have not figured in or much valued the highly valuable (and often essential) unpaid work of society, the work that undergirds society and makes possible so much, and that indeed, the society could not function without.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
A Creative Revolt
Professor J,
Reading several books at once, a "bad" habit? Well, it's one I share with you, then. I generally have at least 3 or 4 going at once all from different genres so I know how you feel. There seems to be usually some lengthy tome lingering around while self help, thrillers, biographies, etc. rotate a bit more quickly.
Rationality is indeed a gift from the Creator and can certainly be infused with the warmth of divinity. It takes on a particular chill however when the possibility of anything other than it is discounted, Ayn Rand style. You and I would probably agree on John Donne's quote "Reason is our soul's left hand, faith her right." Both things are useful to move us forward toward revelations of truth God is trying to impart.
Now, excuse me while I jump parsecs to another subject, we can always jump back to this one if you want.
If you have read lengthy reviews of Cognitive Surplus and Drive then you have the main idea. I love these kinds of works where the author takes available information and looks at it in new and fresh ways. Freakonomics and The Tipping Point come to mind.
"The People Formerly Known as the Audience" is a term coined by NYU professor Jay Rosen, and he describes them thus:
"The people formerly known as the audience are those who were on the receiving end of a media system that ran one way, in a broadcasting pattern, with high entry fees and a few firms competing to speak very loudly while the rest of the population listened in isolation from one another-- and who today are not in a situation like that at all."
If it's true as author Clay Shirky asserts, that Americans spend 700 Billion hours a year watching TV one must wonder what could be accomplished with those hours. The tide seems to be turning with this generation though, the number of hours they spend watching is going down, and when they do watch they are not passively absorbing programming. They post opinions, share clips, piece together their own creative tributes and post them via Youtube. How many masterpieces are being created? Probably few, but the author makes a point which I thought was key, that it is the leap from doing NOTHING to doing SOMETHING that is transformational.
He asserts that "Creating something personal even of a mediocre quality has a different appeal than consuming something made by others, even something of high quality." To me this struck home and related to our other book, Drive. This idea (largely ignored) that people are doing things, often complicated and time consuming things for the intrinsic value alone explains, for instance, our blogs. There is something rewarding in the creation of the thing as well as having a place for thoughts and ideas to land, and call home, which is somehow satisfying.
In the past this motivational component has been overlooked as is evidenced in an the attitude of a friend's husband. She has a delightfully entertaining and informative food blog, her husband however doesn't "see the point" since there is no monetary reward in connection to it.
Sadly, it boggles the mind to imagine all of the thoughts, inventions, art, ideas, and other bursts of creativity that have been lost because millions spent their cognitive surplus doing the only thing that was both widely available and accepted, watching television. If they were doing something else it was difficult to connect to a group of others who shared their interests or were interested in discussing the same ideas.
The gatekeepers are losing their power and have taken to writing books like, The Cult of the Amateur in which the author says "Shared, unmanaged effort might be fine for picnics and bowling leagues, but serious work is done for money, by people who work in proper organizations, with managers directing their work."
Interesting to this housewife that he has just belittled all the work I have been doing for the last twenty years. Again, I have problems with the "experts".
Aside from reading anecdotal near-death experiences, sifting religious/spiritual writings and contemplating on them, and applying some thinking, experiences, and in-born predispositions toward love, I must confess to being unable to provide much in the way of citations that would satisfy an entry for all this in a cognitive-surplus vehicle such as Wikipedia. :) Fortunately, all that you have listed here is perfectly adequate for a cognitive-surplus vehicle such as this blog. :)
Reading several books at once, a "bad" habit? Well, it's one I share with you, then. I generally have at least 3 or 4 going at once all from different genres so I know how you feel. There seems to be usually some lengthy tome lingering around while self help, thrillers, biographies, etc. rotate a bit more quickly.
Rationality is indeed a gift from the Creator and can certainly be infused with the warmth of divinity. It takes on a particular chill however when the possibility of anything other than it is discounted, Ayn Rand style. You and I would probably agree on John Donne's quote "Reason is our soul's left hand, faith her right." Both things are useful to move us forward toward revelations of truth God is trying to impart.
Now, excuse me while I jump parsecs to another subject, we can always jump back to this one if you want.
If you have read lengthy reviews of Cognitive Surplus and Drive then you have the main idea. I love these kinds of works where the author takes available information and looks at it in new and fresh ways. Freakonomics and The Tipping Point come to mind.
"The People Formerly Known as the Audience" is a term coined by NYU professor Jay Rosen, and he describes them thus:
"The people formerly known as the audience are those who were on the receiving end of a media system that ran one way, in a broadcasting pattern, with high entry fees and a few firms competing to speak very loudly while the rest of the population listened in isolation from one another-- and who today are not in a situation like that at all."
If it's true as author Clay Shirky asserts, that Americans spend 700 Billion hours a year watching TV one must wonder what could be accomplished with those hours. The tide seems to be turning with this generation though, the number of hours they spend watching is going down, and when they do watch they are not passively absorbing programming. They post opinions, share clips, piece together their own creative tributes and post them via Youtube. How many masterpieces are being created? Probably few, but the author makes a point which I thought was key, that it is the leap from doing NOTHING to doing SOMETHING that is transformational.
He asserts that "Creating something personal even of a mediocre quality has a different appeal than consuming something made by others, even something of high quality." To me this struck home and related to our other book, Drive. This idea (largely ignored) that people are doing things, often complicated and time consuming things for the intrinsic value alone explains, for instance, our blogs. There is something rewarding in the creation of the thing as well as having a place for thoughts and ideas to land, and call home, which is somehow satisfying.
In the past this motivational component has been overlooked as is evidenced in an the attitude of a friend's husband. She has a delightfully entertaining and informative food blog, her husband however doesn't "see the point" since there is no monetary reward in connection to it.
Sadly, it boggles the mind to imagine all of the thoughts, inventions, art, ideas, and other bursts of creativity that have been lost because millions spent their cognitive surplus doing the only thing that was both widely available and accepted, watching television. If they were doing something else it was difficult to connect to a group of others who shared their interests or were interested in discussing the same ideas.
The gatekeepers are losing their power and have taken to writing books like, The Cult of the Amateur in which the author says "Shared, unmanaged effort might be fine for picnics and bowling leagues, but serious work is done for money, by people who work in proper organizations, with managers directing their work."
Interesting to this housewife that he has just belittled all the work I have been doing for the last twenty years. Again, I have problems with the "experts".
Aside from reading anecdotal near-death experiences, sifting religious/spiritual writings and contemplating on them, and applying some thinking, experiences, and in-born predispositions toward love, I must confess to being unable to provide much in the way of citations that would satisfy an entry for all this in a cognitive-surplus vehicle such as Wikipedia. :) Fortunately, all that you have listed here is perfectly adequate for a cognitive-surplus vehicle such as this blog. :)
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Impulse Engines
Madame M,
Of course it's possible that someone so brilliant who clearly appreciates and maybe even craves complexity could miss a truth based solely on what he sees as its lack of sophistication. Sometimes something is both simple and true. But not nearly as often as demagogues would have us believe.
To love and be loved, to learn, to understand, to create: universal desires across civilizations, as Toynbee so ably related to us. Rationality need not always be cold, however; if, as Jefferson said, it is a gift from the Creator, then perhaps there is an infusion of the warm divine in it.
Although I have read extensive reviews on the writings of those gentlemen (Pink and Shirky), I have not read their full works. Feel free to launch commentary if you like! I am in the process of finishing multiple books nearly all at once (a [bad?] habit of mine—it appears for the longest time that I am accomplishing little, and then, presto, the tabulation goes up quickly), so I too will have books to comment on, in addition to other subjects of some import!
[Caution: The following “Professions of a Prof” are the musings of a mortal. Your mileage may vary. :)]
You have brought up the parent/child context and God. The condemnation dilemma—that is, how could an ALL-loving and utterly perfect God condemn anyone to never-ending punishment, especially if a human parent would never do that to their child, and most especially not to a young child, and we are far less than dim 2 year olds to an omniscient God—has always seemed in my thoughts to have ready possible answer: we condemn ourselves. IF that is the case (which I don’t KNOW it is or isn’t, lol), then perhaps the soul, liberated upon mortal world exit from its mortal limitations (especially awareness) and petty human selfishness and justification, becomes aware in every measure of every sin of commission and omission, and of every effect and every connection of every sin, and is overwhelmed with infinite shame and spiritwracked guilt and remorse. This feeling of seemingly indelible soulstain makes the soul feel irredeemably tarnished, utterly impure, and completely unworthy to be in the presence of, let alone WITH, a pure, sinless, God of complete love. And so it shuts itself away from God, seeking ways to purify itself, and it is this being away from God, utterly opposite of what at its deepest level the soul wants (to be with God more than anything or anyone in the multiverse), is intensely painful—more so than even one who is cut off from all loved ones, from family, from friends, from everything valued, because of one’s actions. A soul perhaps may even feel so evil-ized that it seeks active torture, or even oblivion, and may even find ready beings willing to attempt (or give the appearance at least) to oblige. And that all this has perhaps been the free will agreement from the beginning, before any soul was mortal-born: that what the soul does in mortality it can consider binding to itself.
To a God who IS love, this would, one might presume, be saddening, but with free-will being a prime directive, said God would not interfere. But ah, ah, that God would do the ultimate to show love as the strongest force, to say to His creations about their sins: “We don’t care about ANY of that; we experienced mortality ourselves, died ourselves, FOR YOU, to show YOU, EACH of YOU, that you are loved despite anything you have done or could ever do. We took it all on ourselves, see? Atoned for everything if you will just let it be so! Please stop punishing yourselves. Please come home.”
Knowing that every sin on earth is counted by ourselves, God would then likely want us to, first, reduce sin to a minimum, and secondly and foremost, feel the remorse in this life and let Him wash its staining aspects away now, so that, in the next life, we can watch a review of the sin and all its effects without experiencing the spiritwrack—and the impurity and all it might entail in the long process of purification (perhaps even another mortal life) and being away from the one who loves us absolutely unconditionally and completely.
Eternal punishment? Where’s the sense (or the love) in that? Weren’t even the vilest, most earthly evil sinners given a pure soul by God, and that soul upon mortal release knows what it has done? It may punish ITSELF far more than anyone would wish or even think sufficient—and no one good but it wants to punish. It needs everyone’s love and forgiveness, especially the love and forgiveness from the souls whose mortal existences the stained soul did evil to. It also needs love from its soul companions who have known it through eternities. And it centrally receives the love from God, who wants the soul to let go and let Love wash it clean, but at least to know that, at any moment, it can come home and is eagerly awaited. Even a soul that could forgive itself for what it did while in an awareness-limited childlike state like mortality might still feel a need to purify itself of the stain it feels first, de-rationalize its behavior and examine its mortal life fully, and grow in heavenly attributes, before it was “ready for the next level.” And mighty readily welcome the prayers of those in earthly existence and in heavenly existence to perhaps speed the purification process. And would perhaps hope and maybe subtly work for a transition of the earthly world toward a more heavenly consciousness, for that could speed the purification process for itself and others.
If the above is the case, that is, if we ourselves do the condemning (and maybe Matheson is right that all hells and purgatories are private and maybe even all heavens are a bit privately formed too, at least culturally or religiously), THEN such an act of the Cross “showing ultimate love and absolute valuing” and freeing us from punishing ourselves if we will accept the sacrifice, does mean a great deal of something. THAT interpretation has always made more sense to me than the traditional dogmas of salvation, externally mandated perpetual punishment, God being angry, etc. And “learning to love” really then can be one of the prime purposes, or maybe THE main purpose, in this life.
Or maybe each soul is on a different journey, and is at a different level, with some ready to “go to the Light” immediately after Life Review and be done with the whole process, and others who go another path for now.
Whatever is the case, I think it’s asinine not to trust in God. I know that this is standing the “If I am wrong, I have lost nothing, if I am right, I have gained everything or at least averted eternal torment” argument on its head, but even in our highly limited mortal empathy and mortal love, if we attempt to see not just with God’s eyes, but as God sees, we can shed the human emotions of revenge or justice and focus on Love. And Love’s associated facets of tolerance, brotherhood, and forgiveness, so aptly demonstrated in the story of Jesus. In a world that could never forget its slights (and largely still can’t), Jesus was not about condemning, not even for the seemingly deserving. Such a God will make all things right in the end, and most of the foolish little things we little amoebas argue over and fret about here will be shown to mean next to nothing. Yes, I believe God desires that we spare ourselves as much of the agony of having our immortal essences (who KNOW right from wrong) see and experience with our own immortal eyes and feelings all we have done, an agony none of us mortals can truly imagine. For if we are not just basically good, but inherently GOOD spirits, pure at the start, then how much it must pain us to feel those stains, to feel on an immortal level the hurt we have caused? But God’s Light shines always for us, with no condemnation, and only wants us to come Home and be together. And we will when we’re ready.
Ah, listen to me, I sound like someone fused a theologian and James Redfield. :)
Aside from reading anecdotal near-death experiences, sifting religious/spiritual writings and contemplating on them, and applying some thinking, experiences, and in-born predispositions toward love, I must confess to being unable to provide much in the way of citations that would satisfy an entry for all this in a cognitive-surplus vehicle such as Wikipedia. :)
Of course it's possible that someone so brilliant who clearly appreciates and maybe even craves complexity could miss a truth based solely on what he sees as its lack of sophistication. Sometimes something is both simple and true. But not nearly as often as demagogues would have us believe.
To love and be loved, to learn, to understand, to create: universal desires across civilizations, as Toynbee so ably related to us. Rationality need not always be cold, however; if, as Jefferson said, it is a gift from the Creator, then perhaps there is an infusion of the warm divine in it.
Although I have read extensive reviews on the writings of those gentlemen (Pink and Shirky), I have not read their full works. Feel free to launch commentary if you like! I am in the process of finishing multiple books nearly all at once (a [bad?] habit of mine—it appears for the longest time that I am accomplishing little, and then, presto, the tabulation goes up quickly), so I too will have books to comment on, in addition to other subjects of some import!
[Caution: The following “Professions of a Prof” are the musings of a mortal. Your mileage may vary. :)]
You have brought up the parent/child context and God. The condemnation dilemma—that is, how could an ALL-loving and utterly perfect God condemn anyone to never-ending punishment, especially if a human parent would never do that to their child, and most especially not to a young child, and we are far less than dim 2 year olds to an omniscient God—has always seemed in my thoughts to have ready possible answer: we condemn ourselves. IF that is the case (which I don’t KNOW it is or isn’t, lol), then perhaps the soul, liberated upon mortal world exit from its mortal limitations (especially awareness) and petty human selfishness and justification, becomes aware in every measure of every sin of commission and omission, and of every effect and every connection of every sin, and is overwhelmed with infinite shame and spiritwracked guilt and remorse. This feeling of seemingly indelible soulstain makes the soul feel irredeemably tarnished, utterly impure, and completely unworthy to be in the presence of, let alone WITH, a pure, sinless, God of complete love. And so it shuts itself away from God, seeking ways to purify itself, and it is this being away from God, utterly opposite of what at its deepest level the soul wants (to be with God more than anything or anyone in the multiverse), is intensely painful—more so than even one who is cut off from all loved ones, from family, from friends, from everything valued, because of one’s actions. A soul perhaps may even feel so evil-ized that it seeks active torture, or even oblivion, and may even find ready beings willing to attempt (or give the appearance at least) to oblige. And that all this has perhaps been the free will agreement from the beginning, before any soul was mortal-born: that what the soul does in mortality it can consider binding to itself.
To a God who IS love, this would, one might presume, be saddening, but with free-will being a prime directive, said God would not interfere. But ah, ah, that God would do the ultimate to show love as the strongest force, to say to His creations about their sins: “We don’t care about ANY of that; we experienced mortality ourselves, died ourselves, FOR YOU, to show YOU, EACH of YOU, that you are loved despite anything you have done or could ever do. We took it all on ourselves, see? Atoned for everything if you will just let it be so! Please stop punishing yourselves. Please come home.”
Knowing that every sin on earth is counted by ourselves, God would then likely want us to, first, reduce sin to a minimum, and secondly and foremost, feel the remorse in this life and let Him wash its staining aspects away now, so that, in the next life, we can watch a review of the sin and all its effects without experiencing the spiritwrack—and the impurity and all it might entail in the long process of purification (perhaps even another mortal life) and being away from the one who loves us absolutely unconditionally and completely.
Eternal punishment? Where’s the sense (or the love) in that? Weren’t even the vilest, most earthly evil sinners given a pure soul by God, and that soul upon mortal release knows what it has done? It may punish ITSELF far more than anyone would wish or even think sufficient—and no one good but it wants to punish. It needs everyone’s love and forgiveness, especially the love and forgiveness from the souls whose mortal existences the stained soul did evil to. It also needs love from its soul companions who have known it through eternities. And it centrally receives the love from God, who wants the soul to let go and let Love wash it clean, but at least to know that, at any moment, it can come home and is eagerly awaited. Even a soul that could forgive itself for what it did while in an awareness-limited childlike state like mortality might still feel a need to purify itself of the stain it feels first, de-rationalize its behavior and examine its mortal life fully, and grow in heavenly attributes, before it was “ready for the next level.” And mighty readily welcome the prayers of those in earthly existence and in heavenly existence to perhaps speed the purification process. And would perhaps hope and maybe subtly work for a transition of the earthly world toward a more heavenly consciousness, for that could speed the purification process for itself and others.
If the above is the case, that is, if we ourselves do the condemning (and maybe Matheson is right that all hells and purgatories are private and maybe even all heavens are a bit privately formed too, at least culturally or religiously), THEN such an act of the Cross “showing ultimate love and absolute valuing” and freeing us from punishing ourselves if we will accept the sacrifice, does mean a great deal of something. THAT interpretation has always made more sense to me than the traditional dogmas of salvation, externally mandated perpetual punishment, God being angry, etc. And “learning to love” really then can be one of the prime purposes, or maybe THE main purpose, in this life.
Or maybe each soul is on a different journey, and is at a different level, with some ready to “go to the Light” immediately after Life Review and be done with the whole process, and others who go another path for now.
Whatever is the case, I think it’s asinine not to trust in God. I know that this is standing the “If I am wrong, I have lost nothing, if I am right, I have gained everything or at least averted eternal torment” argument on its head, but even in our highly limited mortal empathy and mortal love, if we attempt to see not just with God’s eyes, but as God sees, we can shed the human emotions of revenge or justice and focus on Love. And Love’s associated facets of tolerance, brotherhood, and forgiveness, so aptly demonstrated in the story of Jesus. In a world that could never forget its slights (and largely still can’t), Jesus was not about condemning, not even for the seemingly deserving. Such a God will make all things right in the end, and most of the foolish little things we little amoebas argue over and fret about here will be shown to mean next to nothing. Yes, I believe God desires that we spare ourselves as much of the agony of having our immortal essences (who KNOW right from wrong) see and experience with our own immortal eyes and feelings all we have done, an agony none of us mortals can truly imagine. For if we are not just basically good, but inherently GOOD spirits, pure at the start, then how much it must pain us to feel those stains, to feel on an immortal level the hurt we have caused? But God’s Light shines always for us, with no condemnation, and only wants us to come Home and be together. And we will when we’re ready.
Ah, listen to me, I sound like someone fused a theologian and James Redfield. :)
Aside from reading anecdotal near-death experiences, sifting religious/spiritual writings and contemplating on them, and applying some thinking, experiences, and in-born predispositions toward love, I must confess to being unable to provide much in the way of citations that would satisfy an entry for all this in a cognitive-surplus vehicle such as Wikipedia. :)
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Skimming the Surface
First, thanks to all our veterans for their service!
Professor J,
"Have I involved you in double postage by this loquacity?" We are fortunate that T.C's question to Emerson is one we needn't ask! (I did warn you that you may be subjected to numerous quotes until I finish this book, didn't I?) You'll find a few more quotes at the end of this post. Lewis says that friends rarely talk about friendship the way lovers talk about love, but these two actually spent a good bit of time discussing how much the relationship meant to them. Unusual for men, especially by today's standards. Their poignant words and tender inquiries after one another's welfare (between economics, religion, politics) are nothing short of enchanting to me.
I share your reluctance to get blogged down (lol) in theological weeds and for all the reasons you so thoroughly laid out. I have no desire to spend large amounts of time and energy twisting ourselves in knots over things that others have spent lifetimes trying to untangle. We can however skim along a spiritual surface if you so desire, seeking common ground. Sound a little less like "poison"? ;) Not to worry, I doubt any discussion of ours will ever take on that character.
E/C side note: At times Emerson did withhold letters from his friend as a sort of epistolary punishment which seems rather petty for such a notable thinker; occasionally some of their discussions did leave them "frothingly polarized". Surprising, somewhat that two such powerful and ingenious minds could do what John Maxwell warns of and value their opinions over people (though it was only temporary).
Richard Feynman: Once again I must thank you for introducing me to someone whose work I was previously unaware of. I like him and his endlessly mesmerizing thought process, very much. You know, of course, I didn't stop at just the one video. :) I'd be very interested to know who or what influenced his father's thinking. I find it interesting though, that he rejects certain ideas because they are too simple, seemingly discounting the possibility that anything could ever be both simple and true. Do you think it's possible that someone so brilliant who clearly appreciates and maybe even craves complexity could miss a truth based solely on what he sees as its unsophistication?
As for the "natural desires" I referenced I merely meant those universal deep human desires; to be loved and known, to create, to learn and understand, and to have our questions answered in some way. A world of cold rationality offers few answers for the things we often ponder deep in the night when we are alone with ourselves.
You have correctly surmised this housewife's definition of a theological-free-for-all. We'll have to make sure to include it in our dictionary. lol
"Jump parsecs?" Is that even possible sans a certain star-ship? ;) As for a change of subject I recently finished a very interesting book, Cognitive Surplus, about how the internet and our new found connectivity is changing us from a society of consumers to one of creators. This article from Wired Magazine makes interesting comparisons between it and another book I enjoyed, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us and gives a brief overview of both. Drive was surprising because we are often wrong about what incentives work and don't work with people. It seems we have all underestimated the intrinsic motivation for doing things. Have you read either of those?
More Emerson/Carlyle:
"You express a desire to know something of myself. Account me 'a drop in the ocean seeking another drop." ~E.
"A friendly thought is the purest gift that man can afford to man." ~ C.
"My Dear Friend, -- I hope you do not measure my love by the tardiness of my messages. I have few pleasures like that of receiving your kind and eloquent letters. I should be most impatient of the long interval between one and another, but that they savor always of Eternity, and promise me a friendship and friendly inspiration not reckoned or ended by days or years. " ~E
And later in the same letter, the first after the death of his brother, Emerson wrote " We want but two or three friends, but these we cannot do without, and they serve us in every thought we think."
Professor J,
"Have I involved you in double postage by this loquacity?" We are fortunate that T.C's question to Emerson is one we needn't ask! (I did warn you that you may be subjected to numerous quotes until I finish this book, didn't I?) You'll find a few more quotes at the end of this post. Lewis says that friends rarely talk about friendship the way lovers talk about love, but these two actually spent a good bit of time discussing how much the relationship meant to them. Unusual for men, especially by today's standards. Their poignant words and tender inquiries after one another's welfare (between economics, religion, politics) are nothing short of enchanting to me.
I share your reluctance to get blogged down (lol) in theological weeds and for all the reasons you so thoroughly laid out. I have no desire to spend large amounts of time and energy twisting ourselves in knots over things that others have spent lifetimes trying to untangle. We can however skim along a spiritual surface if you so desire, seeking common ground. Sound a little less like "poison"? ;) Not to worry, I doubt any discussion of ours will ever take on that character.
E/C side note: At times Emerson did withhold letters from his friend as a sort of epistolary punishment which seems rather petty for such a notable thinker; occasionally some of their discussions did leave them "frothingly polarized". Surprising, somewhat that two such powerful and ingenious minds could do what John Maxwell warns of and value their opinions over people (though it was only temporary).
Richard Feynman: Once again I must thank you for introducing me to someone whose work I was previously unaware of. I like him and his endlessly mesmerizing thought process, very much. You know, of course, I didn't stop at just the one video. :) I'd be very interested to know who or what influenced his father's thinking. I find it interesting though, that he rejects certain ideas because they are too simple, seemingly discounting the possibility that anything could ever be both simple and true. Do you think it's possible that someone so brilliant who clearly appreciates and maybe even craves complexity could miss a truth based solely on what he sees as its unsophistication?
As for the "natural desires" I referenced I merely meant those universal deep human desires; to be loved and known, to create, to learn and understand, and to have our questions answered in some way. A world of cold rationality offers few answers for the things we often ponder deep in the night when we are alone with ourselves.
You have correctly surmised this housewife's definition of a theological-free-for-all. We'll have to make sure to include it in our dictionary. lol
"Jump parsecs?" Is that even possible sans a certain star-ship? ;) As for a change of subject I recently finished a very interesting book, Cognitive Surplus, about how the internet and our new found connectivity is changing us from a society of consumers to one of creators. This article from Wired Magazine makes interesting comparisons between it and another book I enjoyed, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us and gives a brief overview of both. Drive was surprising because we are often wrong about what incentives work and don't work with people. It seems we have all underestimated the intrinsic motivation for doing things. Have you read either of those?
More Emerson/Carlyle:
"You express a desire to know something of myself. Account me 'a drop in the ocean seeking another drop." ~E.
"A friendly thought is the purest gift that man can afford to man." ~ C.
"My Dear Friend, -- I hope you do not measure my love by the tardiness of my messages. I have few pleasures like that of receiving your kind and eloquent letters. I should be most impatient of the long interval between one and another, but that they savor always of Eternity, and promise me a friendship and friendly inspiration not reckoned or ended by days or years. " ~E
And later in the same letter, the first after the death of his brother, Emerson wrote " We want but two or three friends, but these we cannot do without, and they serve us in every thought we think."
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Parameters
Madame M:
Although we will walk our own path, as you allude to we could do a lot worse than following Emerson/Carlyle or Lewis/”The American Woman.”
One can (as others HAVE) get into all sorts of discussion, speculation, and disagreement about the “true” nature of the Christian Old Testament: Examples being 1) it’s just an ethnocentric, culturally focused, and narrow view from what would otherwise be a rather tangential Middle Eastern people who got notoriety because they eventually wrote their oral history down and then guarded it with zealous and slightly xenophobic fervor; to, 2) that the Hebrews’ deity figure was a powerful alien who has since moved on, to, 3) their deity was an actual deity-like figure, but was not “God,” as evidenced by the many emotional and seemingly human drawbacks possessed by said deity, to 4) their deity WAS God, but in avatar or reduced consciousness form (similar to, although not identical, to William James’ concept).
Leaving aside those (and other) discussions, I think it worth mentioning that, whatever one believes about the work, not only were the Hebrews in many ways the first meaningful democracy of the times, and proponents of what was then pretty rare monotheism, but they espoused concepts of social justice and responsibility for one’s fellow man that were, let us say, rather uncommon for the period but that have laid a foundation for many things we accept in principle today.
I agree with you that were I to attempt to discern the nature of God, I would say God is relational. If, as Rabbi Harold Kushner said, “humans are the language of God,” then it would be reasonable to surmise that God is at least the best of what we humans are about, and relationships and especially friendships are at (or near) the top of the list.
Even if we were to decide to have our discussion on the assumption of “The Bible” as the ultimate authority, we would then have to first decide on that Bible. I don’t necessarily mean the common choice between King James, New International, and Revised Standard versions, but on agreement of the decision points (and decisions made) as to what works constitute that Bible. And then we would have to agree on which primary sources hold sufficient researcher rigor to merit inclusion in those works. And then we would have to agree on which translations deserved (and deserve) merit, a daunting task considering not just translations from Hebrew, Aramaic, ancient Greek, Latin, and Old English, but agreeing on which subjective decisions were the correct ones (ancient Greek and Hebrew can have multiple meanings for the same word, a nightmare for translators even where sufficient context is available, which often isn’t the case). Deeply learned theologians become veritable Tasmanian devils going round and round on these, and their disagreements are the stuff of endless (and occasionally interesting) debate. But even if we could somehow come to some a priori assumptive agreement on all this, we would then have to address directly “the Bible as ultimate authority” facet, which would then bring up the old Protestant/Catholic schism where one declares a book as the sole authority, and the other says authority can’t be solely from a book since an institution (and the people in that institution) decided what is included in that Bible. And these determinations are separate from an assessment of the many “gold nuggets” that exist in the many versions, and why even skeptics often agree that for those things, nearly any of those versions rank as great books.
Although entirely unrelated to the specific subject, physicist Richard Feynman has an interview discussion where he describes the general problem, an interview which has now become semi-viral on YouTube.
As for nature and natural desires, I am not completely sure of what you mean, but perhaps they can be included by my comments below. Similarly, since I neither necessarily accept nor necessarily reject (neither in part nor in toto) the other parameters you have listed, no exclusion may be necessary there either. Great and learned people have held deep religious views, and great and learned people have held non-religious (and occasionally even anti-religious) views, and furthermore, the definition of religious here is somewhat separate from the definition of spiritual.
So does that leave us theological free-for-all? I think so, but don’t know for sure, as I do not know your definition there as well, lol. Regardless however, I hope the discussion does not take on the character of “poison”! :) But we can jump parsecs to another subject if you like. There are so many!
Although we will walk our own path, as you allude to we could do a lot worse than following Emerson/Carlyle or Lewis/”The American Woman.”
One can (as others HAVE) get into all sorts of discussion, speculation, and disagreement about the “true” nature of the Christian Old Testament: Examples being 1) it’s just an ethnocentric, culturally focused, and narrow view from what would otherwise be a rather tangential Middle Eastern people who got notoriety because they eventually wrote their oral history down and then guarded it with zealous and slightly xenophobic fervor; to, 2) that the Hebrews’ deity figure was a powerful alien who has since moved on, to, 3) their deity was an actual deity-like figure, but was not “God,” as evidenced by the many emotional and seemingly human drawbacks possessed by said deity, to 4) their deity WAS God, but in avatar or reduced consciousness form (similar to, although not identical, to William James’ concept).
Leaving aside those (and other) discussions, I think it worth mentioning that, whatever one believes about the work, not only were the Hebrews in many ways the first meaningful democracy of the times, and proponents of what was then pretty rare monotheism, but they espoused concepts of social justice and responsibility for one’s fellow man that were, let us say, rather uncommon for the period but that have laid a foundation for many things we accept in principle today.
I agree with you that were I to attempt to discern the nature of God, I would say God is relational. If, as Rabbi Harold Kushner said, “humans are the language of God,” then it would be reasonable to surmise that God is at least the best of what we humans are about, and relationships and especially friendships are at (or near) the top of the list.
Even if we were to decide to have our discussion on the assumption of “The Bible” as the ultimate authority, we would then have to first decide on that Bible. I don’t necessarily mean the common choice between King James, New International, and Revised Standard versions, but on agreement of the decision points (and decisions made) as to what works constitute that Bible. And then we would have to agree on which primary sources hold sufficient researcher rigor to merit inclusion in those works. And then we would have to agree on which translations deserved (and deserve) merit, a daunting task considering not just translations from Hebrew, Aramaic, ancient Greek, Latin, and Old English, but agreeing on which subjective decisions were the correct ones (ancient Greek and Hebrew can have multiple meanings for the same word, a nightmare for translators even where sufficient context is available, which often isn’t the case). Deeply learned theologians become veritable Tasmanian devils going round and round on these, and their disagreements are the stuff of endless (and occasionally interesting) debate. But even if we could somehow come to some a priori assumptive agreement on all this, we would then have to address directly “the Bible as ultimate authority” facet, which would then bring up the old Protestant/Catholic schism where one declares a book as the sole authority, and the other says authority can’t be solely from a book since an institution (and the people in that institution) decided what is included in that Bible. And these determinations are separate from an assessment of the many “gold nuggets” that exist in the many versions, and why even skeptics often agree that for those things, nearly any of those versions rank as great books.
Although entirely unrelated to the specific subject, physicist Richard Feynman has an interview discussion where he describes the general problem, an interview which has now become semi-viral on YouTube.
As for nature and natural desires, I am not completely sure of what you mean, but perhaps they can be included by my comments below. Similarly, since I neither necessarily accept nor necessarily reject (neither in part nor in toto) the other parameters you have listed, no exclusion may be necessary there either. Great and learned people have held deep religious views, and great and learned people have held non-religious (and occasionally even anti-religious) views, and furthermore, the definition of religious here is somewhat separate from the definition of spiritual.
So does that leave us theological free-for-all? I think so, but don’t know for sure, as I do not know your definition there as well, lol. Regardless however, I hope the discussion does not take on the character of “poison”! :) But we can jump parsecs to another subject if you like. There are so many!
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Gathering It Up
Professor J,
Ah, the Jeremy Taylor quote is a fine one. What a wonderful definition! I hope you'll indulge me a few more quotes from our "friend" Lewis on the subject:
Friendship...luminous, tranquil, rational, world of relationships freely chosen...
In comparing friendship to companionship between two people doing something together he says " Friends will still be doing something together, but something more inward, less widely shared, less easily defined."
He also quotes Emerson as saying "Do you love me?' means 'Do you see the same truth?' -- Or at least 'Do you care about the same truth?' The man who agrees with us that some question, little regarded by others, is of great importance can be our Friend. He need not agree with us about the answer." Emerson must have been thinking of his friend Carlyle when he made that statement. They had fervent disagreements over a great many things, and religion topped the list.
I am currently reading The Correspondence of Emerson and Carlyle. A complete collection of their letters written over nearly 40 years of friendship, during which I think they only met 3 times. I will tell you that we look like masters of brevity next to them! Still one must take into account the frequency and speed afforded us by technology. How anxiously they must have waited for the post (of their day :))! They were such interesting men and the relationship mostly carried out in letters; I may not be able to keep from quoting them from time to time. All of this has the idea of friendship swirling around in my thoughts, as if you couldn't tell.
Btw, Lewis corresponded with a woman for 13 years and they never met. His letters to her are published in Letters To An American Lady. Sadly, we do not have hers as she wished to remain anonymous.
So between our discussion of spiritual matters and friendship I'm reminded of the story of God and Moses told in Exodus where we find that "the LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend." In Genesis we're told that He walked with Adam in the cool of the day. John quoted Jesus as saying that there is "no greater love than for a man to lay down his life for his friends." These things tell us something key about God. Whatever else He may be, it seems He is relational. It also appears that there is a certain "friend" element to it, in that it wouldn't be anything the Creator of the Universe would NEED but rather something WANTED as in the definitions and quotes we've used in this post and others.
Now, you have asked some classic "religious" questions. But we have to decide the criteria for answering them. If we are using the Bible as the ultimate authority we can have one sort of discussion. If you are rejecting that concept then we can still turn these ideas over because we have all of nature and man's natural desires which seem to give certain clues. If you are working from a sort of Piggly Wiggly concept of the Bible where you accept God's love, the wisdom of Christ's parables and the common sense of Proverbs yet reject the idea of hell, sin, and an entire unseen supernatural world, that would be yet another type of discussion. Or do you prefer some theological free-for- all? Choose your poison, Doctor. ;)
I have strongly held beliefs that are a result of many things, not the least of which are my personal experiences. So while to me some things appear clear and definite, everything (as always) is up for discussion and I will try to avoid the word "know"...even if think I do. ;)
Ah, the Jeremy Taylor quote is a fine one. What a wonderful definition! I hope you'll indulge me a few more quotes from our "friend" Lewis on the subject:
Friendship...luminous, tranquil, rational, world of relationships freely chosen...
In comparing friendship to companionship between two people doing something together he says " Friends will still be doing something together, but something more inward, less widely shared, less easily defined."
He also quotes Emerson as saying "Do you love me?' means 'Do you see the same truth?' -- Or at least 'Do you care about the same truth?' The man who agrees with us that some question, little regarded by others, is of great importance can be our Friend. He need not agree with us about the answer." Emerson must have been thinking of his friend Carlyle when he made that statement. They had fervent disagreements over a great many things, and religion topped the list.
I am currently reading The Correspondence of Emerson and Carlyle. A complete collection of their letters written over nearly 40 years of friendship, during which I think they only met 3 times. I will tell you that we look like masters of brevity next to them! Still one must take into account the frequency and speed afforded us by technology. How anxiously they must have waited for the post (of their day :))! They were such interesting men and the relationship mostly carried out in letters; I may not be able to keep from quoting them from time to time. All of this has the idea of friendship swirling around in my thoughts, as if you couldn't tell.
Btw, Lewis corresponded with a woman for 13 years and they never met. His letters to her are published in Letters To An American Lady. Sadly, we do not have hers as she wished to remain anonymous.
So between our discussion of spiritual matters and friendship I'm reminded of the story of God and Moses told in Exodus where we find that "the LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend." In Genesis we're told that He walked with Adam in the cool of the day. John quoted Jesus as saying that there is "no greater love than for a man to lay down his life for his friends." These things tell us something key about God. Whatever else He may be, it seems He is relational. It also appears that there is a certain "friend" element to it, in that it wouldn't be anything the Creator of the Universe would NEED but rather something WANTED as in the definitions and quotes we've used in this post and others.
Now, you have asked some classic "religious" questions. But we have to decide the criteria for answering them. If we are using the Bible as the ultimate authority we can have one sort of discussion. If you are rejecting that concept then we can still turn these ideas over because we have all of nature and man's natural desires which seem to give certain clues. If you are working from a sort of Piggly Wiggly concept of the Bible where you accept God's love, the wisdom of Christ's parables and the common sense of Proverbs yet reject the idea of hell, sin, and an entire unseen supernatural world, that would be yet another type of discussion. Or do you prefer some theological free-for- all? Choose your poison, Doctor. ;)
I have strongly held beliefs that are a result of many things, not the least of which are my personal experiences. So while to me some things appear clear and definite, everything (as always) is up for discussion and I will try to avoid the word "know"...even if think I do. ;)
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Manna For Thought
Madame M:
Lewis’s quote about love between angels: Thank you. Well said and needed! Here’s another quote in the same vein, this one the friendship of the three types you mentioned: “By friendship you mean the greatest love, the greatest usefulness, the most open communication, the noblest sufferings, the severest truth, the heartiest counsel, and the greatest union of minds of which brave men and women are capable.” Jeremy Taylor
Expound even more if you would: Atone to who or what? Atoning also for the future sins that have not yet been committed? Or to the time-transcending deity have those already occurred too? Who (or what force) sends (or did send before the atonement?) the (condemned?) to hell? And what is hell, and what happens there? Is hell eternal? Is Purgatory a concept here? Is reincarnation ruled out as a possibility for even some? Upon shedding of the mortal coil, is spiritual consciousness dormant/suspended or is it immediate?
As for asking questions and putting forth comments on the succeeding paragraph, I will hold while I await your reply.
As you “know,” I DO have a problem with the word “know.” :) And yes, Lewis did say that, but then again, he could be considered a fairly biased source, along with the 80 billion other homo sapiens sapiens who’ve lived here. But I do feel he is correct that there is more to us than clinical and rather cold science has had us believe.
And if the complete mystery is revealed at “the end” (or “beginning,” in Lewis’s better turn), does that mean there is no Rosicrucian fun?
Well said about God welcoming questions. It seems to me that if God were offended by questions, He/She/They/It wouldn’t be God. In fact, if God were offended by much, it wouldn’t seem very God-like to me.
As for the survey of Christian men, without seeing the statistical sampling measures and parameters, it is hard to assess. From what you report, it would seem skewed in the first instance by Christian men and their definition of lust, which appears to be very much similar to Eldredge’s, of which I have already submitted my disagreement. This idea that one should somehow feel deviant for having sexual desire is itself an alien one to me, and I don’t think it does men or women a service. I would say that sexual desire often exists regardless, but that clothing (or the skimpiness thereof) can either prompt or intensify (or both) such desire. Interesting that these Christian men are expressing the same sort of both helplessness to address in themselves, and repressive tendencies toward women’s choices, that the more stringent cultures of another monotheistic faith also express. Sorority or Fraternity: we always seem too tilted toward one or the other. Balance is not the answer in everything, but it is in large measure, and yet we get so little of it!
Lewis’s quote about love between angels: Thank you. Well said and needed! Here’s another quote in the same vein, this one the friendship of the three types you mentioned: “By friendship you mean the greatest love, the greatest usefulness, the most open communication, the noblest sufferings, the severest truth, the heartiest counsel, and the greatest union of minds of which brave men and women are capable.” Jeremy Taylor
Expound even more if you would: Atone to who or what? Atoning also for the future sins that have not yet been committed? Or to the time-transcending deity have those already occurred too? Who (or what force) sends (or did send before the atonement?) the (condemned?) to hell? And what is hell, and what happens there? Is hell eternal? Is Purgatory a concept here? Is reincarnation ruled out as a possibility for even some? Upon shedding of the mortal coil, is spiritual consciousness dormant/suspended or is it immediate?
As for asking questions and putting forth comments on the succeeding paragraph, I will hold while I await your reply.
As you “know,” I DO have a problem with the word “know.” :) And yes, Lewis did say that, but then again, he could be considered a fairly biased source, along with the 80 billion other homo sapiens sapiens who’ve lived here. But I do feel he is correct that there is more to us than clinical and rather cold science has had us believe.
And if the complete mystery is revealed at “the end” (or “beginning,” in Lewis’s better turn), does that mean there is no Rosicrucian fun?
Well said about God welcoming questions. It seems to me that if God were offended by questions, He/She/They/It wouldn’t be God. In fact, if God were offended by much, it wouldn’t seem very God-like to me.
As for the survey of Christian men, without seeing the statistical sampling measures and parameters, it is hard to assess. From what you report, it would seem skewed in the first instance by Christian men and their definition of lust, which appears to be very much similar to Eldredge’s, of which I have already submitted my disagreement. This idea that one should somehow feel deviant for having sexual desire is itself an alien one to me, and I don’t think it does men or women a service. I would say that sexual desire often exists regardless, but that clothing (or the skimpiness thereof) can either prompt or intensify (or both) such desire. Interesting that these Christian men are expressing the same sort of both helplessness to address in themselves, and repressive tendencies toward women’s choices, that the more stringent cultures of another monotheistic faith also express. Sorority or Fraternity: we always seem too tilted toward one or the other. Balance is not the answer in everything, but it is in large measure, and yet we get so little of it!
Thursday, October 28, 2010
A Greater Love
Professor J,
Silly, I know. :)
OUCH! However...(buckle your seat belts, girls) I can't help but agree with everything you said about how many women give up making an effort in the areas you mentioned. I was thinking of those questions/answers in terms mainly of single women/men, but you have described what happens all too often in the land of Happily Ever After.
"Heaven-dust"...what a lovely visual! A daily prayer of mine is a personalization of a verse from Psalms: "Lord, satisfy me this morning with your unfailing love." Our natural state is a very needy one, fraught with insecurities. Unless we deal with them it is nearly impossible to love others with their best interest at heart. And I think this is true regardless of the kind of love it is; romantic, familial, or the love for a friend. Love is not going to pour forth (at least not well) from a gaping hole in our spirits.
C.S. Lewis (who I'm leaning heavily on today) gives a beautiful description in The Four Loves of what this looks like between friends:
"This love, free from instinct, free from all duties but those which love has freely assumed, almost wholly free from jealousy, and free without qualification from the need to be needed, is eminently spiritual. It is the sort of love one can imagine between angels.”
Expounding on Jesus' achievement at the cross: Christ's sacrifice was to atone for our sin and reconcile us to God (thus saving us from hell). I know, I know that is all just so parochial. In addition, it allows us to live an abundant life in Christ, "knowing" ;)) that we are loved and significant and that life has meaning.
There is a line of thinking popular now that says that Christ just died to show His great love for us, having been sent by God for the same reason. Put in the context of a parent/ child, this reasoning seems ludicrous. What parent would die for a child to demonstrate love? Or for that matter what soldier would fall on a grenade to show his commitment to his compatriots? What friend would offer himself as a hostage in return for the release of a kindred spirit, just to say "Hey, I really like you"? We do these things when there is imminent harm. We do these things when the cost of NOT doing them is the suffering, pain, or loss of someone we love. So the cost of Christ NOT sacrificing himself for us must have been a price He was not willing to have us pay.
You seem to have a problem with the word "know". lol
I am assuming that you are speaking in terms of mortals and their connection to/understanding of the metaphysical. (Although didn't Lewis say there are no "mere mortals" ?) and that you are saying that we can't know for certain about such things in our extremely limited state. Paul tells us:
Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely. 1 Cor. 13:12 New Living Translation
So while I'm having a bit of fun with the word "know" Paul makes it clear that what we have in this life no matter how correct will still only be a partial knowledge at best. The complete mystery revealed only at the end (or as Lewis would say...the beginning).
Let me pause here momentarily to say that I don't think God is offended by our questions. I think He welcomes them. They lead us to communicate with Him (even if it is to ask "Why would you do that?") and further a relationship which He so desires with us.
Your issues with the Old Testament we can get to next time if you want otherwise this post will be so long no one will want to read it. But of course I disagree that this is all just some big cosmic adventure without much meaning.
I understand your many criticisms of the book, in this post and the first one and even agree with some of them; blanket statements and seeing everything as Satan-tainted, for instance. One interesting side note on the subject of accountability: I recently read online a survey of Christian men asking them what kind of women's clothing caused them to lust. They named every item of clothing you can imagine except a burqa! The general feeling among them seemed to be that those women were at fault for dressing attractively. Now I'm all for modesty at church and good taste everywhere, but their opinions seemed a bit extreme. Many of the things they mentioned weren't even immodest, which nearly made it sound as if they wanted someone else (in this case the woman) to rescue them from their own natural tendencies.
You may be right that a man of another culture or faith would get little out of this book. He is a man writing from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint and is clearly writing for his "very Western, and very Christian" audience though, so some of the things that you disputed may not be a problem at all for his target reader. I am very glad you found it worthwhile however many issues you had with it.
Persnickety? You? LOL
Silly, I know. :)
OUCH! However...(buckle your seat belts, girls) I can't help but agree with everything you said about how many women give up making an effort in the areas you mentioned. I was thinking of those questions/answers in terms mainly of single women/men, but you have described what happens all too often in the land of Happily Ever After.
"Heaven-dust"...what a lovely visual! A daily prayer of mine is a personalization of a verse from Psalms: "Lord, satisfy me this morning with your unfailing love." Our natural state is a very needy one, fraught with insecurities. Unless we deal with them it is nearly impossible to love others with their best interest at heart. And I think this is true regardless of the kind of love it is; romantic, familial, or the love for a friend. Love is not going to pour forth (at least not well) from a gaping hole in our spirits.
C.S. Lewis (who I'm leaning heavily on today) gives a beautiful description in The Four Loves of what this looks like between friends:
"This love, free from instinct, free from all duties but those which love has freely assumed, almost wholly free from jealousy, and free without qualification from the need to be needed, is eminently spiritual. It is the sort of love one can imagine between angels.”
Expounding on Jesus' achievement at the cross: Christ's sacrifice was to atone for our sin and reconcile us to God (thus saving us from hell). I know, I know that is all just so parochial. In addition, it allows us to live an abundant life in Christ, "knowing" ;)) that we are loved and significant and that life has meaning.
There is a line of thinking popular now that says that Christ just died to show His great love for us, having been sent by God for the same reason. Put in the context of a parent/ child, this reasoning seems ludicrous. What parent would die for a child to demonstrate love? Or for that matter what soldier would fall on a grenade to show his commitment to his compatriots? What friend would offer himself as a hostage in return for the release of a kindred spirit, just to say "Hey, I really like you"? We do these things when there is imminent harm. We do these things when the cost of NOT doing them is the suffering, pain, or loss of someone we love. So the cost of Christ NOT sacrificing himself for us must have been a price He was not willing to have us pay.
You seem to have a problem with the word "know". lol
I am assuming that you are speaking in terms of mortals and their connection to/understanding of the metaphysical. (Although didn't Lewis say there are no "mere mortals" ?) and that you are saying that we can't know for certain about such things in our extremely limited state. Paul tells us:
Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely. 1 Cor. 13:12 New Living Translation
So while I'm having a bit of fun with the word "know" Paul makes it clear that what we have in this life no matter how correct will still only be a partial knowledge at best. The complete mystery revealed only at the end (or as Lewis would say...the beginning).
Let me pause here momentarily to say that I don't think God is offended by our questions. I think He welcomes them. They lead us to communicate with Him (even if it is to ask "Why would you do that?") and further a relationship which He so desires with us.
Your issues with the Old Testament we can get to next time if you want otherwise this post will be so long no one will want to read it. But of course I disagree that this is all just some big cosmic adventure without much meaning.
I understand your many criticisms of the book, in this post and the first one and even agree with some of them; blanket statements and seeing everything as Satan-tainted, for instance. One interesting side note on the subject of accountability: I recently read online a survey of Christian men asking them what kind of women's clothing caused them to lust. They named every item of clothing you can imagine except a burqa! The general feeling among them seemed to be that those women were at fault for dressing attractively. Now I'm all for modesty at church and good taste everywhere, but their opinions seemed a bit extreme. Many of the things they mentioned weren't even immodest, which nearly made it sound as if they wanted someone else (in this case the woman) to rescue them from their own natural tendencies.
You may be right that a man of another culture or faith would get little out of this book. He is a man writing from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint and is clearly writing for his "very Western, and very Christian" audience though, so some of the things that you disputed may not be a problem at all for his target reader. I am very glad you found it worthwhile however many issues you had with it.
Persnickety? You? LOL
Monday, October 25, 2010
WAH Criticisms, Part Deux
Madame M,
Run out of things to say? Funny!
A bit of retro from a previous post concerning the male “answers” to the three questions females nonverbally ask. In fairness to my fellow males who well deserve, as I said, the brunt of the blame, there are some things they would probably want me to say: “When you no longer tried to impress me, care about your appearance for me, uplift me, desire me, listen to me, or think I was great, but instead took me for granted, having got the commitment that you wanted, well, you got my reduced valuing in return!”
Expound more, if you would: What did Jesus sacrifice (or God sacrifice his Son) to achieve? Why? What would be the result if this had not been?
Permit me to enjoy well your words: “Love without insecurity.” What you have related there is more valuable than heaven-dust!
Yes, some of the greatest offenses and noblest sacrifices have been in the name of love. But I think you are right: the flaws come from our flawed carrying out and imperfect (and occasional twisted) understanding of the Divine’s flawless example.
Ah, where were we? Oh yes, Criticisms Part Two:
Another critique about Eldredge: In my view, he projects things onto God that seem to me to be human aspirations, desires, emotions, limitations, risk. And his description of the Bible’s depiction of God and men--“No question about it; there is something fierce,”--well, it was written by middle eastern men with certain views and certain proclivities.
And his assertion that God doesn’t do things the same way twice, because of his readings in the Bible showing that not very much was repeated: Fallacious reasoning. More probably little methodology was recorded as repeated because authors did not repeat things. Written histories derived from oral histories are like that. Before modern copiers, and certainly before the printing press, each page had to be valuable and stand apart from others. Very few “dittoes.”
Eldredge comes from a Judeo-Christian centric focus. Every passage of the Bible (even disregarding its many varieties) is interpreted to have meaning, and especially a certain meaning. And nothing beneficial is assumed even possible without Jesus Christ, which is presumptive, exclusionary, and co-dependent. Eldredge presumes a weird sort of psychic co-dependence of God, sort of “They won’t make it without me.” How is that free will? That would be like saying, “Take the car, have your independence,” but then controlling all the gasoline.
“God fought for Moses and for Israel.” Eldredge is understandably trying to make sense of every accepted passage from the Christian Old Testament, a pretty hard thing to do. Yet I have a hard time with even a William James God smiting down humans over other humans. Unless perhaps if it doesn’t really matter, and mortal life is just an adventure solely, and potentially a not very meaningful blip in our eternal existence. In that case, maybe they sit around with the Big Guy over heavenly beers and He says, “You were such a dimwit, and on the wrong side (chuckle); had to put the smackdown on you.” “Yeah Pops, I didn’t last long on that go around, did I? (wink).”
I found his “We know
Know
Know
Know,” tedious. Whenever mortals assert that they KNOW something, it is both an exercise in absurdity to me, and a rage and pleading about their mortality. We think, we believe, we even have faith, but our senses, our intelligence, our awareness, our powers, are so ridiculously limited and primitive, we can know very little, maybe nothing, for sure. Our perceptions, thoughts, and emotions are so malleable, so psycho-chemical-stimulus driven from such a wide array of possibilities, that we can only think or believe or have faith we know. Your whole will or psyche or emotional makeup can be changed by chemicals or deprivation of one sort or another; only God can know you, whatever real you, there is (that’s what I think anyway, lol).
Eldredge in his book is presumptive in general. Everything is to be accepted face value at his interpretation, when it is a very Western, and very Christian, interpretation. If I was a man of another culture, and especially of another faith, I would be turned off, and probably unable to relate to much.
Eldredge likes this quote from Oswald Chambers (one of whose books I possess): “Never make a principle of your experience; let God be as original with other people as he is with you.” Eldredge does not seem to take the advice from the quote he highlights.
The standard response of many Christian writers, when they are criticized, is to say to their critics:
“I will pray for you.” While prayers are welcome (at least by me), one has to be careful that that statement does not have a dismissive ring to it, a la, “I will pray for you because you are a poor, misguided soul, lost in the land of confusion sown by the devil, and incapable of seeing truth when it is laid out for you by God.” I am uncertain where Eldredge would stand on this one, so he gets the benefit of the doubt there from me!
Oh, well, that’s enough persnickety critique from me. I found much valuable in his book, and it is worth the read, despite the multiple points outlined above and before.
Run out of things to say? Funny!
A bit of retro from a previous post concerning the male “answers” to the three questions females nonverbally ask. In fairness to my fellow males who well deserve, as I said, the brunt of the blame, there are some things they would probably want me to say: “When you no longer tried to impress me, care about your appearance for me, uplift me, desire me, listen to me, or think I was great, but instead took me for granted, having got the commitment that you wanted, well, you got my reduced valuing in return!”
Expound more, if you would: What did Jesus sacrifice (or God sacrifice his Son) to achieve? Why? What would be the result if this had not been?
Permit me to enjoy well your words: “Love without insecurity.” What you have related there is more valuable than heaven-dust!
Yes, some of the greatest offenses and noblest sacrifices have been in the name of love. But I think you are right: the flaws come from our flawed carrying out and imperfect (and occasional twisted) understanding of the Divine’s flawless example.
Ah, where were we? Oh yes, Criticisms Part Two:
Another critique about Eldredge: In my view, he projects things onto God that seem to me to be human aspirations, desires, emotions, limitations, risk. And his description of the Bible’s depiction of God and men--“No question about it; there is something fierce,”--well, it was written by middle eastern men with certain views and certain proclivities.
And his assertion that God doesn’t do things the same way twice, because of his readings in the Bible showing that not very much was repeated: Fallacious reasoning. More probably little methodology was recorded as repeated because authors did not repeat things. Written histories derived from oral histories are like that. Before modern copiers, and certainly before the printing press, each page had to be valuable and stand apart from others. Very few “dittoes.”
Eldredge comes from a Judeo-Christian centric focus. Every passage of the Bible (even disregarding its many varieties) is interpreted to have meaning, and especially a certain meaning. And nothing beneficial is assumed even possible without Jesus Christ, which is presumptive, exclusionary, and co-dependent. Eldredge presumes a weird sort of psychic co-dependence of God, sort of “They won’t make it without me.” How is that free will? That would be like saying, “Take the car, have your independence,” but then controlling all the gasoline.
“God fought for Moses and for Israel.” Eldredge is understandably trying to make sense of every accepted passage from the Christian Old Testament, a pretty hard thing to do. Yet I have a hard time with even a William James God smiting down humans over other humans. Unless perhaps if it doesn’t really matter, and mortal life is just an adventure solely, and potentially a not very meaningful blip in our eternal existence. In that case, maybe they sit around with the Big Guy over heavenly beers and He says, “You were such a dimwit, and on the wrong side (chuckle); had to put the smackdown on you.” “Yeah Pops, I didn’t last long on that go around, did I? (wink).”
I found his “We know
Know
Know
Know,” tedious. Whenever mortals assert that they KNOW something, it is both an exercise in absurdity to me, and a rage and pleading about their mortality. We think, we believe, we even have faith, but our senses, our intelligence, our awareness, our powers, are so ridiculously limited and primitive, we can know very little, maybe nothing, for sure. Our perceptions, thoughts, and emotions are so malleable, so psycho-chemical-stimulus driven from such a wide array of possibilities, that we can only think or believe or have faith we know. Your whole will or psyche or emotional makeup can be changed by chemicals or deprivation of one sort or another; only God can know you, whatever real you, there is (that’s what I think anyway, lol).
Eldredge in his book is presumptive in general. Everything is to be accepted face value at his interpretation, when it is a very Western, and very Christian, interpretation. If I was a man of another culture, and especially of another faith, I would be turned off, and probably unable to relate to much.
Eldredge likes this quote from Oswald Chambers (one of whose books I possess): “Never make a principle of your experience; let God be as original with other people as he is with you.” Eldredge does not seem to take the advice from the quote he highlights.
The standard response of many Christian writers, when they are criticized, is to say to their critics:
“I will pray for you.” While prayers are welcome (at least by me), one has to be careful that that statement does not have a dismissive ring to it, a la, “I will pray for you because you are a poor, misguided soul, lost in the land of confusion sown by the devil, and incapable of seeing truth when it is laid out for you by God.” I am uncertain where Eldredge would stand on this one, so he gets the benefit of the doubt there from me!
Oh, well, that’s enough persnickety critique from me. I found much valuable in his book, and it is worth the read, despite the multiple points outlined above and before.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Of Love and Lifeboats: Expounding on "Sacrificial"
Professor J,
When we run out of things to discuss :) I think we should produce a dictionary where we each give our own definition of every word (in our spare time, of course). We love to parse them so! LOL
The sacrificial love I was referring to in my previous post is the love that God has for us and has proven to us by his willingness to sacrifice his Son, and the love that Jesus has for us and has proven by willingly being that sacrifice. It is a love beyond human comprehension. Unconditional. Pure. A love in which His concern is always for OUR good. Why do we (both genders) waste time looking for someone else to meet such a great need in us? Clearly, too much to ask of another mere mortal. Having this spiritual hunger satisfied by One who is completely trustworthy, and will remain so through the ages allows us to love a bit more freely...to loosen the grip. And speaking of loosening the grip, though HE is capable of complete control his sacrifice of it and allowing us to reject him if we want (free will) is perhaps the very first example of "sacrificial love." Perhaps all of His attributes are examples of what love without insecurity looks like. Part of our insecurity comes from imagining that if another person knew us...REALLY knew us, they would find us unlovable. We are loved by a Creator who knows our every thought, flaw, weakness...our darkest secrets and who, knowing all of that thinks that we are worth pursuing, delighting in, and fighting for.
My daughter and I stood shivering on the deck of our cruise ship during the lifeboat drill. While they were announcing what the procedure would be for manning and filling the lifeboats in the event of an emergency, they said the priority would be "women and children first." I choked up. Why? I don't really know except in that moment, the reality of men in the past having behaved so valiantly struck home. It caused something deep in me to catch like a rusty gear suddenly jerked forward to understanding. We may not be able to fully and continuously love perfectly and sacrificially, but even in our flawed and selfish state we do have our moments, don't we?
When we run out of things to discuss :) I think we should produce a dictionary where we each give our own definition of every word (in our spare time, of course). We love to parse them so! LOL
The sacrificial love I was referring to in my previous post is the love that God has for us and has proven to us by his willingness to sacrifice his Son, and the love that Jesus has for us and has proven by willingly being that sacrifice. It is a love beyond human comprehension. Unconditional. Pure. A love in which His concern is always for OUR good. Why do we (both genders) waste time looking for someone else to meet such a great need in us? Clearly, too much to ask of another mere mortal. Having this spiritual hunger satisfied by One who is completely trustworthy, and will remain so through the ages allows us to love a bit more freely...to loosen the grip. And speaking of loosening the grip, though HE is capable of complete control his sacrifice of it and allowing us to reject him if we want (free will) is perhaps the very first example of "sacrificial love." Perhaps all of His attributes are examples of what love without insecurity looks like. Part of our insecurity comes from imagining that if another person knew us...REALLY knew us, they would find us unlovable. We are loved by a Creator who knows our every thought, flaw, weakness...our darkest secrets and who, knowing all of that thinks that we are worth pursuing, delighting in, and fighting for.
My daughter and I stood shivering on the deck of our cruise ship during the lifeboat drill. While they were announcing what the procedure would be for manning and filling the lifeboats in the event of an emergency, they said the priority would be "women and children first." I choked up. Why? I don't really know except in that moment, the reality of men in the past having behaved so valiantly struck home. It caused something deep in me to catch like a rusty gear suddenly jerked forward to understanding. We may not be able to fully and continuously love perfectly and sacrificially, but even in our flawed and selfish state we do have our moments, don't we?
Thursday, October 21, 2010
WAH Criticisms Part 1
Ah, Madame M! No implication was implied as to overall qualifications to answer anything, only that my gender put me at a disadvantage in critiquing that part of Eldredge’s book. While I can frequently be arrogant and in need of the humble stick, in this case, it was only my lack of care in phrasing!
Interesting insights and views into the female psyche/emotions! And a rather scathing indictment of men’s selfish or thoughtless attitudes about matters of central importance to women; I offer no meaningful disagreement here, as it seems far too often the case just as you have laid it out!
Please expound just a bit, if you would, on what you mean by sacrificially.
Ah, think of the progress of the human condition if more people of both genders would love others and be loved for who they are! Those questions women ask verbally and nonverbally might decrease significantly in frequency too. If more of the human race can become spiritually sophisticated as you have well described, we will have taken a colossal step forward in the human condition!
Now for the Eldredge criticisms:
John Eldredge and I are not going to agree on a fair number of things. :)
To see nearly everything in this world, as he does, as Satan-tainted—well, I disagree strongly, for a lot of reasons, one of them rejecting this Biblical passage inference (an inference itself loaded with questionables) that God abdicates the world to the whims of an evil being. And what would be the point anyway?
Eldredge needlessly overreaches with blanket statements:
Blanket statement 1A: “Masturbation IS sabotage.” Leaving aside for the moment many other considerations of this statement, the needless overreach comes from not using "CAN BE."
Or Blanket statement 1B: “He could be a lustful man, but he’s not.” Inferring that biological desire MAKES a man something terrible, and that not being this way doesn’t. Just the categorization invites tremendous disagreement.
His fixation with this interpretation of sexuality is more indicative of his own personal wrestling WITHIN the twin channeling poles of religious interpretation and American historical cultural legacies. Good heavens, we Americans have done enough sexual damage to our psyche by making evil too many natural things. We demonize biological sexuality and the desire to non-conform to social-religious constructs. So Eldredge gets no agreement on this from me. Seems to me he sometimes has his own issues he is projecting to all.
Or Blanket statement 2, that women ONLY desire men strongly because they are missing a father’s affection: This is a rather narrow view of female sexuality. Almost sounds like something one of the more female-repressive societies of the world might say! This view--that all women who have no father-substitute issues have thence somehow escaped strong biological desire--is demonstrably false.
His assertion about being accountable: While accountable to another man is a good concept that can be useful in many things, the underlying premise can backfire and perpetuate an already dismissive view of the American male found in, as you have stated, too many TV programs and other things. The idea that all men are supremely foolish sinners who have to have someone guard them from their foolishness, is more self-defeating perpetuation. The same presumption that men are so “bad” and so lustful they must guard each other, also is prevalent throughout our society. It’s a sick and self-defeating way to think. For instance, in the military, the sexual assault prevention and response program, while laudable on the surface, goes beyond basic awareness and prevention and makes this premise of “bad men” an underlying message to our men (and women) in uniform. Not only are most men not like what this generated fear is creating, but it is emasculating them in the process by insinuating this message that they can’t be trusted, that they are animals, that they have to watch each other. When it doesn’t emasculate, this sentiment a little too often further isolates, angers, and creates self-loathing in the already tetherless, mentor-less, American male, so that when all that does burst through on some individuals, it helps create the very sexual violence the program is supposedly trying to prevent!
And once again, denying basic biological reality, or worse, twisting it into something “evil,” does more unnecessary damage. Too often, our social-religious human constructs try to make human nature something it isn’t. Such efforts, because they deny reality, usually fail destructively.
So, like many Christian moralizers of one sort or another, Eldredge has a fixation on sexual “wrong.” Like many, he cannot come to grips with the fact that sometimes there is no desire beneath the desire. Sometimes desire is all there is, and, is in fact, perfectly natural (now, whether the consummation of that desire is one of weal is a bit more variable!).
Eldredge makes a supposition that all men are explorer personalities in large measure. Not so. While I may be, and many are, some are more social intensive, others more reserved, others more stay around home, others more quietly analytical, etc. As for his probable counter-assertion that all really WANT to be explorers, I am going to ponder that one a bit!
Interesting insights and views into the female psyche/emotions! And a rather scathing indictment of men’s selfish or thoughtless attitudes about matters of central importance to women; I offer no meaningful disagreement here, as it seems far too often the case just as you have laid it out!
Please expound just a bit, if you would, on what you mean by sacrificially.
Ah, think of the progress of the human condition if more people of both genders would love others and be loved for who they are! Those questions women ask verbally and nonverbally might decrease significantly in frequency too. If more of the human race can become spiritually sophisticated as you have well described, we will have taken a colossal step forward in the human condition!
Now for the Eldredge criticisms:
John Eldredge and I are not going to agree on a fair number of things. :)
To see nearly everything in this world, as he does, as Satan-tainted—well, I disagree strongly, for a lot of reasons, one of them rejecting this Biblical passage inference (an inference itself loaded with questionables) that God abdicates the world to the whims of an evil being. And what would be the point anyway?
Eldredge needlessly overreaches with blanket statements:
Blanket statement 1A: “Masturbation IS sabotage.” Leaving aside for the moment many other considerations of this statement, the needless overreach comes from not using "CAN BE."
Or Blanket statement 1B: “He could be a lustful man, but he’s not.” Inferring that biological desire MAKES a man something terrible, and that not being this way doesn’t. Just the categorization invites tremendous disagreement.
His fixation with this interpretation of sexuality is more indicative of his own personal wrestling WITHIN the twin channeling poles of religious interpretation and American historical cultural legacies. Good heavens, we Americans have done enough sexual damage to our psyche by making evil too many natural things. We demonize biological sexuality and the desire to non-conform to social-religious constructs. So Eldredge gets no agreement on this from me. Seems to me he sometimes has his own issues he is projecting to all.
Or Blanket statement 2, that women ONLY desire men strongly because they are missing a father’s affection: This is a rather narrow view of female sexuality. Almost sounds like something one of the more female-repressive societies of the world might say! This view--that all women who have no father-substitute issues have thence somehow escaped strong biological desire--is demonstrably false.
His assertion about being accountable: While accountable to another man is a good concept that can be useful in many things, the underlying premise can backfire and perpetuate an already dismissive view of the American male found in, as you have stated, too many TV programs and other things. The idea that all men are supremely foolish sinners who have to have someone guard them from their foolishness, is more self-defeating perpetuation. The same presumption that men are so “bad” and so lustful they must guard each other, also is prevalent throughout our society. It’s a sick and self-defeating way to think. For instance, in the military, the sexual assault prevention and response program, while laudable on the surface, goes beyond basic awareness and prevention and makes this premise of “bad men” an underlying message to our men (and women) in uniform. Not only are most men not like what this generated fear is creating, but it is emasculating them in the process by insinuating this message that they can’t be trusted, that they are animals, that they have to watch each other. When it doesn’t emasculate, this sentiment a little too often further isolates, angers, and creates self-loathing in the already tetherless, mentor-less, American male, so that when all that does burst through on some individuals, it helps create the very sexual violence the program is supposedly trying to prevent!
And once again, denying basic biological reality, or worse, twisting it into something “evil,” does more unnecessary damage. Too often, our social-religious human constructs try to make human nature something it isn’t. Such efforts, because they deny reality, usually fail destructively.
So, like many Christian moralizers of one sort or another, Eldredge has a fixation on sexual “wrong.” Like many, he cannot come to grips with the fact that sometimes there is no desire beneath the desire. Sometimes desire is all there is, and, is in fact, perfectly natural (now, whether the consummation of that desire is one of weal is a bit more variable!).
Eldredge makes a supposition that all men are explorer personalities in large measure. Not so. While I may be, and many are, some are more social intensive, others more reserved, others more stay around home, others more quietly analytical, etc. As for his probable counter-assertion that all really WANT to be explorers, I am going to ponder that one a bit!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
