Hello Readers,
In order for the world to change, we have to understand the importance of gossip and how much it contributes to a breakdown of society. To do this, we have to engage how societies are built on shame, how gossip binds cliques of people together, and finally how gossip gives us a hated other to build ourselves up. These three things though they feel good in the group setting do not contribute to an overall solidarity that embraces love of neighbor even those neighbors who are distant in any way (age, experience, etc). The end goal of this reflection is to engage the possibility of using language to build up the community and spread good rumors about people, and favorable parts of people's appearance (defined as the symbolic representation of the unseen self, and has physical, mental, and spiritual components.)
To start, we have to examine how societies are built on shame, both religious and political. Shame is a component of society because all societies have mores. Shame occurs when people are judgmental toward others who do not meet certain mores. For example, if someone does not follow a certain rule, such as not mowing your lawn in your boxers on a Thursday, then society will punish the person mowing the lawn by words, shunning, etc. It's important to note that shame while it can happen for laws, it moreso happens because people are different and do not follow unwritten rules of conduct. Examples would include someone who does not fit in a specific gender role set by society. Shame; therefore, is an important part of society for many people, because it tries to build and keep a status quo. However, shame cannot have a part in love, because it does not let people appear and be a mutual interface with each other in a communal experience.
Part of shame is gossip. Societies of people that have a status quo gossip about others who are not in their status quo. If I sit down on a bus and am not talking to anyone, most often I hear some form of gossip. For people in a society (read community), gossip is almost natural, because we either have to talk about the heretics and how they are destroying the world, or we have to talk about that weird stalker kid who looks creepy and might like me. We talk about the other so as to distance ourselves from the other. The other is the hated other who becomes the scapegoat for the clique to build themselves up. In this way, gossip builds community in a clique sense because common people that have a common status quo can spread bad rumors about people not in their clique. However, this is problematic as we don't learn from the other, and are not challenged by the other, if the other is not embraced in our arms, and loved like God loves all. The reason we need a larger community is because cliques break down, once the common theme of gossip is gone, and the community pleasure received from gossip is gone, these cliques break down unless something else happens to expand a friendship. In other words, the clique does not allow for an embrace of the unknown, and without the embrace of the unknown we can never truly love anyone, because we will only love their appearance as it is given before us.
So we see the problem before us. A clique and a status quo form because people like the appearance of a certain way of society and do not want to embrace the unknown. The opposite of this behavior is to have an openness to the other and seek to build up people and work to have solidarity with them. When we build up the other we are praising their appearance for the joy it brings us and the community. Positive talk of people's appearance is a good thing because it embraces a symbolic representation of an unknown and lets it flourish. For example, when we praise someone who has a strong appearance in caring or leadership, we're praising not just that role that a particular self/person (self keeps the mysterious quality I'm looking for in talking about this topic.) has in my life, but how that appearance extends into other relationships. In this way, praise offers gratitude to the other and elevates the other to inspire more service and love. Praise also puts us in solidarity with others because we are elevating others and embracing the unknown self. This allows our love of others to grow and helps us to grow past the clique and embrace real community as we can only love the unknown, otherwise we become too attached to appearances and our love becomes idolatrous and narcissistic.
In closing, we have to nuance our vision a little bit. There are people that do real harm to the common good, and to protect others from real danger is something we are morally obligated to do. But we have to discern the difference between real harm and existential discomfort. (Of course, these are not mutually exclusive necessarily but there is a difference between someone being weird and someone raping people.) Also, there are people that drive us crazy. Everyone has pet peeves and issues with others. We have to allow for outlets with close friends to help us engage people who drive us crazy. There's a difference between talking to a confidant about people driving you crazy and spreading rumors amongst a whole group of people where there is no expectation of silence. These things being said, our goal in solidarity should be to continue to grow more patient and more loving in the mutual interfacing we experience consistently with the world. When we love more and build up more, I think we'll find that less things drive us crazy, especially as we understand and gain solidarity with the people around us and far away...
Aristocrates.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
"The Well and the Gravestone" by the Vespers
"Here lies the heart of me. Buried with an unmarked gravestone. No name just the dates you lived and died and now I want it back.
Always fighting but never seeing the way. Teach me how not to be afraid. (counter-melody: teach me to love again, to love again).
Take me down and let me see, the well that's full of bravery, and baptise me so I'll be free, to do the things I fear.
Always fighting but never seeing the way. Teach me how not to be afraid (counter-melody, teach me to love again, to love again).
Hiding in a filthy hole with a battered, bruised and blistered soul, we will laugh the day I'm whole and I'll finally see why I used to cry. Ooh ooh ooh ooh, ahhh, ahhh, ahhh
Always fighting but never seeing the way. Teach me how not to be afraid. Always fighting but never seeing the way. Teach me how not to be afraid. Once again, once again."
Heart break and loss is something that existentially shakes all people. However, some of the grace in heart break is that it has the potential to liberate people from fear. There is a need for grace in order to find strength to love again. When hearts break and people lose hope, there is a temptation for despair. This song is a great message to keep fighting and embrace the future hope that can come forth in times of suffering. This is a short meditation but I want the song to speak for itself.
Aristocrates
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Social Revolution Part 1: Care, Control, and Flirting
Hello readers,
As today is September 11th I want to take a little bit to give a memorial for those who died on September 11th and since in the ensuing wars that have happened. I pray we learn many things from what happens when fear is utilized and how others are demonized through fear. And sadly, a few bad apples create havoc and fear for everyone. All we can do now is try to grow and seek peace even when people are not peaceable to us.
Control and fear is something I want to talk about today but I want to back up a couple steps and give a brief introduction to what I want to talk about in this entry. I want to explore more about three aspects of human relationships that often create significant tension for people trying to build friendships/relationships. Note: Most of this entry will be dealing with these questions in regards to relationships though the principles suggested can be applied to all relationships in general. Care, control, and flirting is named such because it is three responses people can have in response to people being nice to others. Of course we don't want to oversimplify too much because there are as many responses to others' care and compassion as there are people and situations that arise and people to react to others' behavior. Also, any one behavior can exhibit any level of all three intentions: care, control, and flirting. However, what I want to examine is our human tendency to assume a control or a flirting response in response to someone's kindness. (Minnesota Nice falls under a different category as that is social custom, I also want to limit my search to personal interactions, and while Minnesota Nice does affect social interactions, it does not affect the existential feeling of care, control, or flirting, except inasmuch as Minnesota Nice affects a subconscious. And while it does affect the subconscious a social construction can only do so much to determine behavior, givenness and an individual's BIS (Biological Incentive System) do the rest of the determining and then the rest is left up to individual choice.
So now that some of the nuance is accounted for let's give a scenario. A guy walks up a woman and comments that he likes her dress. The woman has three possible sets of responses that she can give. 1) She can act like he is caring and respond to his care. 2) She can think his comment is an attempt to control her behavior or get her to do something and respond to his control. 3) She can think he is flirting with her and respond in kind by either flirting or keeping him at a safe distance. Anyone have an answer to what the man's comment is? The correct answer is it's a trick question. In order to accurately determine whether he is caring, controlling, or flirting, you have to assess the man's behavior over a long period of time, and even then it may not be completely accurate in assessing whether the man has any one (or possibly a combination) of the three responses. However, in most social situations a comment like this one is going to be taken as one of the latter two responses, even though an honest discernment says it is really hard to tell what exactly the man is up to in this scenario.
Now why would a woman (or we can use a man receiving the same kind of comment) assume either a control or a flirting response? The best answer I've found is that there is a fear of the unknown in relationships because they are out of our control. This includes many different things such as what happens if I think about building a future (e.g. a friendship or relationship with a particular person), what happens if he/she likes me and I don't like her/him back? This fear creates an analysis that happens quickly in response to a given stimulus. And in a quick analysis, it's easier to come up with a control or a flirting response, partially because it's easier to respond to a control or a flirt response, and extremely difficult to respond to a care response, and if it's nuanced and multi-layered, it's even more difficult. And of course, discussing feelings is awkward because in society, men are only taught to have two feelings, and discussing feelings requires a level of vulnerability and trust on the part of both persons, so feelings do not always come to the fore right away, even if subconsciously our BIS is triggering feelings that motivate our actions toward a perceived reward. (e.g. sexual activity with someone we find attractive will trigger an orgasm which is a pleasant feeling.) The lack of discussion about feelings creates a game that forces the other to be vulnerable first as a back and forth game of both people trying to grab control in a relationship.
The game works something like this. Men are taught to build up courage to make "moves" on a particular woman, and the woman so as not to seem too easily obtained plays "hard to get". Now of course, this is not always the case, men can play hard to get and women can make moves as well, but what's listed above is the general tendency for relationship forming. (I also realize that homosexual relationships create a different nuance but some level of this mutual seeking and game-playing exists in forming these relationships as well. And dare I say, even in friendship as well, since we're taught to not appear too needy, even building non-sexual friendships has some level of game theory, even though it looks different (mostly not calling too much, etc.) Game theory goes on for a period of time until both people build a level of trust based on how well each person has played the game. Playing the game well involves giving adrenaline rushes and endorphin highs to the other through encounter, teasing, sparks, whatever you may, namely the sense of being romantic. Or in a non-sexual friendship it mostly occurs when one of the two friends breaks the game by showing brokenness. Showing brokenness changes the rules of the game and breaks the game because the masks of perfection come off, and the person is exposed for the friends to see. Yes, you can hide your self from yourself.
Next, we have to explore why it's advantageous to play a game. We've explored the psychological effect above, but I think there is also a possible biological effect to playing a game with others. I've mentioned BIS which is an incentive system which encourages people to do things which are pleasureable. People move toward those things which are pleasureable, or they move toward things which may lead to greater pleasure later even if there is some pain now. New relationship forming has some level of anxiety. A new person means new circumstances, feelings, and a new person to explore and engage. The unknown creates fun but also creates complications, especially when people trigger unknown buttons which unleash all sorts of uncontrolled feelings. But part of the exploration is the notoreity and adventure of meeting a new person which creates an adrenaline rush. The continued game of vulnerability back and forth also creates good feelings for the participants.
Again, I'm going to use stereotypes here and realize that the opposite can be true depending on circumstance. Say a woman likes being pursued by a man before she dates him. She doesn't like to submit easily to saying yes for a date. So most men back off before asking this particular woman out. She enjoys the conquest of overcoming a "weak" man by getting him to step aside. She gets a happy adrenaline rush by taking control of another person and utilizing emotion and circumstance to her advantage. This is a great feeling for her. The other feeling she enjoys is when a man continues to pursue her and eventually enough magic happens for her to submit sexually to him; however that looks. Biologically she also feels good when a man has given enough pursuit and has continued to "hunt" her. However, she has issues about 2-3 months into the relationship when she notices that he cannot fulfill her any longer. He starts to beat her and starts dating other women looking for more conquests. She wonders why this behavior continues in her relationships.
Though this is stereotyped, it gives some insight into the minefield of dating at college campuses and with young adults in general. Women that like being pursued (of course not all of them) are acting on biological impulse. If a man continues pursuit of a woman, she is going to get a man who is strong and can target prey. His physical aggression will be comforting because she'll feel protected, which in turn leads to an increase in sexual pleasure. The man who goes after a woman who is hard to get also gets a large adrenaline rush from finally capturing his target. (Again, this can and does work in reverse too, I just wanted to use the stereotype that people would be familiar with). In a sense, it's a playing out of primal instinct, if man can hunt and do enough to capture the target (in this scenario the woman), he'll keep the woman happy. However, this is a danger in relying only on a BIS, because the Biological Incentive System tends to be short-sighted, unless an individual has trained his/her goals to be higher. The short-sightedness comes when the woman realizes all she has captured is a man who can hunt and she'll quickly become boring. The man gets bored unless the woman performs or is forced into more extreme sexual positions (handcuffing, beating to inspire orgasm, etc.) (Again, can work in reverse too.) However, eventually the hunt ends, the masks come off and people have to engage their own lives and stories. Sometimes this "hunt" transfers over into a meaningful, compassionate relationship, but oftentimes it doesn't, because it no longer feels good for the participant(s) involved. When that happens, at best all one can have is a mutual break-up, unless it's a hook-up relationship which then presents it's own complications. This inevitably hurts both participants, and it's because both participants chose a game which feels good in the short term instead of caring about the other and asking about feelings in order to build a long-term care. The short term game creates a burst of good feeling, while the long-term build up feels good but it's slow and not necessarily the lose your mind drunk on feeling adreanline, endorphine, alcohol, caffeine, and whatever else goes into enhancing one's short term burst of sentiment.
The other issue with the game is that it makes any sort of care reflex impossible. Since care, control, and flirting look very similar, it's easier to think that someone is wanting to play the game and respond whether one wants to play the game or not. A care reflex is beyond most people's imaginations for two reasons, a) there isn't a whole lot of a care reflex for most people to begin with, and b) a care reflex is extremely nuanced so a person must be capable of nuance and communication in order to engage someone with a care reflex. Care also has to become a habit, which is hard because it can be discouraging to be a caring person, especially when many people assume a caring person's intention is either control or flirting.
Now to nuance this more, sometimes the game is needed for security, because people have been hurt by those who appeared to be caring, or they want some relief after a bad long term friendship/relationship break-up and want some semblance of control in their lives. These psychological needs must be met; however, in order for society to really change, we need to be a people that care less about control, and care more about caring for others. We have to be people that not only recognize the game but also work to do something about it, even if the game is an endemic cultural problem that teaches people to be focused only on short-term sentiment. (Which is another nuance I want to throw in, we all need short term intense sentiment in order to feel good and function. Depression happens when life becomes unstable and people are unable to count on others for support. Short bursts of feeling can keep people feeling and healthy, adrenaline rushes are a good thing, but what I want to argue against is building a relationship philosophy that seeks these rushes as ends in themselves, either in how much we control others or how well we can play games with other people to get them to do what we want.)
So to conclude, I want to leave with a few remarks about how we can build a society of more caring people.
1) Be a caring person. The habits of a caring person will eventually spread in reputation and people will know there is something different about person X. Be that person that asks how others are doing and try hard to remember things going on in different people's lives. Remembering that someone is in a Greek class she likes is something that can be a deeply caring intention (it can also be used in the game so intention is important as well.)
2) Know how your responses can be taken and be patient with others if they mistake or catch certain parts of other intentions. Flirting and control are not necessarily bad things and these intentions may come in certain actions. If you're walking with someone and you grab their arm because a car comes close you're taking control of the other person. Now this is also a caring response, and can be a flirting response that activates a "spark." However, the person is not going to know what one's intention is unless there is a habit of care and time spent with each other (which is another problem is that people don't want to invest time and intention in relationship, but that can be saved for another post/discussion, etc.) So people may react poorly, and it's partly the society we live in, partly the fears of someone being controlled or someone having unwanted feelings, and partly the awkwardness certain situations bring forth because of the unseen givenness of one or both persons. Part of being patient is talking honestly about one's feelings and engage what's going on with each person, in other words having a conversation and meeting/privileging the other where he/she is at.
3) Finally, talk. Talk about what you're feeling and encourage others to do the same. Build a friendship environment where people can be themselves and encourage an ethic of care. And if we take Jesus as an example, in the modern age a lot of his actions could be seen as controlling or flirting. Jesus did heal women and break social custom by actually talking to women (note he had women followers and John 4 where he talks to a Samaritan woman who have been a major social taboo for any Jew.) Jesus kept caring and talked about what society was like and how people engaged either other. In his teaching and healing, He remained open to the other. This openness to the other can only happen if we know our own feelings, especially if they're complicated. If we fear for someone we care about making poor choices, or if we like someone and care about them, these nuances are important to know for both people to think about and engage in friendship/relationship building to build an ethic of care for the common good.
This discussion is far from complete, though I will end it here for now. All I can really say is to try to love like God loves, privileging the other, listening, and caring, and in these actions, different habits will form and people will see difference. Also, we have to know the "signs of the times" and understand how relationships form and think about why are things happening the way they are. When we know our habits and know how society construes relationships, we can work to be the change we want to see. And also, we can't count on religion to help us in a lot of circles, because these same cycles of competition and hunting in relationship building occur, even though they look different and focus on purity and laughter, rather than a "hunt" persae, even though it is a hunt of sorts, because the end goal is the same of having some sort of relationship with the other. All we can really do to start is show why our faith must be about building a real care ethic and act in those ways that show care.
Peace,
Aristocrates
As today is September 11th I want to take a little bit to give a memorial for those who died on September 11th and since in the ensuing wars that have happened. I pray we learn many things from what happens when fear is utilized and how others are demonized through fear. And sadly, a few bad apples create havoc and fear for everyone. All we can do now is try to grow and seek peace even when people are not peaceable to us.
Control and fear is something I want to talk about today but I want to back up a couple steps and give a brief introduction to what I want to talk about in this entry. I want to explore more about three aspects of human relationships that often create significant tension for people trying to build friendships/relationships. Note: Most of this entry will be dealing with these questions in regards to relationships though the principles suggested can be applied to all relationships in general. Care, control, and flirting is named such because it is three responses people can have in response to people being nice to others. Of course we don't want to oversimplify too much because there are as many responses to others' care and compassion as there are people and situations that arise and people to react to others' behavior. Also, any one behavior can exhibit any level of all three intentions: care, control, and flirting. However, what I want to examine is our human tendency to assume a control or a flirting response in response to someone's kindness. (Minnesota Nice falls under a different category as that is social custom, I also want to limit my search to personal interactions, and while Minnesota Nice does affect social interactions, it does not affect the existential feeling of care, control, or flirting, except inasmuch as Minnesota Nice affects a subconscious. And while it does affect the subconscious a social construction can only do so much to determine behavior, givenness and an individual's BIS (Biological Incentive System) do the rest of the determining and then the rest is left up to individual choice.
So now that some of the nuance is accounted for let's give a scenario. A guy walks up a woman and comments that he likes her dress. The woman has three possible sets of responses that she can give. 1) She can act like he is caring and respond to his care. 2) She can think his comment is an attempt to control her behavior or get her to do something and respond to his control. 3) She can think he is flirting with her and respond in kind by either flirting or keeping him at a safe distance. Anyone have an answer to what the man's comment is? The correct answer is it's a trick question. In order to accurately determine whether he is caring, controlling, or flirting, you have to assess the man's behavior over a long period of time, and even then it may not be completely accurate in assessing whether the man has any one (or possibly a combination) of the three responses. However, in most social situations a comment like this one is going to be taken as one of the latter two responses, even though an honest discernment says it is really hard to tell what exactly the man is up to in this scenario.
Now why would a woman (or we can use a man receiving the same kind of comment) assume either a control or a flirting response? The best answer I've found is that there is a fear of the unknown in relationships because they are out of our control. This includes many different things such as what happens if I think about building a future (e.g. a friendship or relationship with a particular person), what happens if he/she likes me and I don't like her/him back? This fear creates an analysis that happens quickly in response to a given stimulus. And in a quick analysis, it's easier to come up with a control or a flirting response, partially because it's easier to respond to a control or a flirt response, and extremely difficult to respond to a care response, and if it's nuanced and multi-layered, it's even more difficult. And of course, discussing feelings is awkward because in society, men are only taught to have two feelings, and discussing feelings requires a level of vulnerability and trust on the part of both persons, so feelings do not always come to the fore right away, even if subconsciously our BIS is triggering feelings that motivate our actions toward a perceived reward. (e.g. sexual activity with someone we find attractive will trigger an orgasm which is a pleasant feeling.) The lack of discussion about feelings creates a game that forces the other to be vulnerable first as a back and forth game of both people trying to grab control in a relationship.
The game works something like this. Men are taught to build up courage to make "moves" on a particular woman, and the woman so as not to seem too easily obtained plays "hard to get". Now of course, this is not always the case, men can play hard to get and women can make moves as well, but what's listed above is the general tendency for relationship forming. (I also realize that homosexual relationships create a different nuance but some level of this mutual seeking and game-playing exists in forming these relationships as well. And dare I say, even in friendship as well, since we're taught to not appear too needy, even building non-sexual friendships has some level of game theory, even though it looks different (mostly not calling too much, etc.) Game theory goes on for a period of time until both people build a level of trust based on how well each person has played the game. Playing the game well involves giving adrenaline rushes and endorphin highs to the other through encounter, teasing, sparks, whatever you may, namely the sense of being romantic. Or in a non-sexual friendship it mostly occurs when one of the two friends breaks the game by showing brokenness. Showing brokenness changes the rules of the game and breaks the game because the masks of perfection come off, and the person is exposed for the friends to see. Yes, you can hide your self from yourself.
Next, we have to explore why it's advantageous to play a game. We've explored the psychological effect above, but I think there is also a possible biological effect to playing a game with others. I've mentioned BIS which is an incentive system which encourages people to do things which are pleasureable. People move toward those things which are pleasureable, or they move toward things which may lead to greater pleasure later even if there is some pain now. New relationship forming has some level of anxiety. A new person means new circumstances, feelings, and a new person to explore and engage. The unknown creates fun but also creates complications, especially when people trigger unknown buttons which unleash all sorts of uncontrolled feelings. But part of the exploration is the notoreity and adventure of meeting a new person which creates an adrenaline rush. The continued game of vulnerability back and forth also creates good feelings for the participants.
Again, I'm going to use stereotypes here and realize that the opposite can be true depending on circumstance. Say a woman likes being pursued by a man before she dates him. She doesn't like to submit easily to saying yes for a date. So most men back off before asking this particular woman out. She enjoys the conquest of overcoming a "weak" man by getting him to step aside. She gets a happy adrenaline rush by taking control of another person and utilizing emotion and circumstance to her advantage. This is a great feeling for her. The other feeling she enjoys is when a man continues to pursue her and eventually enough magic happens for her to submit sexually to him; however that looks. Biologically she also feels good when a man has given enough pursuit and has continued to "hunt" her. However, she has issues about 2-3 months into the relationship when she notices that he cannot fulfill her any longer. He starts to beat her and starts dating other women looking for more conquests. She wonders why this behavior continues in her relationships.
Though this is stereotyped, it gives some insight into the minefield of dating at college campuses and with young adults in general. Women that like being pursued (of course not all of them) are acting on biological impulse. If a man continues pursuit of a woman, she is going to get a man who is strong and can target prey. His physical aggression will be comforting because she'll feel protected, which in turn leads to an increase in sexual pleasure. The man who goes after a woman who is hard to get also gets a large adrenaline rush from finally capturing his target. (Again, this can and does work in reverse too, I just wanted to use the stereotype that people would be familiar with). In a sense, it's a playing out of primal instinct, if man can hunt and do enough to capture the target (in this scenario the woman), he'll keep the woman happy. However, this is a danger in relying only on a BIS, because the Biological Incentive System tends to be short-sighted, unless an individual has trained his/her goals to be higher. The short-sightedness comes when the woman realizes all she has captured is a man who can hunt and she'll quickly become boring. The man gets bored unless the woman performs or is forced into more extreme sexual positions (handcuffing, beating to inspire orgasm, etc.) (Again, can work in reverse too.) However, eventually the hunt ends, the masks come off and people have to engage their own lives and stories. Sometimes this "hunt" transfers over into a meaningful, compassionate relationship, but oftentimes it doesn't, because it no longer feels good for the participant(s) involved. When that happens, at best all one can have is a mutual break-up, unless it's a hook-up relationship which then presents it's own complications. This inevitably hurts both participants, and it's because both participants chose a game which feels good in the short term instead of caring about the other and asking about feelings in order to build a long-term care. The short term game creates a burst of good feeling, while the long-term build up feels good but it's slow and not necessarily the lose your mind drunk on feeling adreanline, endorphine, alcohol, caffeine, and whatever else goes into enhancing one's short term burst of sentiment.
The other issue with the game is that it makes any sort of care reflex impossible. Since care, control, and flirting look very similar, it's easier to think that someone is wanting to play the game and respond whether one wants to play the game or not. A care reflex is beyond most people's imaginations for two reasons, a) there isn't a whole lot of a care reflex for most people to begin with, and b) a care reflex is extremely nuanced so a person must be capable of nuance and communication in order to engage someone with a care reflex. Care also has to become a habit, which is hard because it can be discouraging to be a caring person, especially when many people assume a caring person's intention is either control or flirting.
Now to nuance this more, sometimes the game is needed for security, because people have been hurt by those who appeared to be caring, or they want some relief after a bad long term friendship/relationship break-up and want some semblance of control in their lives. These psychological needs must be met; however, in order for society to really change, we need to be a people that care less about control, and care more about caring for others. We have to be people that not only recognize the game but also work to do something about it, even if the game is an endemic cultural problem that teaches people to be focused only on short-term sentiment. (Which is another nuance I want to throw in, we all need short term intense sentiment in order to feel good and function. Depression happens when life becomes unstable and people are unable to count on others for support. Short bursts of feeling can keep people feeling and healthy, adrenaline rushes are a good thing, but what I want to argue against is building a relationship philosophy that seeks these rushes as ends in themselves, either in how much we control others or how well we can play games with other people to get them to do what we want.)
So to conclude, I want to leave with a few remarks about how we can build a society of more caring people.
1) Be a caring person. The habits of a caring person will eventually spread in reputation and people will know there is something different about person X. Be that person that asks how others are doing and try hard to remember things going on in different people's lives. Remembering that someone is in a Greek class she likes is something that can be a deeply caring intention (it can also be used in the game so intention is important as well.)
2) Know how your responses can be taken and be patient with others if they mistake or catch certain parts of other intentions. Flirting and control are not necessarily bad things and these intentions may come in certain actions. If you're walking with someone and you grab their arm because a car comes close you're taking control of the other person. Now this is also a caring response, and can be a flirting response that activates a "spark." However, the person is not going to know what one's intention is unless there is a habit of care and time spent with each other (which is another problem is that people don't want to invest time and intention in relationship, but that can be saved for another post/discussion, etc.) So people may react poorly, and it's partly the society we live in, partly the fears of someone being controlled or someone having unwanted feelings, and partly the awkwardness certain situations bring forth because of the unseen givenness of one or both persons. Part of being patient is talking honestly about one's feelings and engage what's going on with each person, in other words having a conversation and meeting/privileging the other where he/she is at.
3) Finally, talk. Talk about what you're feeling and encourage others to do the same. Build a friendship environment where people can be themselves and encourage an ethic of care. And if we take Jesus as an example, in the modern age a lot of his actions could be seen as controlling or flirting. Jesus did heal women and break social custom by actually talking to women (note he had women followers and John 4 where he talks to a Samaritan woman who have been a major social taboo for any Jew.) Jesus kept caring and talked about what society was like and how people engaged either other. In his teaching and healing, He remained open to the other. This openness to the other can only happen if we know our own feelings, especially if they're complicated. If we fear for someone we care about making poor choices, or if we like someone and care about them, these nuances are important to know for both people to think about and engage in friendship/relationship building to build an ethic of care for the common good.
This discussion is far from complete, though I will end it here for now. All I can really say is to try to love like God loves, privileging the other, listening, and caring, and in these actions, different habits will form and people will see difference. Also, we have to know the "signs of the times" and understand how relationships form and think about why are things happening the way they are. When we know our habits and know how society construes relationships, we can work to be the change we want to see. And also, we can't count on religion to help us in a lot of circles, because these same cycles of competition and hunting in relationship building occur, even though they look different and focus on purity and laughter, rather than a "hunt" persae, even though it is a hunt of sorts, because the end goal is the same of having some sort of relationship with the other. All we can really do to start is show why our faith must be about building a real care ethic and act in those ways that show care.
Peace,
Aristocrates
Monday, September 5, 2011
On Nature and Escapism
Hello Readers,
In any world, there are many worlds associated with it. We associate with not only the present world in our daily interaction, but also with the worlds of history and eschatology. It is in these different types of interactions that we learn more about why our world is the way it is. From the past we learn lessons from past worlds about relationship, interaction, and how people lived simpler and harder lives all at the same time. Things we find natural in our environment today are only there because of events/choices in the past that enable people to have the convenience to have what seems natural to us. Plumbing, warm showers, sliced bread, all of these are innovations which have not always been. These conveniences come naturally to us now but are really the result of the hard work, inventions, and environmental gift of many people and ecospheres. The point of this is that our present world with all of its natures takes place because of the events in a past world and its nature. This is a healthy recourse of examining choices and learning from our mistakes to promote the common good.
However, there are potential issues of idolizing a particular time in the past, or a particular world one encounters in fantasy that may have lessons to teach us about love, charity, and mercy, but when idolized and obsessed about people lose sight of the common good in their own world by losing ability to relate to the present world's own nature. We call this phenomenon escapism. Escpaism is common as it is a coping mechanism to deal with problems in the present world, either with the world itself or its nature. Everyone has some level of escapism, as we all have hobbies that bring us to different worlds and realities. In addition, everyone needs a release from the stresses of life. There are a lot of things about the present world and its nature that are problematic as I've discussed on other blog entries. However, the balance becomes when does this escapism either through history or fantasy become unhealthy. When does it harm the common good not to be alert to this present world and its nature?
1) If escapism causes people to lose sight of the common good, then it becomes a problem. In other words, in escapism if people are not attentive to real world concerns for the sake of preserving the fantasy/history world, then escapism is immoral. People in the real world suffer, and needs must be accounted for in some way, if they arise.
2) If escapism actually causes people to harm each other in any way, then it is a problem. Escapism causes people to enter a different world, thus their character allows them to do things they might not otherwise do in the present world and its nature. While Sartre would argue this is people acting in bad faith, that's besides the point here. (Bad faith is when a person acts against their own self by acting in character differently then they would in the present, real world.) The issue at stake is what happens when characters act in ways that harm other people in the other world and how does that affect people's reality in the real world. Of course, some people will argue that we need to be able to have jokes and make fun for escapism's sake, to not be so serious. However, when that fun causes harm to the other, then there is an issue, as that does not just stay in the fantasy/history world, but carries on with people subconsciously. Escapism does not excuse abuse toward others, or our responsibility to be sensitive to the other.
3) The other must retain her privilege in escapism. The present world and its nature is one of encountering the other. We live in a world of interaction. As such, we have responsibility for the things and people with whom we interact. This responsibility takes on many forms and our interaction draws us to others in a variety of ways. Escapism is problematic when the other loses her privilege for the sake of the fantasy world, of a nostalgic rememberance and desire for an ethic that's passed. Of course, history can teach us many ways of privileging the other if one searches hard enough; however, there are many cases where history and fantasy teach us how to privilege our own desire for nostalgia and a semblance of control in our own lives. In an escapist world, we can control the world to make it show what we want. The other does not have much privilege here. In the present world and its nature, we cannot control all of the world to our conforming. We can't build a reality with everything we want all the time. Therefore, the privilege of the other is important to recognize, because then we can honestly engage the world more fully, even when we cannot control it. In losing control, we gain the things which are really important, but we need the skills to engage the present world and its nature, even if we are asking questions of that nature.
And finally, 4) If escapism disables people from being able to converse about the present world and its reality, then it is a major problem. We live in the present world, which has a certain nature, which changes over time and engages different people and interests. All over the world there are different worlds which have different natures due to the culture and influence of the people. All of these present worlds and their natures are interconnected and result in us having one world with one nature, and at the same time many worlds with many natures. The one world, is the world of the now, and while it takes many forms, in the end people are unified by their desire for community and relationship in the present world and its nature. Relationship requires engagement, if people spend their lives in a nostalgic world, desiring for something better, (and this applies to history, fantasy, and eschatology), then people lose sight of the opportunity to love and relate in the now, and people that need love need you and me to love like we would want to be loved. In other words, to be able to give and love like God does, while also realizing our own need for love and fulfillment in our lives. Escapism becomes problematic when it is the end sought after for release from the present world and its nature. Escapism can be fun and an enjoyable time by oneself or with friends; however, it can also draw people away from the present world and its nature so much so that the common good is lost. A failure to dialogue about any concern or action in the present world and its nature is symptomatic of this problem.
Aristocrates
P.S. An abuse of eschatology takes most of these symptoms but there are two important differences. 1) The object of the escapism has not happened yet so a deep apathy toward anything appears in anticipation for a pious eschatology as purveyed by a group/cult, etc. This has the effect of creating a lack of care for anything that happens in the present world and its nature and disables people from really being able to act for the common good as people take in the problems of the world if it offends their piety. 2) and most importantly, an abuse of eschatology creates a climate of judgment and hell, which usually does not coincide with the present world and its nature. To be clear, eschatology is important as it shows how the heavenly world and earthly one connect, relate, and interact. Eschatology enables people to talk about God, charity, and purpose in a deeper way, as it draws all past, present, and future history together. However, eschatology is a problem when it does not privilege the other as part of God's creation, even when we find the actions of the other person sinful, shameful, and something that harms the common good. A real eschatology which does not create escapism shows us how God discloses all people and seeks for us to work for the common good.
In any world, there are many worlds associated with it. We associate with not only the present world in our daily interaction, but also with the worlds of history and eschatology. It is in these different types of interactions that we learn more about why our world is the way it is. From the past we learn lessons from past worlds about relationship, interaction, and how people lived simpler and harder lives all at the same time. Things we find natural in our environment today are only there because of events/choices in the past that enable people to have the convenience to have what seems natural to us. Plumbing, warm showers, sliced bread, all of these are innovations which have not always been. These conveniences come naturally to us now but are really the result of the hard work, inventions, and environmental gift of many people and ecospheres. The point of this is that our present world with all of its natures takes place because of the events in a past world and its nature. This is a healthy recourse of examining choices and learning from our mistakes to promote the common good.
However, there are potential issues of idolizing a particular time in the past, or a particular world one encounters in fantasy that may have lessons to teach us about love, charity, and mercy, but when idolized and obsessed about people lose sight of the common good in their own world by losing ability to relate to the present world's own nature. We call this phenomenon escapism. Escpaism is common as it is a coping mechanism to deal with problems in the present world, either with the world itself or its nature. Everyone has some level of escapism, as we all have hobbies that bring us to different worlds and realities. In addition, everyone needs a release from the stresses of life. There are a lot of things about the present world and its nature that are problematic as I've discussed on other blog entries. However, the balance becomes when does this escapism either through history or fantasy become unhealthy. When does it harm the common good not to be alert to this present world and its nature?
1) If escapism causes people to lose sight of the common good, then it becomes a problem. In other words, in escapism if people are not attentive to real world concerns for the sake of preserving the fantasy/history world, then escapism is immoral. People in the real world suffer, and needs must be accounted for in some way, if they arise.
2) If escapism actually causes people to harm each other in any way, then it is a problem. Escapism causes people to enter a different world, thus their character allows them to do things they might not otherwise do in the present world and its nature. While Sartre would argue this is people acting in bad faith, that's besides the point here. (Bad faith is when a person acts against their own self by acting in character differently then they would in the present, real world.) The issue at stake is what happens when characters act in ways that harm other people in the other world and how does that affect people's reality in the real world. Of course, some people will argue that we need to be able to have jokes and make fun for escapism's sake, to not be so serious. However, when that fun causes harm to the other, then there is an issue, as that does not just stay in the fantasy/history world, but carries on with people subconsciously. Escapism does not excuse abuse toward others, or our responsibility to be sensitive to the other.
3) The other must retain her privilege in escapism. The present world and its nature is one of encountering the other. We live in a world of interaction. As such, we have responsibility for the things and people with whom we interact. This responsibility takes on many forms and our interaction draws us to others in a variety of ways. Escapism is problematic when the other loses her privilege for the sake of the fantasy world, of a nostalgic rememberance and desire for an ethic that's passed. Of course, history can teach us many ways of privileging the other if one searches hard enough; however, there are many cases where history and fantasy teach us how to privilege our own desire for nostalgia and a semblance of control in our own lives. In an escapist world, we can control the world to make it show what we want. The other does not have much privilege here. In the present world and its nature, we cannot control all of the world to our conforming. We can't build a reality with everything we want all the time. Therefore, the privilege of the other is important to recognize, because then we can honestly engage the world more fully, even when we cannot control it. In losing control, we gain the things which are really important, but we need the skills to engage the present world and its nature, even if we are asking questions of that nature.
And finally, 4) If escapism disables people from being able to converse about the present world and its reality, then it is a major problem. We live in the present world, which has a certain nature, which changes over time and engages different people and interests. All over the world there are different worlds which have different natures due to the culture and influence of the people. All of these present worlds and their natures are interconnected and result in us having one world with one nature, and at the same time many worlds with many natures. The one world, is the world of the now, and while it takes many forms, in the end people are unified by their desire for community and relationship in the present world and its nature. Relationship requires engagement, if people spend their lives in a nostalgic world, desiring for something better, (and this applies to history, fantasy, and eschatology), then people lose sight of the opportunity to love and relate in the now, and people that need love need you and me to love like we would want to be loved. In other words, to be able to give and love like God does, while also realizing our own need for love and fulfillment in our lives. Escapism becomes problematic when it is the end sought after for release from the present world and its nature. Escapism can be fun and an enjoyable time by oneself or with friends; however, it can also draw people away from the present world and its nature so much so that the common good is lost. A failure to dialogue about any concern or action in the present world and its nature is symptomatic of this problem.
Aristocrates
P.S. An abuse of eschatology takes most of these symptoms but there are two important differences. 1) The object of the escapism has not happened yet so a deep apathy toward anything appears in anticipation for a pious eschatology as purveyed by a group/cult, etc. This has the effect of creating a lack of care for anything that happens in the present world and its nature and disables people from really being able to act for the common good as people take in the problems of the world if it offends their piety. 2) and most importantly, an abuse of eschatology creates a climate of judgment and hell, which usually does not coincide with the present world and its nature. To be clear, eschatology is important as it shows how the heavenly world and earthly one connect, relate, and interact. Eschatology enables people to talk about God, charity, and purpose in a deeper way, as it draws all past, present, and future history together. However, eschatology is a problem when it does not privilege the other as part of God's creation, even when we find the actions of the other person sinful, shameful, and something that harms the common good. A real eschatology which does not create escapism shows us how God discloses all people and seeks for us to work for the common good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)