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.
Showing posts with label Love. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Love. Show all posts
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Loving Like Jesus
The assumption of everything I will say forward in this blog entry is that our religious experiences should influence us to love like Jesus, in His multivalent way of loving people. I pray that you all will grant me this assumption moving forward.
The reason I bring this up is because I want to explore the human ideal of loving, and in particular look at how structures enable or disable us to love like Jesus does. To start, we need to provide a definition of how Jesus loves without becoming idolatrous. In short, our religious and political structures do not help us to love like Jesus, because they build imagery and favor certain images of love while downgrading others. Also, our structures define an "us" and a "them" inhibiting love as it restricts love to certain worthy people who are deemed deserving of humanity, while others are ignored or rejected, both are bad.
First, we must build an image of loving like Jesus loves. Many people tend to use agape to describe the love of Jesus. Agape is described as a self-sacrificing love which is other centered. While this described the intent of Jesus' love, it also has severe limitations. Oftentimes eros is defined against agape, so agape tends to look at love which is not necessarily bodily in the touch or desiring sense. Agape tries to draw desire away to prevent particularly sexual interactions, which are the key example of eros. Too much focus on agape ignores God's desire in love as shown by the fact that an Incarnation even happened. Of course, eros can be overdone, where we love only other people whom we find desirable. So we need an image of love that desires and sacrifices for the other. Also, an image of love needs to include the different ways that love is shown. Words, presence, touch, giving, Jesus presents all of these in his ministry in reaction to loving other people. So love must be able to do many things, be inclusive, and desire and sacrifice at the same time, just to give a limited image for definition here.
Structures prevent a multivalent love, because they have a preferred image of what love is. Certain actions, gestures, presence styles, and terms of affection are used and favored in structures. Society, as seen through advertising, tends to promote a physical love based on feeling good. People are useful and good for us inasmuch as they make us feel good. As soon as people do not make us feel good, or are useful for us, then people can be replaced with others with better qualities. This hinders our ability to love like Jesus, because people aren't the end of society. The end of society is to function and enable people to exist, though it doesn't care which people exist or where. This is how we get broken societies where the poor are taken advantage of and exploited for resources. However, religious structures do not fix this model, they take a different object and present us with the same problems. The growing religious trend is that spiritual love is preferred, one which emphasizes time with God and existential discovery to find one's purpose/vocation in life, but discourages community as seen in certain ritual effects in liturgy and encouragement of devotion among other sources. This spiritual love promotes sacrifice and discourages desire, agape over eros. This dichotomy between society and religion leaves loving like Jesus unfulfilled because we need love that desires, because Jesus desires people in loving, and we need love that sacrifices, like Jesus performs in His miracles for suffering people that he didn't necessarily know.
In building preferences, structures also create an "us" and a "them". People that think like the structure and are favored, and others who are on the outside. Power, influence, money, and many other qualities can be examined in looking at who influences and benefits from the structure. However, when looking at the structure, if we're going to think about loving like Jesus, we must understand how structures encourage or discourage interactions with those on the outside. Many communities in the modern era are becoming more like-minded and hostile to others. This is incompatible with loving like Jesus as Jesus even loved those who crucified Him, as seen in His forgiveness of His persecutors, and loved the Pharisees with whom He disagreed by eating with them and offering to spend peaceable time in their presence.
Our hope for the future is that community and structures do not have to be this way. Communities can listen and people can try to reach out to others and understand their experiences. We can be people that don't ignore others, and our outreach can be both because we desire other people and want to sacrifice for their good. We can touch, give time, listen, and all those activities that inspire the common good in individual relationships that flow over to others. However, as our structures are, many things need to change, and this is not including problems in particular structures due to "emotional illness, personality differences, and sin." (When Ministry is Messy, Richard Brown). My hope is that we can build relationships where we love in these deep ways and build our community. Please God may it be so.
Aristocrates
The reason I bring this up is because I want to explore the human ideal of loving, and in particular look at how structures enable or disable us to love like Jesus does. To start, we need to provide a definition of how Jesus loves without becoming idolatrous. In short, our religious and political structures do not help us to love like Jesus, because they build imagery and favor certain images of love while downgrading others. Also, our structures define an "us" and a "them" inhibiting love as it restricts love to certain worthy people who are deemed deserving of humanity, while others are ignored or rejected, both are bad.
First, we must build an image of loving like Jesus loves. Many people tend to use agape to describe the love of Jesus. Agape is described as a self-sacrificing love which is other centered. While this described the intent of Jesus' love, it also has severe limitations. Oftentimes eros is defined against agape, so agape tends to look at love which is not necessarily bodily in the touch or desiring sense. Agape tries to draw desire away to prevent particularly sexual interactions, which are the key example of eros. Too much focus on agape ignores God's desire in love as shown by the fact that an Incarnation even happened. Of course, eros can be overdone, where we love only other people whom we find desirable. So we need an image of love that desires and sacrifices for the other. Also, an image of love needs to include the different ways that love is shown. Words, presence, touch, giving, Jesus presents all of these in his ministry in reaction to loving other people. So love must be able to do many things, be inclusive, and desire and sacrifice at the same time, just to give a limited image for definition here.
Structures prevent a multivalent love, because they have a preferred image of what love is. Certain actions, gestures, presence styles, and terms of affection are used and favored in structures. Society, as seen through advertising, tends to promote a physical love based on feeling good. People are useful and good for us inasmuch as they make us feel good. As soon as people do not make us feel good, or are useful for us, then people can be replaced with others with better qualities. This hinders our ability to love like Jesus, because people aren't the end of society. The end of society is to function and enable people to exist, though it doesn't care which people exist or where. This is how we get broken societies where the poor are taken advantage of and exploited for resources. However, religious structures do not fix this model, they take a different object and present us with the same problems. The growing religious trend is that spiritual love is preferred, one which emphasizes time with God and existential discovery to find one's purpose/vocation in life, but discourages community as seen in certain ritual effects in liturgy and encouragement of devotion among other sources. This spiritual love promotes sacrifice and discourages desire, agape over eros. This dichotomy between society and religion leaves loving like Jesus unfulfilled because we need love that desires, because Jesus desires people in loving, and we need love that sacrifices, like Jesus performs in His miracles for suffering people that he didn't necessarily know.
In building preferences, structures also create an "us" and a "them". People that think like the structure and are favored, and others who are on the outside. Power, influence, money, and many other qualities can be examined in looking at who influences and benefits from the structure. However, when looking at the structure, if we're going to think about loving like Jesus, we must understand how structures encourage or discourage interactions with those on the outside. Many communities in the modern era are becoming more like-minded and hostile to others. This is incompatible with loving like Jesus as Jesus even loved those who crucified Him, as seen in His forgiveness of His persecutors, and loved the Pharisees with whom He disagreed by eating with them and offering to spend peaceable time in their presence.
Our hope for the future is that community and structures do not have to be this way. Communities can listen and people can try to reach out to others and understand their experiences. We can be people that don't ignore others, and our outreach can be both because we desire other people and want to sacrifice for their good. We can touch, give time, listen, and all those activities that inspire the common good in individual relationships that flow over to others. However, as our structures are, many things need to change, and this is not including problems in particular structures due to "emotional illness, personality differences, and sin." (When Ministry is Messy, Richard Brown). My hope is that we can build relationships where we love in these deep ways and build our community. Please God may it be so.
Aristocrates
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Beauty: Transcendental and Living
Humans are drawn to phenomena that they find beautiful. People walk out in nature, people become lovers, people read stories of far-away worlds, new races, new planets, and new adventures to seek this beauty. Beauty can also be seen in music, entertainment, and life itself. Beauty is like a Spirit who permeates all phenomenality (the world of appearances, note: stepping away from ontology) and shows us more of the one who is beautiful. In speaking these words about Beauty, it is hard to ascertain what capacity in humans draws them to beauty and I need more time to develop theories about how this happens. Therefore, I want to spend the rest of this piece examining how sharing beauty is essential for human flourishing.
We have to talk a little bit about how beauty develops. All people are drawn to certain qualities (different ones for each person) that attract them to particular people, places, experiences, etc. Athletes who compete for the NBA championship and scholars who look to write the next break-through book about compassion are drawn to their activities because of the beauty of fulfillment. Some of this comes from a chemical reaction of adrenaline that each person has in response to a certain stimuli (again different for each person.) While a physical explanation serves some purpose, it does not explain why people stay engaged in certain activities when things become difficult. Athletes who have a bad game and scholars who have to deal with a crying student or a stack of poorly written exams still are drawn to their work, albeit having to deal with frustration. The capacity for each person to be passionate about a certain activity, therefore, is ideally not just a feeling, but incorporates reason, feeling, spirit, etc. A long term passion turns into a contagious beauty that captures people's attention and draws them to the joys of a certain activity. Many people remember a teacher they had who inspired them to serve the world in some specific way. It is this passion that grows through struggle and triumph that enables people to serve the world in love and bring out more of its beauty.
People develop passion and thus develop their own intellectual, spiritual, and physical gifts that serve humanity and all creation. It is important that people share this beauty with others, because beauty brings forth life in people and inspires them to want better for their own lives. However, it can be scary to share beauty with others as they may not respond in ways that we would like. Others can reject our gifts, be fearful of our conclusions, laugh at our worldview, or tell us that there is no place for us, either explicitly through word and symbol, or implicitly through their indifference to our life. We can also be tempted to stay in echo boxes, where we interact only with people who see beauty in the same ways we do. This is also a danger we have to avoid, as it closes off to the challenge of the other.
In intimacy, the other challenges us with her own experience and makes us engage the world in a different way. However, to truly see the beauty of the other, we must understand our selves in order to engage the experience of the other. We must know why we think what we do, and how that affects others. We have to know the beautiful and the ugly things about ourselves. As painful as self-examination is, it helps us to engage the other in love and mercy. However, our introspection cannot simply be an end in itself, where people reflect, think they find God, and then never seek any thing or anyone else as having something different and merciful to contribute to seeking beauty. Self-reflection must enable one to be critical without being destructive, otherwise we bring forth the ugly.
A brief point must be made about the ugly. The ugly is also transcendental, but not in the same way beauty is. Beauty is apparent in many things and has many causes. The ugly is also apparent through evil, malice, neglect, omission, etc, but the causes of the ugly are more poignant. The ugly is caused by self-hatred and sins in reaction to self-hatred. Every person has parts about themselves they don't like. All those imperfections, faults, anxieties can add up and be a heavy burden. Self-hatred has three main effects during introspection: self-harm, narcissism, and violence against the other. These effects are not mutually exclusive, but different persons tend toward different consequences of self-hatred. However, all of these consequences harm the common good and hinder people from seeing beauty. Self-hatred is the main contributor to the hindrance of seeing beauty in the world on a macro scale as it causes destruction, and on a micro scale self-hatred hinders vulnerability and discourages the sharing of beauty amongst people.
So to enable beauty to flow like a Spirit, we must stop destructive self-hatred. This is only possible as a community of people who love and serve each other. Communities of friends can gather together and share their lives with each others, and help people to grow in love, service, and mercy. Our friends build us up and help us share beauty together. Sharing is scary, because people change over time and may not like what we have to offer anymore. Especially in age where talking is not seen as beautiful, but rather productivity, fideism, and works are what's valued by Church and society, then we have to work harder to build friendships where we are better people as a result.
Thinking about beauty has many consequences, but there's one in particular I want to emphasize closing this reflection. Sexuality becomes very important in thinking about beauty. Sexuality is one example of being able to share in the beauty of someone else. Ideally it's not a distanced view of beauty which may appreciate certain characteristics of a person from afar, but rather it's a close, personal sharing between people where the whole person is engaged, good and bad. This includes physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual sharing. In searching for beauty, all people are drawn to different others. The strength in our draw to the other is that we grow from our sharing. Even physical sharing between two people enables further love as it's ideally a mutual release of stress and the ugly for people as they engage in beauty. This great pleasure gives us a reminder that as much as we have structures, life patterns, things we have to do, rules, laws, etc, that in the end what matters is how we engage the beautiful and how we enable others to share in beauty. It is this Spirit of beauty which enriches life and gives strength to our days. We ask for a world where we can love and help others see their own beauty, and in response see the beauty of others' especially in the ways where they can help us grow in love and mercy. Please God may it be so on this day of Pentecost and always.
Aristocrates
We have to talk a little bit about how beauty develops. All people are drawn to certain qualities (different ones for each person) that attract them to particular people, places, experiences, etc. Athletes who compete for the NBA championship and scholars who look to write the next break-through book about compassion are drawn to their activities because of the beauty of fulfillment. Some of this comes from a chemical reaction of adrenaline that each person has in response to a certain stimuli (again different for each person.) While a physical explanation serves some purpose, it does not explain why people stay engaged in certain activities when things become difficult. Athletes who have a bad game and scholars who have to deal with a crying student or a stack of poorly written exams still are drawn to their work, albeit having to deal with frustration. The capacity for each person to be passionate about a certain activity, therefore, is ideally not just a feeling, but incorporates reason, feeling, spirit, etc. A long term passion turns into a contagious beauty that captures people's attention and draws them to the joys of a certain activity. Many people remember a teacher they had who inspired them to serve the world in some specific way. It is this passion that grows through struggle and triumph that enables people to serve the world in love and bring out more of its beauty.
People develop passion and thus develop their own intellectual, spiritual, and physical gifts that serve humanity and all creation. It is important that people share this beauty with others, because beauty brings forth life in people and inspires them to want better for their own lives. However, it can be scary to share beauty with others as they may not respond in ways that we would like. Others can reject our gifts, be fearful of our conclusions, laugh at our worldview, or tell us that there is no place for us, either explicitly through word and symbol, or implicitly through their indifference to our life. We can also be tempted to stay in echo boxes, where we interact only with people who see beauty in the same ways we do. This is also a danger we have to avoid, as it closes off to the challenge of the other.
In intimacy, the other challenges us with her own experience and makes us engage the world in a different way. However, to truly see the beauty of the other, we must understand our selves in order to engage the experience of the other. We must know why we think what we do, and how that affects others. We have to know the beautiful and the ugly things about ourselves. As painful as self-examination is, it helps us to engage the other in love and mercy. However, our introspection cannot simply be an end in itself, where people reflect, think they find God, and then never seek any thing or anyone else as having something different and merciful to contribute to seeking beauty. Self-reflection must enable one to be critical without being destructive, otherwise we bring forth the ugly.
A brief point must be made about the ugly. The ugly is also transcendental, but not in the same way beauty is. Beauty is apparent in many things and has many causes. The ugly is also apparent through evil, malice, neglect, omission, etc, but the causes of the ugly are more poignant. The ugly is caused by self-hatred and sins in reaction to self-hatred. Every person has parts about themselves they don't like. All those imperfections, faults, anxieties can add up and be a heavy burden. Self-hatred has three main effects during introspection: self-harm, narcissism, and violence against the other. These effects are not mutually exclusive, but different persons tend toward different consequences of self-hatred. However, all of these consequences harm the common good and hinder people from seeing beauty. Self-hatred is the main contributor to the hindrance of seeing beauty in the world on a macro scale as it causes destruction, and on a micro scale self-hatred hinders vulnerability and discourages the sharing of beauty amongst people.
So to enable beauty to flow like a Spirit, we must stop destructive self-hatred. This is only possible as a community of people who love and serve each other. Communities of friends can gather together and share their lives with each others, and help people to grow in love, service, and mercy. Our friends build us up and help us share beauty together. Sharing is scary, because people change over time and may not like what we have to offer anymore. Especially in age where talking is not seen as beautiful, but rather productivity, fideism, and works are what's valued by Church and society, then we have to work harder to build friendships where we are better people as a result.
Thinking about beauty has many consequences, but there's one in particular I want to emphasize closing this reflection. Sexuality becomes very important in thinking about beauty. Sexuality is one example of being able to share in the beauty of someone else. Ideally it's not a distanced view of beauty which may appreciate certain characteristics of a person from afar, but rather it's a close, personal sharing between people where the whole person is engaged, good and bad. This includes physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual sharing. In searching for beauty, all people are drawn to different others. The strength in our draw to the other is that we grow from our sharing. Even physical sharing between two people enables further love as it's ideally a mutual release of stress and the ugly for people as they engage in beauty. This great pleasure gives us a reminder that as much as we have structures, life patterns, things we have to do, rules, laws, etc, that in the end what matters is how we engage the beautiful and how we enable others to share in beauty. It is this Spirit of beauty which enriches life and gives strength to our days. We ask for a world where we can love and help others see their own beauty, and in response see the beauty of others' especially in the ways where they can help us grow in love and mercy. Please God may it be so on this day of Pentecost and always.
Aristocrates
Sunday, May 29, 2011
On Authority and Compassion
"Can't you spare a poor widow a pence for a piece of bread?"
A young rich businessman is there staring at her. He doesn't say a word. He proceeds to toss a quarter her way and walk away. He doesn't look at her, just tosses a quarter and walks away. The widow is happy yet feels unsatisfied at the same time. She can get her daily bread, yet she wanted the businessman to see her face, to see her suffering. She can't explain why she has this feeling. Happy, yet sad, able to eat, yet wanting relationship, wanting someone to see her as a real person.
We are all like the poor widow and the rich businessman. We all have suffering that we wish we could share with other people, and we are all like the rich businessman who wants to act with compassion, but not step outside his comfort zone to do so. It is understandable that it is hard to see suffering in front of us and be overwhelmed with what to do. To actually see a person suffering immensely, causes us discomfort. Some people rationalize the suffering of the widow. She made bad choices, she's addicted to alcohol, she didn't use her money responsibly. Others have a response like the businessman, give some money but don't think about her plight in any way. Look away, keep going, don't do anything uncomfortable. Finally, some people act with compassion and engage the widow in a conversation and treat her like a person, not someone to be afraid of. Some may ask, why isn't the response of giving money enough, why do I have to actually pay attention to the widow as well. To not pay attention to the widow is to allow suffering to perpetuate without looking at the structural problems which cause suffering (O'Connell, Compassion: Loving Our Neighbor in an Age of Globalization).
When we look at structures that perpetuate suffering, we have to examines structures themselves, how people run structures, and our role in a structure. Structures are a facet of any community. Every community builds a structure in order to govern its life. Therefore, structures have bottom lines because every community has a reason for its existence. A bottom line can be something as simple as x community will make y good to sell for profit, or x community will have z religious tenets and uphold them. These bottom lines provide purpose for the community. Structures enforce this purpose and help provide unity in the community.
All people want unity with others. This unity is a desirable cause which every person should want. If people don't want unity with others, then I would check if something else is going on with the person. However, we can value unity with our community over and against love of neighbor and allowing others to find unity with others. Every community also has people, who may or may not agree with the bottom line. Every person also has situations which may help or hinder their ability to see the bottom line as the elite presents it. A strong community is able to have people who have diverse opinions, diverse situations, and different needs, and yet still have the different needs met. A weak community, in times of trial, falls toward the center and its bottom line, and loses track of the people in the community.
So, what are the symptoms of a weak community? Isolationism, defensive tendencies, and an excluding of other people are symptoms of a weak community. Sadly, these are only the symptoms, they are often not the root cause of the weakening of community. The root cause is often hidden in the institution or embedded in the greater structures that govern many institutions. The root cause can be anything that plagues a structure. Poor finances, lack of staff, anger at other institutions, scandal, etc. Sometimes, practical things go wrong with a strong community, such as these things, yet in the best communities there is transparency and communication about the problems going on in the community. Transparency allows for people to see legitimate problems and work together as elite and participant to make a solution which helps the whole community. A lack of transparency causes secrecy, distrust, anger, and finally the dissolution of community.
This lack of transparency is extremely important to examine in the breakdown of community, because it affects our compassion and social justice relations with others. When we can be open with ourselves, and when structures can be open, then love can radiate from the community to those who are outside it. Also, the people in the structure benefit from openness and communication to keep bridges of trust in troubling times. However, this must be an open offer to all in the community, as even the outsider in the community can provide a lot of insight as to why things are happening in the community, and can bring the truth to light if things are hidden. Real compassion is needed to engage people in the community, even if they do not fit the bottom line of the community. However, though real compassion is hard, we cannot let our idolatry keep people out who may have valuable insight to offer for the growth of the community.
Now let's tie the knots of compassion to what I've noted about authority above. In order to heal the systemic brokenness that causes the widow to suffer, we need to reflect on how systems are causing the widow to suffer. Most often, systems seek to keep people out, because it's uncomfortable to engage real suffering. Also, in keeping people out, the bottom line stays "pure", as "pure" as any communal intention can be. (Postmodernism presents with any full communal assent to every truth of a community, and psychology teaches us a lot about brainwashing and how habits and rituals can create this brainwashing.) Therefore, systems can create a distance between people in and out of the community. The brokenness of relationship only carries further when looking to the outsiders of the community.
So who is the poor widow whom we must have responsibility for? It's the person who's suffering from an administration that won't talk to them. It's the person struggling with homework and stressing over exams. It's the person crying in the corner because her parents just died in a tragic accident. It's you and me, at points in our lives, when suffering befalls us, just or unjust, and "when we all need somebody to lean on". Part of living in community with others, and being community for others, greater than our associated bonds, is seeing that real people suffer real drama, and compassion is needed to heal this suffering. Our structures and communities are only good as they allow us to live that real compassion for others. When our structures discourage us from loving our neighbor in a real way, then we have to examine what has gone wrong in community.
So who is the rich businessman? All of us, when we ignore our neighbor and perpetuate structural injustice which harms the good of those in the community and outside it.
And how do we heal this suffering? Love. Love of God, and love of neighbor. It's a risk we all have to take though, as our structures continually tell us to focus on ourselves. Our religion teaches us to focus on our selves and our own sin, our government tells us we have to work for a living and continues to create a system where more and more of our resources go toward sustenance. Our answers are not in what we see as structures in our age. Our answers come from God, and being loving, and being neighborly, and finding the good structures which aid the common good. Please God may we be able to find structures which help the common good, and encourage love of all people.
Aristocrates
A young rich businessman is there staring at her. He doesn't say a word. He proceeds to toss a quarter her way and walk away. He doesn't look at her, just tosses a quarter and walks away. The widow is happy yet feels unsatisfied at the same time. She can get her daily bread, yet she wanted the businessman to see her face, to see her suffering. She can't explain why she has this feeling. Happy, yet sad, able to eat, yet wanting relationship, wanting someone to see her as a real person.
We are all like the poor widow and the rich businessman. We all have suffering that we wish we could share with other people, and we are all like the rich businessman who wants to act with compassion, but not step outside his comfort zone to do so. It is understandable that it is hard to see suffering in front of us and be overwhelmed with what to do. To actually see a person suffering immensely, causes us discomfort. Some people rationalize the suffering of the widow. She made bad choices, she's addicted to alcohol, she didn't use her money responsibly. Others have a response like the businessman, give some money but don't think about her plight in any way. Look away, keep going, don't do anything uncomfortable. Finally, some people act with compassion and engage the widow in a conversation and treat her like a person, not someone to be afraid of. Some may ask, why isn't the response of giving money enough, why do I have to actually pay attention to the widow as well. To not pay attention to the widow is to allow suffering to perpetuate without looking at the structural problems which cause suffering (O'Connell, Compassion: Loving Our Neighbor in an Age of Globalization).
When we look at structures that perpetuate suffering, we have to examines structures themselves, how people run structures, and our role in a structure. Structures are a facet of any community. Every community builds a structure in order to govern its life. Therefore, structures have bottom lines because every community has a reason for its existence. A bottom line can be something as simple as x community will make y good to sell for profit, or x community will have z religious tenets and uphold them. These bottom lines provide purpose for the community. Structures enforce this purpose and help provide unity in the community.
All people want unity with others. This unity is a desirable cause which every person should want. If people don't want unity with others, then I would check if something else is going on with the person. However, we can value unity with our community over and against love of neighbor and allowing others to find unity with others. Every community also has people, who may or may not agree with the bottom line. Every person also has situations which may help or hinder their ability to see the bottom line as the elite presents it. A strong community is able to have people who have diverse opinions, diverse situations, and different needs, and yet still have the different needs met. A weak community, in times of trial, falls toward the center and its bottom line, and loses track of the people in the community.
So, what are the symptoms of a weak community? Isolationism, defensive tendencies, and an excluding of other people are symptoms of a weak community. Sadly, these are only the symptoms, they are often not the root cause of the weakening of community. The root cause is often hidden in the institution or embedded in the greater structures that govern many institutions. The root cause can be anything that plagues a structure. Poor finances, lack of staff, anger at other institutions, scandal, etc. Sometimes, practical things go wrong with a strong community, such as these things, yet in the best communities there is transparency and communication about the problems going on in the community. Transparency allows for people to see legitimate problems and work together as elite and participant to make a solution which helps the whole community. A lack of transparency causes secrecy, distrust, anger, and finally the dissolution of community.
This lack of transparency is extremely important to examine in the breakdown of community, because it affects our compassion and social justice relations with others. When we can be open with ourselves, and when structures can be open, then love can radiate from the community to those who are outside it. Also, the people in the structure benefit from openness and communication to keep bridges of trust in troubling times. However, this must be an open offer to all in the community, as even the outsider in the community can provide a lot of insight as to why things are happening in the community, and can bring the truth to light if things are hidden. Real compassion is needed to engage people in the community, even if they do not fit the bottom line of the community. However, though real compassion is hard, we cannot let our idolatry keep people out who may have valuable insight to offer for the growth of the community.
Now let's tie the knots of compassion to what I've noted about authority above. In order to heal the systemic brokenness that causes the widow to suffer, we need to reflect on how systems are causing the widow to suffer. Most often, systems seek to keep people out, because it's uncomfortable to engage real suffering. Also, in keeping people out, the bottom line stays "pure", as "pure" as any communal intention can be. (Postmodernism presents with any full communal assent to every truth of a community, and psychology teaches us a lot about brainwashing and how habits and rituals can create this brainwashing.) Therefore, systems can create a distance between people in and out of the community. The brokenness of relationship only carries further when looking to the outsiders of the community.
So who is the poor widow whom we must have responsibility for? It's the person who's suffering from an administration that won't talk to them. It's the person struggling with homework and stressing over exams. It's the person crying in the corner because her parents just died in a tragic accident. It's you and me, at points in our lives, when suffering befalls us, just or unjust, and "when we all need somebody to lean on". Part of living in community with others, and being community for others, greater than our associated bonds, is seeing that real people suffer real drama, and compassion is needed to heal this suffering. Our structures and communities are only good as they allow us to live that real compassion for others. When our structures discourage us from loving our neighbor in a real way, then we have to examine what has gone wrong in community.
So who is the rich businessman? All of us, when we ignore our neighbor and perpetuate structural injustice which harms the good of those in the community and outside it.
And how do we heal this suffering? Love. Love of God, and love of neighbor. It's a risk we all have to take though, as our structures continually tell us to focus on ourselves. Our religion teaches us to focus on our selves and our own sin, our government tells us we have to work for a living and continues to create a system where more and more of our resources go toward sustenance. Our answers are not in what we see as structures in our age. Our answers come from God, and being loving, and being neighborly, and finding the good structures which aid the common good. Please God may we be able to find structures which help the common good, and encourage love of all people.
Aristocrates
Thursday, April 21, 2011
A Servant's Love
Attention: We have a blog special this week. :) Every day during the Triduum we will be posting reflections on the celebrations of Holy Week. (Well by we, I mean definitely me, and maybe my partner as well.) Today is Holy Thursday so I want to reflect on the main theme from the Gospel reading, the washing of feet.
The washing of feet in the ancient world would have been a disgusting task, something fit only for the slaves in a household. The ancient world did not have closed toe shoes, so walking around in desert sands would have made everyone's feet messy. The foot washing ritual in the Passion is very clean for the reality which would have probably occurred, washing sandy, dirty, icky feet. The washing of feet made have had the neurotic fear issues we often associate with a ritual like this today, but I would expect that to be a more modern phenomenon. Regardless, the image of the washing of feet is that it's an icky, disgusting ritual which doesn't make sense, and why would someone do that for anyone, ever.
The power of the gospel passage is that Jesus takes on this servant role. Jesus willingly washes the feet of his disciples, and even says this washing is necessary for being in the community (Jn 13:8). Jesus washes the feet of His disciples and then implores the disciples to do the same (Jn 13:12-15). The invitation to service creates a challenge. 1) If taken literally, I don't want to wash another icky person's feet, feet are gross. :P Also, most people probably don't know what to do when people offer to wash their feet. Some circles see this as part of a romantic gesture, which it can be, but it's not necessarily so. The real challenge with living out this commitment to wash other's feet literally is the comfort factor. It is a really odd gesture, even with a historical scope. However, I would theorize that given the proper understanding, it helps people recognize the specialness in each other, as one is offering to do a task which is humiliating for the sake of the other.
2) If taken as a call to service, this also creates difficulty, as the washing of feet is a very careful service. Feet are intricate, so many toes, and curves, and nerve endings (yeah I've thought too much on days where I walk a lot). Therefore, if feet are intricate, and washing feet is a careful service, then this means we need to give detailed attention to people with whom we interact. People have a lot of needs, and need a lot of care. As individuals, each of us has a lot of needs and desires which require care. The balance is service in any community is meeting the needs of all of the people involved. The biggest challenge this poses is that it requires real attention and real listening to others. Drama, trauma, joys, excitement, these are all things which reflect God's life through the experience of the Incarnation, and also are something we all experience. Interactions can create lasting effects of trust or disorder, depending on how open we are to the other. The strength in thinking about the washing of feet is that it promotes openness to the other, using an apparently awkward symbol to reflect God's love and life.
The washing of feet is an open call for us as members of the community to show a different kind of love to people. The question is, are we ready to answer that invitation?
The washing of feet in the ancient world would have been a disgusting task, something fit only for the slaves in a household. The ancient world did not have closed toe shoes, so walking around in desert sands would have made everyone's feet messy. The foot washing ritual in the Passion is very clean for the reality which would have probably occurred, washing sandy, dirty, icky feet. The washing of feet made have had the neurotic fear issues we often associate with a ritual like this today, but I would expect that to be a more modern phenomenon. Regardless, the image of the washing of feet is that it's an icky, disgusting ritual which doesn't make sense, and why would someone do that for anyone, ever.
The power of the gospel passage is that Jesus takes on this servant role. Jesus willingly washes the feet of his disciples, and even says this washing is necessary for being in the community (Jn 13:8). Jesus washes the feet of His disciples and then implores the disciples to do the same (Jn 13:12-15). The invitation to service creates a challenge. 1) If taken literally, I don't want to wash another icky person's feet, feet are gross. :P Also, most people probably don't know what to do when people offer to wash their feet. Some circles see this as part of a romantic gesture, which it can be, but it's not necessarily so. The real challenge with living out this commitment to wash other's feet literally is the comfort factor. It is a really odd gesture, even with a historical scope. However, I would theorize that given the proper understanding, it helps people recognize the specialness in each other, as one is offering to do a task which is humiliating for the sake of the other.
2) If taken as a call to service, this also creates difficulty, as the washing of feet is a very careful service. Feet are intricate, so many toes, and curves, and nerve endings (yeah I've thought too much on days where I walk a lot). Therefore, if feet are intricate, and washing feet is a careful service, then this means we need to give detailed attention to people with whom we interact. People have a lot of needs, and need a lot of care. As individuals, each of us has a lot of needs and desires which require care. The balance is service in any community is meeting the needs of all of the people involved. The biggest challenge this poses is that it requires real attention and real listening to others. Drama, trauma, joys, excitement, these are all things which reflect God's life through the experience of the Incarnation, and also are something we all experience. Interactions can create lasting effects of trust or disorder, depending on how open we are to the other. The strength in thinking about the washing of feet is that it promotes openness to the other, using an apparently awkward symbol to reflect God's love and life.
The washing of feet is an open call for us as members of the community to show a different kind of love to people. The question is, are we ready to answer that invitation?
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Something Beyond Our Wildest Imagination Part 1
Greetings and salutations earthlings,
Our fearless leader welcomes you to our opaque planet in the sky. We hope you will enjoy your stay here in a land filled with rainbows, lights, and joys, which all connect to the minds and hearts of others. When mercy and kindness is shown in this world, the light from that kindness extends into the sky, and the gratitude of others is formed as a in your culture it would be a transparency type thing, it looks laminated. The light gains a texture which makes the light shine brighter, because where mercy and gratitude meet is where kindness shines the brightest. We hope you enjoy your stay on our planet and bring your own light to our home world. Only then will our light continue to shine, and also our light will shine to your own world. :) Peace earthlings,
This sounds like a mystical and wonderful planet doesn't it? A place where mercy, love, and kindness are always efficacious, when mercy is done it fills the backdrop of the sky with splendid color which radiates through being. And then this mercy spreads to everyone, because all can see it. Sadly, kindness doesn't always radiate in being, sometimes it is snuffed out by community which seeks to oppress the other, and other times doing the right thing does not appear to be efficacious because it is painful. Our existence does not appear to have the mystical backdrop of the world described above, at least at the surface. But what if I were to say that our actions can have this efficacious quality for others. What if deep down all our actions affect the horizon we paint, not just for ourselves, but for others as well?
To examine this claim, we must reflect on existence and think about the decisions we make each day, nothing in particular, but just our decisions in general. But first, we need to think about the foundation, or lack of foundation, in the background of every decision we make. We must build a landscape before we can plant the flowers so to say. After we do these two things then in my next post we'll examine how this affects community living.
The foundation of being is difficult to examine because it is an opaque concept. These ideas are a mere reflection which can always be improved. Now metaphysics and phenomenology (2 philosophical disciplines) have moved away from the idea of onto-theology (e.g. the idea of God as Being) for various reasons (some of the philosophers are atheists and don't like the idea of God, others think this places limits on God, though this is a bit of an oversimplification.) The greatest difficulty comes in the latter concept, the idea of placing limits on God by naming God. This is a claim on how people attain knowledge through identification. By naming something, we gain some idea of what something is, (e.g. a bottle is something that holds water, someone's name gives us an image of a certain self/object person whom we have memories of.) However, in order to name something and identify it, there have to be other things which a particular thing is not. (e.g. a bottle is differentiated from the self/object being I see in existence.) A good exercise (which was performed in my Trinity class by Professor Kim Belcher), is to take any scene of being which is around you. When looking at it, pay close attention to the differentiation of things. Trees are not grass, grass is not pavement, and pavement is not the self/object being walking to her car. However, when all the things are taken away, and this is most clear in a nature setting, there is this no thing which tends to be defined as sky. This no thing is a horizon, something which we need to see in order to define anything else, because without a horizon beings blend into each other. Differentiation is impossible because the horizon is the ultimate backdrop which allows to see what things are not.
The foundation of being then is a horizon which extends and the differentiation of objects which I experience in life. Based on this foundation, I interact with being in various different ways. I touch, I feel (the first active, the second passive (as in the Latin word passio to be acted upon)), I smell, I talk, I see, etc. These interactions all have consequences for how one examines the backdrop of being. The paradox in thinking about this backdrop is that there appears to be one backdrop, one horizon, yet everyone seems to have a different view of the horizon (and in a purer sense everyone does unless there is interference, more on that in the next entry.) Also, our actions affect how others see the horizon of being, they affect the feelings of others and what their radar towers attract. We can make people more sensitive to their environments, or less so. However, on the horizon of all these decisions, and all things which appear before us is a no thing, a thing with no name, except the name of the unnameable, God. Without this horizon, things which should be just things become more, they invade our lives, and take us away from being love for others. Without a horizon, and foundation for being, things, selves, and object being all merge into something which it is not, these things become God. When these things become God, our backdrop starts to have darkness creep in, because these other things become more important than the nameless one, God, and the nameless thing, (in its richest form) love.
The alien in the introduction teaches us a strong lesson about the importance of a nameless backdrop inspired by people's actions. In its richest form, love must take on many different characteristics, because people receive, give, and need love in different ways. Thus love becomes nameless and matches the characteristic of God being nameless. But some will say, "Oh Aristocrates, you're using a label of God by naming God." And these people are correct, but we also have to examine what we are assuming by using the name God, and what we think about in using that label. Also, we have to examine how communities form because of things which they make/label/utilize as God. These communities are what form our images of God, and cause us to act for what someone believes is a particular cause for good. However, we must always keep the infinite horizon in the background and see God's presence not just in the infinite, but in all the things we name which come forth, and how they reflect the infinity of love, wonder, and awe. When community is built in this way, God's love will reflect on the horizon and shine in people's lives. When community is not built in this way (more on this next time), then pieces of God's love will appear, but darkness will also creep in and overshadow the denominative (the lack of naming, or unnaming) effort to bring humanity into infinity by knowing God and love.
The horizon is more than we can imagine in our own small sphere of being. The horizon is painted by one master painter who is one great mystery after another, but all who participate in the painting affect the horizon by the choices they make (namely in the love they show.) "If they'll know we are Christians by our love" then the love we show must match the goal of infinity. Only then can one build true community which peers beneath the surface and causes a deep encounter with being and the self deeper than the object being by which we see most persons. Stay tuned to our blog for the next installment of "Something Beyond Our Wildest Imagination"
Our fearless leader welcomes you to our opaque planet in the sky. We hope you will enjoy your stay here in a land filled with rainbows, lights, and joys, which all connect to the minds and hearts of others. When mercy and kindness is shown in this world, the light from that kindness extends into the sky, and the gratitude of others is formed as a in your culture it would be a transparency type thing, it looks laminated. The light gains a texture which makes the light shine brighter, because where mercy and gratitude meet is where kindness shines the brightest. We hope you enjoy your stay on our planet and bring your own light to our home world. Only then will our light continue to shine, and also our light will shine to your own world. :) Peace earthlings,
This sounds like a mystical and wonderful planet doesn't it? A place where mercy, love, and kindness are always efficacious, when mercy is done it fills the backdrop of the sky with splendid color which radiates through being. And then this mercy spreads to everyone, because all can see it. Sadly, kindness doesn't always radiate in being, sometimes it is snuffed out by community which seeks to oppress the other, and other times doing the right thing does not appear to be efficacious because it is painful. Our existence does not appear to have the mystical backdrop of the world described above, at least at the surface. But what if I were to say that our actions can have this efficacious quality for others. What if deep down all our actions affect the horizon we paint, not just for ourselves, but for others as well?
To examine this claim, we must reflect on existence and think about the decisions we make each day, nothing in particular, but just our decisions in general. But first, we need to think about the foundation, or lack of foundation, in the background of every decision we make. We must build a landscape before we can plant the flowers so to say. After we do these two things then in my next post we'll examine how this affects community living.
The foundation of being is difficult to examine because it is an opaque concept. These ideas are a mere reflection which can always be improved. Now metaphysics and phenomenology (2 philosophical disciplines) have moved away from the idea of onto-theology (e.g. the idea of God as Being) for various reasons (some of the philosophers are atheists and don't like the idea of God, others think this places limits on God, though this is a bit of an oversimplification.) The greatest difficulty comes in the latter concept, the idea of placing limits on God by naming God. This is a claim on how people attain knowledge through identification. By naming something, we gain some idea of what something is, (e.g. a bottle is something that holds water, someone's name gives us an image of a certain self/object person whom we have memories of.) However, in order to name something and identify it, there have to be other things which a particular thing is not. (e.g. a bottle is differentiated from the self/object being I see in existence.) A good exercise (which was performed in my Trinity class by Professor Kim Belcher), is to take any scene of being which is around you. When looking at it, pay close attention to the differentiation of things. Trees are not grass, grass is not pavement, and pavement is not the self/object being walking to her car. However, when all the things are taken away, and this is most clear in a nature setting, there is this no thing which tends to be defined as sky. This no thing is a horizon, something which we need to see in order to define anything else, because without a horizon beings blend into each other. Differentiation is impossible because the horizon is the ultimate backdrop which allows to see what things are not.
The foundation of being then is a horizon which extends and the differentiation of objects which I experience in life. Based on this foundation, I interact with being in various different ways. I touch, I feel (the first active, the second passive (as in the Latin word passio to be acted upon)), I smell, I talk, I see, etc. These interactions all have consequences for how one examines the backdrop of being. The paradox in thinking about this backdrop is that there appears to be one backdrop, one horizon, yet everyone seems to have a different view of the horizon (and in a purer sense everyone does unless there is interference, more on that in the next entry.) Also, our actions affect how others see the horizon of being, they affect the feelings of others and what their radar towers attract. We can make people more sensitive to their environments, or less so. However, on the horizon of all these decisions, and all things which appear before us is a no thing, a thing with no name, except the name of the unnameable, God. Without this horizon, things which should be just things become more, they invade our lives, and take us away from being love for others. Without a horizon, and foundation for being, things, selves, and object being all merge into something which it is not, these things become God. When these things become God, our backdrop starts to have darkness creep in, because these other things become more important than the nameless one, God, and the nameless thing, (in its richest form) love.
The alien in the introduction teaches us a strong lesson about the importance of a nameless backdrop inspired by people's actions. In its richest form, love must take on many different characteristics, because people receive, give, and need love in different ways. Thus love becomes nameless and matches the characteristic of God being nameless. But some will say, "Oh Aristocrates, you're using a label of God by naming God." And these people are correct, but we also have to examine what we are assuming by using the name God, and what we think about in using that label. Also, we have to examine how communities form because of things which they make/label/utilize as God. These communities are what form our images of God, and cause us to act for what someone believes is a particular cause for good. However, we must always keep the infinite horizon in the background and see God's presence not just in the infinite, but in all the things we name which come forth, and how they reflect the infinity of love, wonder, and awe. When community is built in this way, God's love will reflect on the horizon and shine in people's lives. When community is not built in this way (more on this next time), then pieces of God's love will appear, but darkness will also creep in and overshadow the denominative (the lack of naming, or unnaming) effort to bring humanity into infinity by knowing God and love.
The horizon is more than we can imagine in our own small sphere of being. The horizon is painted by one master painter who is one great mystery after another, but all who participate in the painting affect the horizon by the choices they make (namely in the love they show.) "If they'll know we are Christians by our love" then the love we show must match the goal of infinity. Only then can one build true community which peers beneath the surface and causes a deep encounter with being and the self deeper than the object being by which we see most persons. Stay tuned to our blog for the next installment of "Something Beyond Our Wildest Imagination"
Friday, August 6, 2010
Freestyle Lyric Poetry Thingy
Yo,
Today is a day where 3 line sentences with words we don't understand are for chumps seeking advanced degrees and those in the establishment (keeping in mind I'm seeking an advanced degree.) There will be no long sentences, no paragraphs, no form, just words that show reality, that present life and seek life to it's fullest. Here we go...
Sisters and brothers,
I'm here to tell a story today,
One of suffering and sorrow, joy and grace,
I'm here to tell about a world which bleeds.
It cries out for healing.
But none is to be found,
at least not as we appear to see.
Brothers and sisters
Power is everywhere,
and it seeks to corrupt life itself.
The world bleeds because of leaders and because of me
Because I don't respond to the world which bleeds.
Because I fall victim to power, and greed.
When we talk about evil,
we're not just talking about actions and deeds,
we're talking about our hearts
the pride, the anger, the greed,
these things which consume us and others,
It's not just the big bad world we have to fear,
it's those in power anywhere,
our politics, our TV, and even some religions
it's all those things we're supposed to trust.
Our communities which teach us these fears.
It's those in power who teach us to fear the BIG BAD OTHER
Those who look different,
Those who think different,
We should all be afraid, because they're not me
These others have opinions and feelings
But they're not to be considered by me,
Because I have the truth, I have reason,
I don't need the opinions of others.
Because what I have is objective
or at least that's what others tell me who claim it.
But racism, genocide, abortion, war,
This is why all these exist
because what's human is what someone else makes it
and those who don't fit die and suffer freely.
Even lesser things like teasing, bullying, and intimidation
stares, glazes, and screaming,
all happen because we don't listen
we talk because we're right, and fight because we're justified.
and is okay because our leaders tell us so.
In all this, where is the hope and grace
where is the love we feel and the joy we're told about
is it in ourselves or in our things
is it in believing the leadership and fighting blindly for them?
No, no it's not.
Hope and grace is in the love we have for ourselves
It's in the love we have for God.
And it's in the beautiful combination of the two.
Because many will claim God to justify their hate
but in the end, God cannot justify the hate,
because God sees through the hate
and raises it with love
raises it all in with love
raises it with a cross of giving love.
It is in this cross where we see the consequences of hate
We see people in fear drag innocence to crucifixion.
because of darkness and leaders infected by it,
and in response they affect the people
and this is what the story tells us.
So how do we deal with the intrinsic evil in the world
how do we give hope and love
does it start with ourselves, our leaders, and our large groups,
or does it start with me?
The question comes, "Can I love first?"
from a learned man, a Marion,
because that's where it starts
hope comes from me loving you and you loving me
and when this happy harmony comes
we can love the community which approaches
With this hope, we can engage the leaders
the leaders who spread fear and hate for the other
those not like me, or you, or we.
They build community by similarity and strawman
making human themselves and others not.
but we can build community different,
because we can model it on love of you and me
we can find God's happy harmony
and participate in life with God
This community of love, can appear in being,
can appear in what we see before us, if people choose,
if people choose hope and tolerance over fear and hate,
people can live in community.
People can really be people.
Because love is not about a feeling, or what a person is good at,
but rather something special about each person,
a uniqueness which cannot be repeated,
because every history is different,
which we need to respect,
because we can learn from difference,
about you but about me too,
and we can stop the intrinsic hate
we can stop the racism, genocide, war, abortion
manipulation, fear, malice, torture, and more
Though being is bleak, we have hope,
because though we see many examples of others and me failing,
there is always redemption beyond our control,
and a love which gives mercy,
which we can spread, and which we need to spread
because we can hoard it and keep God's love for ourselves,
or we can be that love for all to see.
We can separate love of God and neighbor,
or we can unite it,
and if united in the love I have for you,
then it becomes a sign for all,
of God's love for you and me.
And that's all sisters and brothers...
The reason for our hope is that we can always try again,
and we always have redemption.
Though things around us may seem angry, and fear related,
we can always love.
And that's it y'all, I'm out.
Aristocrates
Today is a day where 3 line sentences with words we don't understand are for chumps seeking advanced degrees and those in the establishment (keeping in mind I'm seeking an advanced degree.) There will be no long sentences, no paragraphs, no form, just words that show reality, that present life and seek life to it's fullest. Here we go...
Sisters and brothers,
I'm here to tell a story today,
One of suffering and sorrow, joy and grace,
I'm here to tell about a world which bleeds.
It cries out for healing.
But none is to be found,
at least not as we appear to see.
Brothers and sisters
Power is everywhere,
and it seeks to corrupt life itself.
The world bleeds because of leaders and because of me
Because I don't respond to the world which bleeds.
Because I fall victim to power, and greed.
When we talk about evil,
we're not just talking about actions and deeds,
we're talking about our hearts
the pride, the anger, the greed,
these things which consume us and others,
It's not just the big bad world we have to fear,
it's those in power anywhere,
our politics, our TV, and even some religions
it's all those things we're supposed to trust.
Our communities which teach us these fears.
It's those in power who teach us to fear the BIG BAD OTHER
Those who look different,
Those who think different,
We should all be afraid, because they're not me
These others have opinions and feelings
But they're not to be considered by me,
Because I have the truth, I have reason,
I don't need the opinions of others.
Because what I have is objective
or at least that's what others tell me who claim it.
But racism, genocide, abortion, war,
This is why all these exist
because what's human is what someone else makes it
and those who don't fit die and suffer freely.
Even lesser things like teasing, bullying, and intimidation
stares, glazes, and screaming,
all happen because we don't listen
we talk because we're right, and fight because we're justified.
and is okay because our leaders tell us so.
In all this, where is the hope and grace
where is the love we feel and the joy we're told about
is it in ourselves or in our things
is it in believing the leadership and fighting blindly for them?
No, no it's not.
Hope and grace is in the love we have for ourselves
It's in the love we have for God.
And it's in the beautiful combination of the two.
Because many will claim God to justify their hate
but in the end, God cannot justify the hate,
because God sees through the hate
and raises it with love
raises it all in with love
raises it with a cross of giving love.
It is in this cross where we see the consequences of hate
We see people in fear drag innocence to crucifixion.
because of darkness and leaders infected by it,
and in response they affect the people
and this is what the story tells us.
So how do we deal with the intrinsic evil in the world
how do we give hope and love
does it start with ourselves, our leaders, and our large groups,
or does it start with me?
The question comes, "Can I love first?"
from a learned man, a Marion,
because that's where it starts
hope comes from me loving you and you loving me
and when this happy harmony comes
we can love the community which approaches
With this hope, we can engage the leaders
the leaders who spread fear and hate for the other
those not like me, or you, or we.
They build community by similarity and strawman
making human themselves and others not.
but we can build community different,
because we can model it on love of you and me
we can find God's happy harmony
and participate in life with God
This community of love, can appear in being,
can appear in what we see before us, if people choose,
if people choose hope and tolerance over fear and hate,
people can live in community.
People can really be people.
Because love is not about a feeling, or what a person is good at,
but rather something special about each person,
a uniqueness which cannot be repeated,
because every history is different,
which we need to respect,
because we can learn from difference,
about you but about me too,
and we can stop the intrinsic hate
we can stop the racism, genocide, war, abortion
manipulation, fear, malice, torture, and more
Though being is bleak, we have hope,
because though we see many examples of others and me failing,
there is always redemption beyond our control,
and a love which gives mercy,
which we can spread, and which we need to spread
because we can hoard it and keep God's love for ourselves,
or we can be that love for all to see.
We can separate love of God and neighbor,
or we can unite it,
and if united in the love I have for you,
then it becomes a sign for all,
of God's love for you and me.
And that's all sisters and brothers...
The reason for our hope is that we can always try again,
and we always have redemption.
Though things around us may seem angry, and fear related,
we can always love.
And that's it y'all, I'm out.
Aristocrates
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Certainty vs. Assurance
Is it more important be know one exist, or to have one affirm you exist? The difference between the question exercises two different parts of the person. To know with certainty one exists engages an exercise of the mind, but to be assured of one's existence requires a body (Marion cites this as "flesh" in The Erotic Phenomenon from where the philosophical ideas originate.) Each exercise is important at different times in one's life, and times of joy, boredom, or fear will question our existence and why we're here at all. At these times, Descartes and Heidegger become useful case studies because they ask the essential questions of being. But this is not always a sufficient answer for existence questions. Because there are times that we ask something greater than whether we simply exist as a "thinking thing" (Descartes, Meditations). This meditation creates an isolated existence because it finds the existence of a self outside the self, or hidden inside the body in a surreal mind, which even at the end of the Meditations, it's extremely unclear what the mind looks like, though the essence of thinking is clear.
But sometimes human persons need more than this certainty. Sometimes we all need to have others affirm our existence as a good, as being loved by others. Without this affirmation (Marion cites this as "assurance"), life becomes lonely. The next question one must ask is whether certainty of existence is enough. Is it enough to live life alone, but be certain of one's existence? Common experience would tell us this answer is no. A life alone means that one is not assured in the good of their existence, and thus is not really loved. People who don't have love in their lives start losing themselves, others, and their mental certainty of their existence.
So the next step, is asking how to promote love in their lives? How can people find a love which satisfies them and also deal with the risk of not receiving love in return? This is Marion's best point so far in his work "The Erotic Phenomenon". He moves between two stages of love which are commonly seen in society. The first he labels "reciprocity" meaning a love which seeks exchange, doing things and interacting with the other but not stepping out of one's way unless it's either convenient at that moment, or there is an expected return in some way. This is a common way of relating with people, we see it in businesses, acquaintances, and many sectors of life. People are objects in this stage because people are useful but not really lovable. The second stage of love is the one which requires more risk, because this is the stage where one steps out, even if there is no person to love. A person in this stage becomes the lover, and starts to act in a manner which does not care about reciprocal action. The lover slowly finds a beloved and the beloved becomes a person (namely, the person becomes real, the person is always a person with certainty but the person does not seem a real person because in the first stage of love people are focused on what they can get out of the other person, and don't see the person behind when they are doing so.)
With a paraphrase of Marion's work (this is all Marion's idea if this post hasn't made it clear already), now let's apply this a bit. What do we phenomenologically see in being in response to this philosophy presented above? And also, what do we do in response?
The first thing which is noticeable is that there are so many friendships that never get out of the first stage of love. Culture and society does a lot to encourage this first stage of love, because there are bar scenes, dance clubs, movie theaters, sports games, etc. where people can meet each other in a social setting. In a large group setting, it's hard to get to know a real person, all one can see is maybe, "I have fun with this person, this person does x and y and z, which is fun." But do we know the other real person besides I have fun with this person? At this stage, one cannot say that; however, most people do not move out of this stage, even in their most intimate relationships, and we see this based on what happens when people are a little different.
When there are those people who do not like the massive social setting, and begin to ask people about themselves and what they think about life, it ruffles feathers. Most people do not want to engage the deeper questions of life because it can cause anxiety and challenge people's beliefs. But real love grows from intimate conversation, because that is where a real person becomes apparent. Until there is real conversation, then love cannot form at least in the sense of having a deep, personal love. Hanging out in a social setting is easy for many people, and it creates a social atmosphere where a lot of people can have fun in a short amount of time, but these times do not last, when the burdens of life come and one needs someone who is really there for them, the friends you have fun with at massive parties tend not to be the ones to whom you go if there are difficulties. (Unless you've gone outside the massive social group setting.)
However, the difficulty in this thinking comes with how society seems. Many people do not see not having this deeper love as a problem. Many people don't see the difficulty in not having real people in their lives. This causes difficulties for people who want that deeper love because they have to navigate a market of people in order to find the kind of deep friendship they want, whom many just want for the sake of their talents and not their person. In doing this, there is a serious risk of emotional damage for people who are sensitive to being treated as something different than a person. So what's the joy of risking oneself in love when there are so many emotional hazards and an overall culture who does not want love. Eventually, when one finds that love, they find a treasure they can cherish, especially when one finds the stability of a real love. To get there though, one has to take the risk and become "a lover" (Marion). Without this risk from any individual person, our world (I'm including Church and secular society, this is a problem in both) does not find that real love, and the best example of that real love is the witness of Christ.
But sometimes human persons need more than this certainty. Sometimes we all need to have others affirm our existence as a good, as being loved by others. Without this affirmation (Marion cites this as "assurance"), life becomes lonely. The next question one must ask is whether certainty of existence is enough. Is it enough to live life alone, but be certain of one's existence? Common experience would tell us this answer is no. A life alone means that one is not assured in the good of their existence, and thus is not really loved. People who don't have love in their lives start losing themselves, others, and their mental certainty of their existence.
So the next step, is asking how to promote love in their lives? How can people find a love which satisfies them and also deal with the risk of not receiving love in return? This is Marion's best point so far in his work "The Erotic Phenomenon". He moves between two stages of love which are commonly seen in society. The first he labels "reciprocity" meaning a love which seeks exchange, doing things and interacting with the other but not stepping out of one's way unless it's either convenient at that moment, or there is an expected return in some way. This is a common way of relating with people, we see it in businesses, acquaintances, and many sectors of life. People are objects in this stage because people are useful but not really lovable. The second stage of love is the one which requires more risk, because this is the stage where one steps out, even if there is no person to love. A person in this stage becomes the lover, and starts to act in a manner which does not care about reciprocal action. The lover slowly finds a beloved and the beloved becomes a person (namely, the person becomes real, the person is always a person with certainty but the person does not seem a real person because in the first stage of love people are focused on what they can get out of the other person, and don't see the person behind when they are doing so.)
With a paraphrase of Marion's work (this is all Marion's idea if this post hasn't made it clear already), now let's apply this a bit. What do we phenomenologically see in being in response to this philosophy presented above? And also, what do we do in response?
The first thing which is noticeable is that there are so many friendships that never get out of the first stage of love. Culture and society does a lot to encourage this first stage of love, because there are bar scenes, dance clubs, movie theaters, sports games, etc. where people can meet each other in a social setting. In a large group setting, it's hard to get to know a real person, all one can see is maybe, "I have fun with this person, this person does x and y and z, which is fun." But do we know the other real person besides I have fun with this person? At this stage, one cannot say that; however, most people do not move out of this stage, even in their most intimate relationships, and we see this based on what happens when people are a little different.
When there are those people who do not like the massive social setting, and begin to ask people about themselves and what they think about life, it ruffles feathers. Most people do not want to engage the deeper questions of life because it can cause anxiety and challenge people's beliefs. But real love grows from intimate conversation, because that is where a real person becomes apparent. Until there is real conversation, then love cannot form at least in the sense of having a deep, personal love. Hanging out in a social setting is easy for many people, and it creates a social atmosphere where a lot of people can have fun in a short amount of time, but these times do not last, when the burdens of life come and one needs someone who is really there for them, the friends you have fun with at massive parties tend not to be the ones to whom you go if there are difficulties. (Unless you've gone outside the massive social group setting.)
However, the difficulty in this thinking comes with how society seems. Many people do not see not having this deeper love as a problem. Many people don't see the difficulty in not having real people in their lives. This causes difficulties for people who want that deeper love because they have to navigate a market of people in order to find the kind of deep friendship they want, whom many just want for the sake of their talents and not their person. In doing this, there is a serious risk of emotional damage for people who are sensitive to being treated as something different than a person. So what's the joy of risking oneself in love when there are so many emotional hazards and an overall culture who does not want love. Eventually, when one finds that love, they find a treasure they can cherish, especially when one finds the stability of a real love. To get there though, one has to take the risk and become "a lover" (Marion). Without this risk from any individual person, our world (I'm including Church and secular society, this is a problem in both) does not find that real love, and the best example of that real love is the witness of Christ.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Fake Love, Love, and Really Real Love, Is there a difference?
Hello Readers, Friends and Followers of our Blog,
Greetings to everyone. Again, life kind of ate me for a while and my ideas weren't flowing as I would like so blog entries were few and far between. (I did for the record enjoy epic amounts of Final Fantasy XIII and Borderlands (registered trademarks for respective companies, SquareEnix and Gearbox Software). My idea for today is a trial idea which I'm working through so if the blog entry is a little less clear than normal it means I'm thinking through this idea as I'm typing it.
Today I want to talk about one of my favorite topics, love. I also want to discuss how love is implemented in relationships and explore some phenomenon which caught my fancy and I hope it arouses some sort of discussion because it's a topic I care about a lot.
Love is a funny thing because it appears to manifest itself in many different ways in many different relationships, and all claim that love is present. To parse through what love is there must be some criteria. The best criteria I have read for love is that it does not use people. This includes use for physical things and emotional use. (taken from Love and Responsibility.) These two forms of use negate love because they degrade the gift of a person as a gift in themselves and make a person an object for something else. (An example of this would be using a person to get help from homework and then showing no interest or care for that person in response.) This is what I like to call fake love because you love what a person does for you but do not love the person.
Next, I want to discuss love. Love is a funny thing because there are loves which can look like love but it is not really real. But at the same time, there is some semblance of love so for purposes of this blog entry I'll call it simply love. There are two examples of this which I have found in my own experience. First, is when people love others and are supportive of them, but inside they want the other person to think like them. Even if one is to say that people want conversion because people will be most happy (which is a debatable but unarguable point because what one person finds as most happy will not necessarily be true for another person.) This is common in faith circles where friends are supportive of others, but inside people secretly want conversion to their particular version of faith because there is the altruistic ideal of happiness for the other person (so it cannot be fake love) but it's not really real because it's all based on one person's image of God in this situation. (Though fake support and friendship can happen in many other ways but these tend to fall into the category of fake love.)
Another example of this kind of love is in friendships where one party values another person as a means of valuing God and the other person is seen to have value only as much as that person brings them closer to God. Now this seems weird, but let's follow this idea for a second. It's an odd idea because God is seen as infinite love (infinite everything by definition). If God is infinite love, then love for God should extend to people. However, the difficulty comes when love is impersonal in this kind of relationship. When God is seen as everything, the beautiful qualities of the person (given by God) can become skewed in an amorphous vision. Now this leads to complications because this looks like love, matter of fact it can appear to function like love, but it is not the fullness of love. Love must value people as they are, and people can be a means to an end, even in finding God. But again, the intent of love is there, it is about valuing someone for seeing God-like qualities in people. However, it is not personal because it is about the qualities of a person which remind a person of God, and is not about the person.
So this brings me to really real love. Really real love is something which occurs when one sees the beauty of another person, for being another person. Real love can have as one of its components bringing people closer to God, but it is about valuing the other person. Valuing another person is recognizing their own unique gifts and loving people in spite of their failings. However, the love of another person is something which must go deeper than the gifts one has. Really real love penetrates being itself because it is something which changes both people just by existing. It is really personal, it has feelings, and it seeks the best for both persons. Feelings are not something to be ignored because they are an impediment to truth, rather feelings are something which must be examined, even if they go overboard for a while (because meeting and growing with love is an exciting reality and causes excitement which can be too extreme.) but one cannot know that without having the feeling of exuberance. People can still make decisions even with crazy feelings, and that is part of discerning love.
Love is important because it is what empowers all our lives, and a lack of love is destructive for all being because the sufferings of one person affect the many. To heal being we need this love, we need to grow in really real love for others so we can value the person for being a person and help people grow in life. Though there are many apparitions to really real love, which can have fruit and can have some parts of love, the fullness of love is only possible when people can participate in relationships of really real love.
Greetings to everyone. Again, life kind of ate me for a while and my ideas weren't flowing as I would like so blog entries were few and far between. (I did for the record enjoy epic amounts of Final Fantasy XIII and Borderlands (registered trademarks for respective companies, SquareEnix and Gearbox Software). My idea for today is a trial idea which I'm working through so if the blog entry is a little less clear than normal it means I'm thinking through this idea as I'm typing it.
Today I want to talk about one of my favorite topics, love. I also want to discuss how love is implemented in relationships and explore some phenomenon which caught my fancy and I hope it arouses some sort of discussion because it's a topic I care about a lot.
Love is a funny thing because it appears to manifest itself in many different ways in many different relationships, and all claim that love is present. To parse through what love is there must be some criteria. The best criteria I have read for love is that it does not use people. This includes use for physical things and emotional use. (taken from Love and Responsibility.) These two forms of use negate love because they degrade the gift of a person as a gift in themselves and make a person an object for something else. (An example of this would be using a person to get help from homework and then showing no interest or care for that person in response.) This is what I like to call fake love because you love what a person does for you but do not love the person.
Next, I want to discuss love. Love is a funny thing because there are loves which can look like love but it is not really real. But at the same time, there is some semblance of love so for purposes of this blog entry I'll call it simply love. There are two examples of this which I have found in my own experience. First, is when people love others and are supportive of them, but inside they want the other person to think like them. Even if one is to say that people want conversion because people will be most happy (which is a debatable but unarguable point because what one person finds as most happy will not necessarily be true for another person.) This is common in faith circles where friends are supportive of others, but inside people secretly want conversion to their particular version of faith because there is the altruistic ideal of happiness for the other person (so it cannot be fake love) but it's not really real because it's all based on one person's image of God in this situation. (Though fake support and friendship can happen in many other ways but these tend to fall into the category of fake love.)
Another example of this kind of love is in friendships where one party values another person as a means of valuing God and the other person is seen to have value only as much as that person brings them closer to God. Now this seems weird, but let's follow this idea for a second. It's an odd idea because God is seen as infinite love (infinite everything by definition). If God is infinite love, then love for God should extend to people. However, the difficulty comes when love is impersonal in this kind of relationship. When God is seen as everything, the beautiful qualities of the person (given by God) can become skewed in an amorphous vision. Now this leads to complications because this looks like love, matter of fact it can appear to function like love, but it is not the fullness of love. Love must value people as they are, and people can be a means to an end, even in finding God. But again, the intent of love is there, it is about valuing someone for seeing God-like qualities in people. However, it is not personal because it is about the qualities of a person which remind a person of God, and is not about the person.
So this brings me to really real love. Really real love is something which occurs when one sees the beauty of another person, for being another person. Real love can have as one of its components bringing people closer to God, but it is about valuing the other person. Valuing another person is recognizing their own unique gifts and loving people in spite of their failings. However, the love of another person is something which must go deeper than the gifts one has. Really real love penetrates being itself because it is something which changes both people just by existing. It is really personal, it has feelings, and it seeks the best for both persons. Feelings are not something to be ignored because they are an impediment to truth, rather feelings are something which must be examined, even if they go overboard for a while (because meeting and growing with love is an exciting reality and causes excitement which can be too extreme.) but one cannot know that without having the feeling of exuberance. People can still make decisions even with crazy feelings, and that is part of discerning love.
Love is important because it is what empowers all our lives, and a lack of love is destructive for all being because the sufferings of one person affect the many. To heal being we need this love, we need to grow in really real love for others so we can value the person for being a person and help people grow in life. Though there are many apparitions to really real love, which can have fruit and can have some parts of love, the fullness of love is only possible when people can participate in relationships of really real love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)