In my last post I discussed the problems related to automobiles and urban environments and maintained that it was a tension caused by space. City life requires densities and cars need immense amounts of space to move and function efficiently, effectively putting the two at odds with each other. This is the first problem of automobiles in urban places - cars require space to function. The second space issue that cars raise is probably more complex and also incredibly more difficult to solve. It is the physical space that the car itself takes up. Cities of course need densities to function well but, of course, everything takes up space. Your body, for example, requires space that could be put to use in other ways (think bedroom space and places to sit.) Now of course if we got rid of all of the people and the space their bodies require we wouldn't have a city anymore - this points out that the tension between space and density in city is not a matter of density good - space bad but in reality a proper balance between the two. Cars, it is my opinion distort this balance.
Of course all objects take up space, but since in good city design space is at a premium priority needs to be assigned to those objects or activities that make the best use of the space. This is primarily where cars fail. Your average commuter drives his car to work and then parks it and walks to the office and the car sits there and performs no useful function for the rest of the day until the worker uses it to get back home. This means that the thousands of cars being used everyday take up space and are providing no useful function in the space they are taking up. They are just sitting there. This is the huge problem every city has to provide for thousands of cars by using space that could be put to more useful functions like offices and homes as well as other functions.
Like the space required by roads to allow cars to efficiently function, this space required by cars increases the distances required to get to separate functions within a city hampering a primary benefit of living in a city. Mass transit in general doesn't have this problem (at least not to the same degree - nothing is used 100% of the time of course) because as soon as some people get done using it, it is available for others to use. This versatility makes mass transit a more efficient use of space.
Buses and trains however are not the only solution to the usage problem represented by cars. New York City, for instance makes extensive use of taxi's. This provides convenient personalized transit while at the same time allowing the taxi to be used by others once the original user no longer needs its services.
It should be noted though that this problem is not unique to cars but actually to all forms of private transportation. bikes, horses even Segways all will suffer the same space problems it is just a difference of degree (for example bikes are smaller then cars so the same affects that will appear with X number of cars might appear with 3X bikes.) In fact this is the main reason why mass transit should be preferred in dense city environments.
As a final note I would like to add again that cars are not total evil and they provide certain advantages that makes them a useful tool to have around and available. Private transportation is about the only feasible method to access rural and low density areas since public transportation requires significant densities to be useful. The ideas and thoughts presented in this argument are limited to certain specific instances and cannot necessarily be used in other situations (i.e. do not take this argument to far and draw conclusions that are not warranted by the points and truths elucidated here.)
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
The Event and The Moment
Note: At this busy time at the end of the school year and transitioning to summer I've been a little distracted from blogging, and honestly I've had some writers block so I've been trying to see if an experience will spark my writing. Well, one has, but that will come at a later entry. Today I want to talk about what it means to experience an event and how to find the central message or meaning in such an event.
To speak of an event, first one must think of a moment. In memory, certain moments in being stand out greater than others. How and what people remember is greatly affected by "factical life experience" (Heidegger, Phenomenology of Religious Life) because this experience builds patterns of memory and gaining knowledge. (Note: this is also a useful skill if one is attempting to think about how people gain more knowledge in their studies as well, by relating experiences to things which are familiar.) Every event is a moment of some sort, and the events which come to mind the easiest are going to be familiar moments which shape our lives. These can be good or bad events/moments and have good or bad effects, not necessarily in synchronization with each other. From bad events and come good results and good results can create bad events. (If this were not true any theory which tries to make good come from suffering would make no sense.)
One must distinguish the difference between event and moment before proceeding further. An event is an objective phenomenon which has more than one actor. A good example of this would be a conference, a first kiss, or a class (all of which, except for the kiss are more than one event even in itself.) These objective things point to reality and have a central message and meaning behind them, which is greater than the sum of their subjective parts. This is true because these events all cause moments to occur in one's memory. A moment is distinct from an event because it focuses more on the subjective interpretation of an event. In culture this is a popular sentiment when one hears, "I/we had a moment". There may be an objective thing which happened (the event) but the importance in the discussion is the subjective interpretation the person is giving in the phrase "we had a moment". (Note: I've found this is particularly popular in dating interpretation, stereotypically on the feminine side.) Also, event and moment must be parsed from "the occasion" (Kirkegaard (Johannes Climacus his pen name), Philosophical Fragments). Kirkegaard uses the occasion to refer to a specific opportunity to witness to a particular message (in the text namely about the teaching of the God.) This is distinct from the event because it focuses on the subjective person teaching, but it is not the same as a moment because it is not open-ended in its interpretation. The occasion always has a specific end goal in mind. (For Kirkegaard, namely the witness of God as the end goal.)
Parsing these words helps the observer to understand phenomena which exists in front of her. The objective event is something which has a central message which it wishes to convey to all people. A first kiss is a sign of future affection, not only is it a risky endeavor (because person a is trusting another person with an intimate side of himself, but also because it involves trust that the other person will not use person a.) but also a sign of great joy, a shared experience with another. To an objective onlooker, this kiss is just a kiss, a sign of affection, and probably something one would rather not see others doing in public, or walk in on accidentally. However, for the participants in the kiss, there is something much different going on in this event. The two people share a story, a series of moments together, which others cannot see unless their story is told (and even then I'd argue most people still would not understand the significance of the story because that requires time to understand the "factical life experience" of both persons (Heidegger, Phenomenology of Religious Life). The passion in the kiss comes from the shared life together, and this may or may not be known even to both participants at the time, especially because a first kiss tends to be an initial sign of affection, an invitation of sorts. This is where the growth for the future comes, because that event for the two people involved becomes a moment which grows and continues to get interpreted through time.
There are two good contemporary examples of which this mentality becomes extremely important in understanding interpretation. The first is when someone uses the phrase, "I'm preaching the Truth in love." The second is any ritual conference setting. These are two events which have objective happenings and subjective interpretations (even what people tend to call objective in these events is at least somewhat subjective, or group subjective, meaning a group of people are working toward a common interpretation (which the group wants to pose as objective.)
"Preaching the truth in love" is a phrase I've heard many times, from various people, in different walks of life. The general intent of this message is to say I want to preach the message of Jesus Christ but I'm not willing one's face off to do it. So in other words, there is no desire for a forced conversion. However, underneath the surface, this is still a subversive statement which is problematic in how one views the Gospel. To be clear, I believe the Resurrection is an objective happening, and as an event in history it has many interpretations from many people necessarily. (This is clear when one sees how many Christian denominations there are and the factions in each Christian denomination, and even seen in the lack of belief for most.) However, my own interpretation of the Resurrection is one which observes the objective happening (the event) and seeks to mold my life around the example of the Resurrected One. (And we are talking about Jesus Christ to be clear.) (Hilariously enough, this is similar to Kirkegaard's idea of the teaching of the God and how it is given to the rest of humanity through the God-man. (For more see Johannes Climacus). This critique is not in viewing a problem with the event, even so, "preaching the truth in love" is ambivalent at best, and at worst an ignorance of the witness of Jesus.
The reason the phrase "Preaching the truth in love" is so problematic is because it sets certain people apart from others because a supposedly objective interpretation of an event, in this case, the Resurrection event. However, this does two things, a) it assumes that the person saying this statement has the truth, and b) it assumes the person listening to whatever the person in a is saying has no truth in them at all because it needs to be given to them. This is more than a little Gnostic in its interpretation because people assume they have a secret knowledge which is given to them in making this statement, the only real difference is the belief that this knowledge is accessible to everyone. The only problem is that the interpretation given in "preaching the truth with love" is not accessible to everyone because the group subjective is given to people who have some form of similar experience. (particularly notable in the ritual conference or seminary setting) This language is used as a tool of empowerment because it gives people belief that they have the objective interpretation of the Resurrection event that they have to share with others.
What this does, however, is in effect negate real conversation. When one is told, or believes to "preach the truth in love" there is no need to listen to the other, because that person "has" the objective truth and interpretation of the Resurrection event, everything else can be seen as a lie, or demonic, or "of the world" (FOCUS, (Matthew Kelly, On the Single Life; Dr. Edward Sri, Don't Impose Your Morality on Me?, etc).
Citing FOCUS above moves to the second example where this interpretation of event and moment becomes important, and that is in the ritual conference setting. This setting is one which there is an objective event, and many objective events in that event, such as speeches and particular rituals. The important part of this examination is to think about when event becomes moment, when the objective moves to something more personal. In ritual studies, one attempts to determine how this happens in the ritual participants and what themes are coming across. However, in noting the difference between event and moment, there is a folly in my research, in that my interpretation of events comes from subjective experience, my opinions and thoughts, to come to a conclusion about a ritual event, and how it can possibly be interpreted by those who participate in the ritual. This possible interpretation is also the one which the leaders of the conference want to give to people, however, as I've argued above, there is nothing objective about what I say, or even what the leaders of the conference say, it is all based on our own interpretations of faith.
A step back will reveal the validity of this research and why it is necessary to examine event and moment so carefully. Any ritual conference setting has a mentality which is the group subjective. This is the consensus agreement given by the majority of the leaders as the message which is preached. When a message becomes the consensus agreement, it gains the appearance of the objective (especially when it is placed in the substratum of Tradition in Catholic circles.) In reality, however, this is simply the group subjective being placed as such. This makes interpretation difficult because one has to figure out how exactly one gets to an objective message which a ritual wants to proclaim (through verbal and non-verbal language.) Repetition becomes important to study in the ritual setting for this reason. What is repeated becomes objective to the subject who participates in the ritual (namely the repetition leads to a process of a certain idea becoming a objective given (such as something in logic puzzles), rather than something which must be examined throughout life, and maybe being a subjective given (which is fine because all people have values which are important, but when this interpretation is used to justify berading other people and "preaching the truth in love" then it becomes an issue). However, until one examines the group subjective and what is truly going on in that dynamic, one will never be able to ascertain the "objective" message they are trying to get across. (What exactly the ritual setting is trying to get across is up to individual discussion based on observance of each conference.)
One last point: it is important in the Catholic ritual conference setting (e.g. FOCUS) to determine whether the repetition given at conference is the same as the repetition given by Jesus. In "preaching the truth with love" it is also important to examine what is repeated because that tells an observer what is important to the subjective preacher about the Resurrection event. How one interprets this event, and the life of Jesus as a whole, is important in showing the validity of any ritual as authentically in the name of Jesus. Some of this gets down to imagery, and some of this gets down to textual analysis (which complicates things far more than my expertise can ascertain in this piece, or even in general.) but in the end, there are points which are repeated and this repetition is a source of critique for everyone's lives. However, the repeated points are different for many observers, and different observers emphasize different things. The objective message of Jesus then gets many subjective interpretations, so instead of seeing an event, one often sees a series of moments which are someone else's supposedly "objective" interpretation of an event.
The challenge in all this is to find an objective message which Jesus was trying to preach, which many historical-critical biblical scholars have attempted to do for hundreds of years. However, this is an impossible endeavor, because any information necessarily has an interpretive lens, because not all see an objective event the same way. And even looking at the group subjective does not help because the Bible presents the stories of many different groups and their strengths and difficulties in encountering Jesus and his mission. So in this case, there is no objective interpretation; however, this does not negate the message of Jesus. With any social commentator, there is always subjective influence, both on the part of the speaker, and of the interpreters. If one finds truth in the Resurrection event, one must always deal with the social commentary on Jesus, from both influences whom one likes, and whom one dislikes. To find what is important in the event of Jesus life, one must look at which moments come up consistently, and what themes are drawn from those moments. Then we must ask two questions, first, do the rituals in which we partake and observe match the repetitions and themes which Jesus does in his ministry? Finally, and most importantly, are our own lives in consistency with the repetitions and themes of Jesus and the entire Bible? These two questions really get to the importance of event and moment. Do our personal moments reflect the Resurrection event, if we claim to be Christian? Where do we as individuals, and as a people, fall short of our ritual repetitions matching the life of Jesus? Finally, what do we resolve to do about it if we do see the need for change? This can only be done if one understands objective events through the lens of subjective moments and by really listening to the lives of others. (Which in some respect is also an important repetition, Jesus as meeting people where they are at, accepting their good, and motivating them to do better.)
To speak of an event, first one must think of a moment. In memory, certain moments in being stand out greater than others. How and what people remember is greatly affected by "factical life experience" (Heidegger, Phenomenology of Religious Life) because this experience builds patterns of memory and gaining knowledge. (Note: this is also a useful skill if one is attempting to think about how people gain more knowledge in their studies as well, by relating experiences to things which are familiar.) Every event is a moment of some sort, and the events which come to mind the easiest are going to be familiar moments which shape our lives. These can be good or bad events/moments and have good or bad effects, not necessarily in synchronization with each other. From bad events and come good results and good results can create bad events. (If this were not true any theory which tries to make good come from suffering would make no sense.)
One must distinguish the difference between event and moment before proceeding further. An event is an objective phenomenon which has more than one actor. A good example of this would be a conference, a first kiss, or a class (all of which, except for the kiss are more than one event even in itself.) These objective things point to reality and have a central message and meaning behind them, which is greater than the sum of their subjective parts. This is true because these events all cause moments to occur in one's memory. A moment is distinct from an event because it focuses more on the subjective interpretation of an event. In culture this is a popular sentiment when one hears, "I/we had a moment". There may be an objective thing which happened (the event) but the importance in the discussion is the subjective interpretation the person is giving in the phrase "we had a moment". (Note: I've found this is particularly popular in dating interpretation, stereotypically on the feminine side.) Also, event and moment must be parsed from "the occasion" (Kirkegaard (Johannes Climacus his pen name), Philosophical Fragments). Kirkegaard uses the occasion to refer to a specific opportunity to witness to a particular message (in the text namely about the teaching of the God.) This is distinct from the event because it focuses on the subjective person teaching, but it is not the same as a moment because it is not open-ended in its interpretation. The occasion always has a specific end goal in mind. (For Kirkegaard, namely the witness of God as the end goal.)
Parsing these words helps the observer to understand phenomena which exists in front of her. The objective event is something which has a central message which it wishes to convey to all people. A first kiss is a sign of future affection, not only is it a risky endeavor (because person a is trusting another person with an intimate side of himself, but also because it involves trust that the other person will not use person a.) but also a sign of great joy, a shared experience with another. To an objective onlooker, this kiss is just a kiss, a sign of affection, and probably something one would rather not see others doing in public, or walk in on accidentally. However, for the participants in the kiss, there is something much different going on in this event. The two people share a story, a series of moments together, which others cannot see unless their story is told (and even then I'd argue most people still would not understand the significance of the story because that requires time to understand the "factical life experience" of both persons (Heidegger, Phenomenology of Religious Life). The passion in the kiss comes from the shared life together, and this may or may not be known even to both participants at the time, especially because a first kiss tends to be an initial sign of affection, an invitation of sorts. This is where the growth for the future comes, because that event for the two people involved becomes a moment which grows and continues to get interpreted through time.
There are two good contemporary examples of which this mentality becomes extremely important in understanding interpretation. The first is when someone uses the phrase, "I'm preaching the Truth in love." The second is any ritual conference setting. These are two events which have objective happenings and subjective interpretations (even what people tend to call objective in these events is at least somewhat subjective, or group subjective, meaning a group of people are working toward a common interpretation (which the group wants to pose as objective.)
"Preaching the truth in love" is a phrase I've heard many times, from various people, in different walks of life. The general intent of this message is to say I want to preach the message of Jesus Christ but I'm not willing one's face off to do it. So in other words, there is no desire for a forced conversion. However, underneath the surface, this is still a subversive statement which is problematic in how one views the Gospel. To be clear, I believe the Resurrection is an objective happening, and as an event in history it has many interpretations from many people necessarily. (This is clear when one sees how many Christian denominations there are and the factions in each Christian denomination, and even seen in the lack of belief for most.) However, my own interpretation of the Resurrection is one which observes the objective happening (the event) and seeks to mold my life around the example of the Resurrected One. (And we are talking about Jesus Christ to be clear.) (Hilariously enough, this is similar to Kirkegaard's idea of the teaching of the God and how it is given to the rest of humanity through the God-man. (For more see Johannes Climacus). This critique is not in viewing a problem with the event, even so, "preaching the truth in love" is ambivalent at best, and at worst an ignorance of the witness of Jesus.
The reason the phrase "Preaching the truth in love" is so problematic is because it sets certain people apart from others because a supposedly objective interpretation of an event, in this case, the Resurrection event. However, this does two things, a) it assumes that the person saying this statement has the truth, and b) it assumes the person listening to whatever the person in a is saying has no truth in them at all because it needs to be given to them. This is more than a little Gnostic in its interpretation because people assume they have a secret knowledge which is given to them in making this statement, the only real difference is the belief that this knowledge is accessible to everyone. The only problem is that the interpretation given in "preaching the truth with love" is not accessible to everyone because the group subjective is given to people who have some form of similar experience. (particularly notable in the ritual conference or seminary setting) This language is used as a tool of empowerment because it gives people belief that they have the objective interpretation of the Resurrection event that they have to share with others.
What this does, however, is in effect negate real conversation. When one is told, or believes to "preach the truth in love" there is no need to listen to the other, because that person "has" the objective truth and interpretation of the Resurrection event, everything else can be seen as a lie, or demonic, or "of the world" (FOCUS, (Matthew Kelly, On the Single Life; Dr. Edward Sri, Don't Impose Your Morality on Me?, etc).
Citing FOCUS above moves to the second example where this interpretation of event and moment becomes important, and that is in the ritual conference setting. This setting is one which there is an objective event, and many objective events in that event, such as speeches and particular rituals. The important part of this examination is to think about when event becomes moment, when the objective moves to something more personal. In ritual studies, one attempts to determine how this happens in the ritual participants and what themes are coming across. However, in noting the difference between event and moment, there is a folly in my research, in that my interpretation of events comes from subjective experience, my opinions and thoughts, to come to a conclusion about a ritual event, and how it can possibly be interpreted by those who participate in the ritual. This possible interpretation is also the one which the leaders of the conference want to give to people, however, as I've argued above, there is nothing objective about what I say, or even what the leaders of the conference say, it is all based on our own interpretations of faith.
A step back will reveal the validity of this research and why it is necessary to examine event and moment so carefully. Any ritual conference setting has a mentality which is the group subjective. This is the consensus agreement given by the majority of the leaders as the message which is preached. When a message becomes the consensus agreement, it gains the appearance of the objective (especially when it is placed in the substratum of Tradition in Catholic circles.) In reality, however, this is simply the group subjective being placed as such. This makes interpretation difficult because one has to figure out how exactly one gets to an objective message which a ritual wants to proclaim (through verbal and non-verbal language.) Repetition becomes important to study in the ritual setting for this reason. What is repeated becomes objective to the subject who participates in the ritual (namely the repetition leads to a process of a certain idea becoming a objective given (such as something in logic puzzles), rather than something which must be examined throughout life, and maybe being a subjective given (which is fine because all people have values which are important, but when this interpretation is used to justify berading other people and "preaching the truth in love" then it becomes an issue). However, until one examines the group subjective and what is truly going on in that dynamic, one will never be able to ascertain the "objective" message they are trying to get across. (What exactly the ritual setting is trying to get across is up to individual discussion based on observance of each conference.)
One last point: it is important in the Catholic ritual conference setting (e.g. FOCUS) to determine whether the repetition given at conference is the same as the repetition given by Jesus. In "preaching the truth with love" it is also important to examine what is repeated because that tells an observer what is important to the subjective preacher about the Resurrection event. How one interprets this event, and the life of Jesus as a whole, is important in showing the validity of any ritual as authentically in the name of Jesus. Some of this gets down to imagery, and some of this gets down to textual analysis (which complicates things far more than my expertise can ascertain in this piece, or even in general.) but in the end, there are points which are repeated and this repetition is a source of critique for everyone's lives. However, the repeated points are different for many observers, and different observers emphasize different things. The objective message of Jesus then gets many subjective interpretations, so instead of seeing an event, one often sees a series of moments which are someone else's supposedly "objective" interpretation of an event.
The challenge in all this is to find an objective message which Jesus was trying to preach, which many historical-critical biblical scholars have attempted to do for hundreds of years. However, this is an impossible endeavor, because any information necessarily has an interpretive lens, because not all see an objective event the same way. And even looking at the group subjective does not help because the Bible presents the stories of many different groups and their strengths and difficulties in encountering Jesus and his mission. So in this case, there is no objective interpretation; however, this does not negate the message of Jesus. With any social commentator, there is always subjective influence, both on the part of the speaker, and of the interpreters. If one finds truth in the Resurrection event, one must always deal with the social commentary on Jesus, from both influences whom one likes, and whom one dislikes. To find what is important in the event of Jesus life, one must look at which moments come up consistently, and what themes are drawn from those moments. Then we must ask two questions, first, do the rituals in which we partake and observe match the repetitions and themes which Jesus does in his ministry? Finally, and most importantly, are our own lives in consistency with the repetitions and themes of Jesus and the entire Bible? These two questions really get to the importance of event and moment. Do our personal moments reflect the Resurrection event, if we claim to be Christian? Where do we as individuals, and as a people, fall short of our ritual repetitions matching the life of Jesus? Finally, what do we resolve to do about it if we do see the need for change? This can only be done if one understands objective events through the lens of subjective moments and by really listening to the lives of others. (Which in some respect is also an important repetition, Jesus as meeting people where they are at, accepting their good, and motivating them to do better.)
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Album Review: Dusty in Memphis
I want to take a short look at what might be one of the oddest entries in the annuls of great rock albums. Upon first listen it doesn't sound in the least like a rock album, it's soulful at times (think Aretha Franklin) at other times poppy and always incredibly lush. It hardly fits a general conception of what a rock album is, and even after multiple listens it still doesn't sound like a record your typical rock fan would even want to have in their collection. Yet nonetheless VH1 and Rolling Stone both list the album as one of the top 100 rock and roll albums of all time so apparently there is consensus amongst claimed rock authority that "Dusty in Memphis" is a rock album, and a significant one at that. In lieu of my normal album review I want to investigate this phenomenon and hopefully this will lead into some insight as to what makes it a great work of music.
I'll admit that one of the reasons I am trying to review the album this ways is that I have only recently discovered the album and as such can not claim to have the listening time put into the album to go song by song, but in the last week I have been listening to it over and over again because I have become absolutely enamored with it so I wanted to bring some of that new found excitement into this review. It really wouldn't be a review of "Dusty in Memphis" without a look at the big song on the album, "Son of a Preacher Man." This was the big hit and its not very hard to see why, it slinks and grooves with the opening keyboard and then Dusty begins singing the song. Dusty's vocals carry this song and throughout the whole album. She manages to give the right tone to fit the character in the song she is singing, naive, insecure and yet jubilant. Even so she never belies her confidence that she knows she is in complete control of the song. She owns the music and as you listen to both "Preacher Man" and everything else on the album you are intimately aware that you are in the presence of a master.
But the voice alone can not carry the album. A weak choice of songs or flat arrangements could easily derail an album and diminish the power but "Dusty in Memphis" is full of gems from professional songwriters and the arrangements are all top notch. What is so amazing is that the producers and Dusty wisely use a wide range of musical styles resulting in an album that span the gamut from traditional and sixties pop to southern soul and bluesy rock. After "Preacher Man" her version of "The Windmills of Your Mind" is perhaps my favorite song on the album (so far) and in many ways I feel that the arrangement is what truly seals the deal. Starting at a crawl with a nightmarish swirl of strings "Windmills" slowly builds up to a quick paced guitar strum (almost Spanish or Greek sounding) and then the drums start up and the songs ascends into rock territory with an arrangement that sizzles. In some ways it encapsulates the sheer musical variety as the album as a whole.
So what makes this album a rock classic, in many ways I think it more closely fits the aesthetics of a rock album then the surface implies. Dusty's impassioned vocals, full of spirit and feeling, could be the match of Little Richard or Robert Plant. Wexler, Dowd and Mardin, the producers/engineers, daring arrangements and freewheeling style make one think of Beatles and the Beach Boys with their embrace of a myriad of genres all blended into a seamless and beautiful fit. So in a overarching sense, "Dusty in Memphis" can sit comfortably with "London Calling" and "Abbey Road" amongst rocks pantheon and its reserved place speaks to the inclusiveness of rock music in general. (Interestingly that brings up another discussion as to what sort of genre of music, if any, rock actually is, but that is for another post.) So as it seems "Dusty in Memphis" does deserve its accolades and hopefully this post will inspire you to look into this wonderful work of rock music!
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Why the Media Attacks on the Pope are Justified
Greetings readers,
An issue which is near and dear to my heart has come forth in the past weeks with the recent run of sex scandal revelations in Europe. The pope himself has been implicated as one who helped keep the abuses a secret from secular authorities by authorizing the movement of pedophile priests while he was in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. There have been two main responses to this crisis, one which is to defend the pope at all costs. The other is to attack the Pope without understanding how Church bureaucracy works. This opinion is neither and seeks to approach the manner from a different angle not looking so much at the actions themselves, but looking at the issue of how the Catholic Church is viewed in society. This is an important distinction to make because this affects the people's response to this crisis and does not look particularly at the victims, or give a victims perspective.
The best way to approach this justification is to examine how people who are defending the pope are doing so. People who seek to defend the pope are blaming the media for being on a witchhunt. The media is seen as a force who is trying to show mistakes which the pope made in his handling of the abuse crisis. The mentality exhibited by this group of people is that the pope cannot make a mistake because he is infallible in his decision making. (Note: there are problems with how infallibility is defined by this group as well, as infallibility has an extremely limited definition in Catholic theology, namely the teaching must be about faith and morals, and the teaching must be given ex cathedra (from the chair) explicitly.) If the pope is infallible in this more extreme category, then any perceived mistake is a threat to stability in the Catholic Church.
However, the definition of the Catholic Church in this way focuses on a specific model of ecclesiology (of the Church as Institution) (see Avery Dulles' book Models of the Church). This model of Church is focused on by the media because people in the Catholic Church focus on the pope more now than at any other time in history. The world of Catholicism is moved by the words of the pope, and everyone knows who the pope is. The words of the pope are move available for people to read than ever. This creates some sense of unity because people have the opportunity to read the pope's thoughts on any given topic, and the pope is able to make his opinion known on a grand scale.
In the current age of the Church, however, this creates a culture where dissent is not tolerated as well because everyone can see the pope's opinion. Vocal dissent from any bishop is not encouraged, and is heavily noticed. This occurs because of the perceived threats which many people in the Catholic Church feel toward the Church as a whole. Also, the increased exposure of the pope is an extremely important factor. When people entreat into a defensive stance, people turn toward the perceived center of the Church, in this case the pope and the magisterial teaching (e.g. the central teaching authority, the Vatican). When this happens any perceived attack against the center of the Church, rightly or wrongly, garners a strong reaction to demonize anyone who would say such things against the Church.
The reason the media attacks in this recent sex abuse crisis against the pope are justified for this reason. Because the Church as a whole, in the mainstream opinion, has centered on the pope and many people are willing to front this image of Church to the whole. Because the pope is placed as the center of the Church when anything goes wrong in the Church, the pope is the first person everyone blames. This is justified because people have built up this image of the pope and church and have accepted it as a part of faith. In essence, this crisis of authority is the fault of every person of faith (particularly, but not limited to the Catholic Church.) (Noting also there are dissenters from this view, but however, the people as a whole must take responsibility, because in some way all people are responsible for this crisis because of an unwillingness to point to Church teaching which shows a different direction.) People are at fault because people do not realize that they are the Church and not just the institutions (see Lumen Gentium chapter 2).
What is a possible solution to this crisis of authority? Avery Dulles in his book Models of the Church presents other models with which the Church can identify. Particularly he mentions the Church as communio, sacrament, herald, servant, and community of persons. (from Models of the Church). Each of these models presents a different solution to this problem because each model offers different focal points of the Church. For example, the Church as herald focuses on the proclaimed word of God as the uniting source of the community, while the Church as servant finds its strength in being willing to serve the needs of the world and "embrace the hopes, joys, and fears of real people (Gadium et Spes 1)." With any model, there are weaknesses as Dulles does well in his book, so a good solution to the crisis of authority in the Church is to have a balanced model of Church which takes into accounts the many models of the Church. However, in order to do this, one must take a reading of Vatican II and understand the discontinuity in discourse between what Vatican II imagines and what is lived in Church discourse today.
There is a warning, if more models of the Church are not embraced by the general public, attacks on the pope will continue because he will continue to be the perceived center, and people will be seen as lock-step with the pope. (In this light, bishops must also have their own authority to act in collegiality, to be able to have discussions about matters of discipline to see what is best for the Church.) (e.g. Richard Gaillardetz in his article Can I Disagree with Catholic Teaching highlights the different levels of teaching in the Catholic faith. There are four levels "definitive dogma, definitive (irreformable) doctrine, non-definitive doctrine," (the fourth is the lowest level and this highlights things which are done out of practicality or opinion though I forget the name of the particular level as I write this post.) Collegiality requires that bishops can discuss how certain disciplines affect their people to the universal Church. In the current model of Church which is heavily advocated, there is little collegiality because there can be no open disagreement. To solve this problem, one must realize that the world does not hate the Church as a whole, but in this case, people hate what has happened in the Church, and how it has not lived up to its image as Sacrament, in teaching which is proposed (e.g. teachings on sexuality.) (Side note: Rene Girard and his theory on sacrifice and scapegoating has to be balanced with this, because I do agree the work of Jesus as one which exposes the scapegoating mechanism in all societies, which is a threat to everyone, but this is the subject for another post.
In conclusion, as one examines the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, one must look at what the people as a community have to do with this crisis. Most people have nothing to do with the actual actions of the crisis, however, everyone has a responsibility to forgive, and also can examine how the Church has grown in centralized power recently. People have the ability to use power for the good of love, but also for the power of use, manipulation, and evil. Power in itself is not bad, but in this case, power was used and is still being used to hurt others. However, it is not just the people involved in the crimes who are to blame. By looking at ecclesiology (e.g. the Study of the Church), one can see how the model of Church which is heavily favored has an effect on how people respond to crisis. By favoring an institutional model of Church, people lean toward the center, the pope, for strength. However, in times of crisis, the pope is also the first one to get the blame when something happens, because people see the pope as the Church. Until the dominant model of ecclesiology changes, or better yet, people utilize an image of Church which balances many different models, then this problem will continue to happen in the Catholic Church.
However, this solution gives hope, because when the institution starts to lack credibility, people begin to explore new models, and examine the depth of what the Catholic Church is. This time of trouble can be one of great hope because it will spark creativity and love has the potential to permeate whatever structure exists (which of course in saying all of this, what is also affirmed from this methodology is the need for some form of leadership, because the Church as Institution is still a model, and thus a necessary one for ecclesiology.) And there can be no scapegoats in this model either, because everyone has a role in healing the wounds which are present, and everyone has the potential to be blamed as well. People have unlimited potential, and this potential is what allows humans to love. In love, will people match the example of the founder of the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ.
An issue which is near and dear to my heart has come forth in the past weeks with the recent run of sex scandal revelations in Europe. The pope himself has been implicated as one who helped keep the abuses a secret from secular authorities by authorizing the movement of pedophile priests while he was in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. There have been two main responses to this crisis, one which is to defend the pope at all costs. The other is to attack the Pope without understanding how Church bureaucracy works. This opinion is neither and seeks to approach the manner from a different angle not looking so much at the actions themselves, but looking at the issue of how the Catholic Church is viewed in society. This is an important distinction to make because this affects the people's response to this crisis and does not look particularly at the victims, or give a victims perspective.
The best way to approach this justification is to examine how people who are defending the pope are doing so. People who seek to defend the pope are blaming the media for being on a witchhunt. The media is seen as a force who is trying to show mistakes which the pope made in his handling of the abuse crisis. The mentality exhibited by this group of people is that the pope cannot make a mistake because he is infallible in his decision making. (Note: there are problems with how infallibility is defined by this group as well, as infallibility has an extremely limited definition in Catholic theology, namely the teaching must be about faith and morals, and the teaching must be given ex cathedra (from the chair) explicitly.) If the pope is infallible in this more extreme category, then any perceived mistake is a threat to stability in the Catholic Church.
However, the definition of the Catholic Church in this way focuses on a specific model of ecclesiology (of the Church as Institution) (see Avery Dulles' book Models of the Church). This model of Church is focused on by the media because people in the Catholic Church focus on the pope more now than at any other time in history. The world of Catholicism is moved by the words of the pope, and everyone knows who the pope is. The words of the pope are move available for people to read than ever. This creates some sense of unity because people have the opportunity to read the pope's thoughts on any given topic, and the pope is able to make his opinion known on a grand scale.
In the current age of the Church, however, this creates a culture where dissent is not tolerated as well because everyone can see the pope's opinion. Vocal dissent from any bishop is not encouraged, and is heavily noticed. This occurs because of the perceived threats which many people in the Catholic Church feel toward the Church as a whole. Also, the increased exposure of the pope is an extremely important factor. When people entreat into a defensive stance, people turn toward the perceived center of the Church, in this case the pope and the magisterial teaching (e.g. the central teaching authority, the Vatican). When this happens any perceived attack against the center of the Church, rightly or wrongly, garners a strong reaction to demonize anyone who would say such things against the Church.
The reason the media attacks in this recent sex abuse crisis against the pope are justified for this reason. Because the Church as a whole, in the mainstream opinion, has centered on the pope and many people are willing to front this image of Church to the whole. Because the pope is placed as the center of the Church when anything goes wrong in the Church, the pope is the first person everyone blames. This is justified because people have built up this image of the pope and church and have accepted it as a part of faith. In essence, this crisis of authority is the fault of every person of faith (particularly, but not limited to the Catholic Church.) (Noting also there are dissenters from this view, but however, the people as a whole must take responsibility, because in some way all people are responsible for this crisis because of an unwillingness to point to Church teaching which shows a different direction.) People are at fault because people do not realize that they are the Church and not just the institutions (see Lumen Gentium chapter 2).
What is a possible solution to this crisis of authority? Avery Dulles in his book Models of the Church presents other models with which the Church can identify. Particularly he mentions the Church as communio, sacrament, herald, servant, and community of persons. (from Models of the Church). Each of these models presents a different solution to this problem because each model offers different focal points of the Church. For example, the Church as herald focuses on the proclaimed word of God as the uniting source of the community, while the Church as servant finds its strength in being willing to serve the needs of the world and "embrace the hopes, joys, and fears of real people (Gadium et Spes 1)." With any model, there are weaknesses as Dulles does well in his book, so a good solution to the crisis of authority in the Church is to have a balanced model of Church which takes into accounts the many models of the Church. However, in order to do this, one must take a reading of Vatican II and understand the discontinuity in discourse between what Vatican II imagines and what is lived in Church discourse today.
There is a warning, if more models of the Church are not embraced by the general public, attacks on the pope will continue because he will continue to be the perceived center, and people will be seen as lock-step with the pope. (In this light, bishops must also have their own authority to act in collegiality, to be able to have discussions about matters of discipline to see what is best for the Church.) (e.g. Richard Gaillardetz in his article Can I Disagree with Catholic Teaching highlights the different levels of teaching in the Catholic faith. There are four levels "definitive dogma, definitive (irreformable) doctrine, non-definitive doctrine," (the fourth is the lowest level and this highlights things which are done out of practicality or opinion though I forget the name of the particular level as I write this post.) Collegiality requires that bishops can discuss how certain disciplines affect their people to the universal Church. In the current model of Church which is heavily advocated, there is little collegiality because there can be no open disagreement. To solve this problem, one must realize that the world does not hate the Church as a whole, but in this case, people hate what has happened in the Church, and how it has not lived up to its image as Sacrament, in teaching which is proposed (e.g. teachings on sexuality.) (Side note: Rene Girard and his theory on sacrifice and scapegoating has to be balanced with this, because I do agree the work of Jesus as one which exposes the scapegoating mechanism in all societies, which is a threat to everyone, but this is the subject for another post.
In conclusion, as one examines the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, one must look at what the people as a community have to do with this crisis. Most people have nothing to do with the actual actions of the crisis, however, everyone has a responsibility to forgive, and also can examine how the Church has grown in centralized power recently. People have the ability to use power for the good of love, but also for the power of use, manipulation, and evil. Power in itself is not bad, but in this case, power was used and is still being used to hurt others. However, it is not just the people involved in the crimes who are to blame. By looking at ecclesiology (e.g. the Study of the Church), one can see how the model of Church which is heavily favored has an effect on how people respond to crisis. By favoring an institutional model of Church, people lean toward the center, the pope, for strength. However, in times of crisis, the pope is also the first one to get the blame when something happens, because people see the pope as the Church. Until the dominant model of ecclesiology changes, or better yet, people utilize an image of Church which balances many different models, then this problem will continue to happen in the Catholic Church.
However, this solution gives hope, because when the institution starts to lack credibility, people begin to explore new models, and examine the depth of what the Catholic Church is. This time of trouble can be one of great hope because it will spark creativity and love has the potential to permeate whatever structure exists (which of course in saying all of this, what is also affirmed from this methodology is the need for some form of leadership, because the Church as Institution is still a model, and thus a necessary one for ecclesiology.) And there can be no scapegoats in this model either, because everyone has a role in healing the wounds which are present, and everyone has the potential to be blamed as well. People have unlimited potential, and this potential is what allows humans to love. In love, will people match the example of the founder of the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
What's Wrong with the Automobile Pt. 1
I'm going to start by proclaiming my sincerity that I do not hate cars. I love taking road trips and being on the open road. Cars have some amazing advantages to offer as a tool for us to use and to desire to get rid of them completely is rather silly. That being said, cars are not an absolute good they have negative qualities about them as well. In particular I want to focus on the incompatibility of cars in developed urban areas.
When I talk about urban areas I do not merely mean large cities like New York and L.A. Mid-size cities like Omaha or even small cities like Sioux Falls are included even if the effects are not as noticeable. Density is the measurement that truly matters (although population is not completely irrelevant).
Initially, it may seem that the problem with automobiles is emissions and exhaust and at the present that is a serious problem, but it is not what makes automobiles incompatible with urban areas. It is good to remember that in the last 40 years or so cars have become much more efficient and the emissions per car have been reduced (the number of cars has drastically multiplied which offsets the increase in efficiency). It seems likely therefore that as time goes by we will be able to continue to reduce car emissions and eventually move to a non-fossil fuel base and remove the emissions problem altogether, so emissions isn't the problem with cars.
The problem with cars is not a problem of emissions but a problem of space. Cities and urban areas work on principles of density and function best both economically and socially (not that these two aspects are completely distinct from each other) when the densities are high (It should be noted that "high" is not a particular number but is a relative value dependent upon the particularities of individual cities, and neighborhoods and districts within cities.). For discussions on why this is so look at Jane Jacobs The Death and Life of Great American Cities. High densities require a conservation of space and cars, by their nature, work against such a principle. Cars require space in two different senses. Cars are themselves large and tack up a certain amount of physical, but when cars are moving they require an additional amount of space to operate in safety like a personal bubble.
Lets deal with the moving space first. Cars are useful because they allow us to quickly get from one place to another very quickly. In a car I can get from Omaha to Denver in about 7 hours (okay 8 if you drive the speed limit, but come on). That is about 7 hours to cover a distance of 540 miles. Now quickly do the math, to cover 540 miles in 7 hours you have to go on average about 77 mph. Now to have a large metal and plastic object travel at 77 mph creates some obvious safety concerns. One needs to be able to keep the car in control while going at that speed and in order to do that, the road has to be designed in certain ways. Invariably all of these design attributes require space. Want to get rid of all the stops on the road, well build a freeway, but you need to take extra space along each road to construct ramps and bridges in order to remove traffic conflicts. Need to be able to make a 90 degree curve without slowing down, then you are going to need to increase the radius of the curve by a few hundred or thousand feet. Want to keep other cars from brushing up against you, well you might have to increase your lane width from 10 feet to 12 feet.
In the end all those extra feet and yards add up, and these extra feet are needed just to keep cars going safely at 40 or 45 mph. Look in your own city, any road that has a speed limit of 45 probably is either two lanes, has a median and a little bit of boulevard grass (between 10 and 20 feet) before the sidewalk. Or it is a two lane road with ditches, or other wide grass shoulder separating it from buildings and people. These adaptations are necessary to ensure the cars will be able to maintain the speeds it needs, get rid of all or even just a few of the aspects and the car has to slow down to 30 or 25 mph (think downtown areas). Now look at how far away some of those suburbs are and you realize that traveling at 25 mph would result in trips of an hour or more to get to the center of town assuming no congestion or extra stops.
It should be easy to see that for automobile travel to be useful (over long distances at least) you need to be moving at high speeds (4o and above), but to be able to travel at these high speeds you need to create roads with design features that take up lots of space. As urban areas require density and the conservation of space these two are at fundamental odds with each other. When I return to this topic I will look at the other space issue of cars, the far more problematic issue in regards to proper city development.
When I talk about urban areas I do not merely mean large cities like New York and L.A. Mid-size cities like Omaha or even small cities like Sioux Falls are included even if the effects are not as noticeable. Density is the measurement that truly matters (although population is not completely irrelevant).
Initially, it may seem that the problem with automobiles is emissions and exhaust and at the present that is a serious problem, but it is not what makes automobiles incompatible with urban areas. It is good to remember that in the last 40 years or so cars have become much more efficient and the emissions per car have been reduced (the number of cars has drastically multiplied which offsets the increase in efficiency). It seems likely therefore that as time goes by we will be able to continue to reduce car emissions and eventually move to a non-fossil fuel base and remove the emissions problem altogether, so emissions isn't the problem with cars.
The problem with cars is not a problem of emissions but a problem of space. Cities and urban areas work on principles of density and function best both economically and socially (not that these two aspects are completely distinct from each other) when the densities are high (It should be noted that "high" is not a particular number but is a relative value dependent upon the particularities of individual cities, and neighborhoods and districts within cities.). For discussions on why this is so look at Jane Jacobs The Death and Life of Great American Cities. High densities require a conservation of space and cars, by their nature, work against such a principle. Cars require space in two different senses. Cars are themselves large and tack up a certain amount of physical, but when cars are moving they require an additional amount of space to operate in safety like a personal bubble.
Lets deal with the moving space first. Cars are useful because they allow us to quickly get from one place to another very quickly. In a car I can get from Omaha to Denver in about 7 hours (okay 8 if you drive the speed limit, but come on). That is about 7 hours to cover a distance of 540 miles. Now quickly do the math, to cover 540 miles in 7 hours you have to go on average about 77 mph. Now to have a large metal and plastic object travel at 77 mph creates some obvious safety concerns. One needs to be able to keep the car in control while going at that speed and in order to do that, the road has to be designed in certain ways. Invariably all of these design attributes require space. Want to get rid of all the stops on the road, well build a freeway, but you need to take extra space along each road to construct ramps and bridges in order to remove traffic conflicts. Need to be able to make a 90 degree curve without slowing down, then you are going to need to increase the radius of the curve by a few hundred or thousand feet. Want to keep other cars from brushing up against you, well you might have to increase your lane width from 10 feet to 12 feet.
In the end all those extra feet and yards add up, and these extra feet are needed just to keep cars going safely at 40 or 45 mph. Look in your own city, any road that has a speed limit of 45 probably is either two lanes, has a median and a little bit of boulevard grass (between 10 and 20 feet) before the sidewalk. Or it is a two lane road with ditches, or other wide grass shoulder separating it from buildings and people. These adaptations are necessary to ensure the cars will be able to maintain the speeds it needs, get rid of all or even just a few of the aspects and the car has to slow down to 30 or 25 mph (think downtown areas). Now look at how far away some of those suburbs are and you realize that traveling at 25 mph would result in trips of an hour or more to get to the center of town assuming no congestion or extra stops.
It should be easy to see that for automobile travel to be useful (over long distances at least) you need to be moving at high speeds (4o and above), but to be able to travel at these high speeds you need to create roads with design features that take up lots of space. As urban areas require density and the conservation of space these two are at fundamental odds with each other. When I return to this topic I will look at the other space issue of cars, the far more problematic issue in regards to proper city development.
Monday, April 19, 2010
This is why we do it!
Perhaps Aristocrates will disagree, but surely he will recognize that I am being facetious and anyway I hope chicks do dig smarts or I might be in serious trouble!
[Edit: just click on the image to see the whole thing, apparently our layout does not support average sized comics]
[Edit: just click on the image to see the whole thing, apparently our layout does not support average sized comics]
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)