Social Revolution Part 1: Care, Control, and Flirting

Hello readers,

As today is September 11th I want to take a little bit to give a memorial for those who died on September 11th and since in the ensuing wars that have happened. I pray we learn many things from what happens when fear is utilized and how others are demonized through fear. And sadly, a few bad apples create havoc and fear for everyone. All we can do now is try to grow and seek peace even when people are not peaceable to us.

Control and fear is something I want to talk about today but I want to back up a couple steps and give a brief introduction to what I want to talk about in this entry. I want to explore more about three aspects of human relationships that often create significant tension for people trying to build friendships/relationships. Note: Most of this entry will be dealing with these questions in regards to relationships though the principles suggested can be applied to all relationships in general. Care, control, and flirting is named such because it is three responses people can have in response to people being nice to others. Of course we don't want to oversimplify too much because there are as many responses to others' care and compassion as there are people and situations that arise and people to react to others' behavior. Also, any one behavior can exhibit any level of all three intentions: care, control, and flirting. However, what I want to examine is our human tendency to assume a control or a flirting response in response to someone's kindness. (Minnesota Nice falls under a different category as that is social custom, I also want to limit my search to personal interactions, and while Minnesota Nice does affect social interactions, it does not affect the existential feeling of care, control, or flirting, except inasmuch as Minnesota Nice affects a subconscious. And while it does affect the subconscious a social construction can only do so much to determine behavior, givenness and an individual's BIS (Biological Incentive System) do the rest of the determining and then the rest is left up to individual choice.

So now that some of the nuance is accounted for let's give a scenario. A guy walks up a woman and comments that he likes her dress. The woman has three possible sets of responses that she can give. 1) She can act like he is caring and respond to his care. 2) She can think his comment is an attempt to control her behavior or get her to do something and respond to his control. 3) She can think he is flirting with her and respond in kind by either flirting or keeping him at a safe distance. Anyone have an answer to what the man's comment is? The correct answer is it's a trick question. In order to accurately determine whether he is caring, controlling, or flirting, you have to assess the man's behavior over a long period of time, and even then it may not be completely accurate in assessing whether the man has any one (or possibly a combination) of the three responses. However, in most social situations a comment like this one is going to be taken as one of the latter two responses, even though an honest discernment says it is really hard to tell what exactly the man is up to in this scenario.

Now why would a woman (or we can use a man receiving the same kind of comment) assume either a control or a flirting response? The best answer I've found is that there is a fear of the unknown in relationships because they are out of our control. This includes many different things such as what happens if I think about building a future (e.g. a friendship or relationship with a particular person), what happens if he/she likes me and I don't like her/him back? This fear creates an analysis that happens quickly in response to a given stimulus. And in a quick analysis, it's easier to come up with a control or a flirting response, partially because it's easier to respond to a control or a flirt response, and extremely difficult to respond to a care response, and if it's nuanced and multi-layered, it's even more difficult. And of course, discussing feelings is awkward because in society, men are only taught to have two feelings, and discussing feelings requires a level of vulnerability and trust on the part of both persons, so feelings do not always come to the fore right away, even if subconsciously our BIS is triggering feelings that motivate our actions toward a perceived reward. (e.g. sexual activity with someone we find attractive will trigger an orgasm which is a pleasant feeling.) The lack of discussion about feelings creates a game that forces the other to be vulnerable first as a back and forth game of both people trying to grab control in a relationship.

The game works something like this. Men are taught to build up courage to make "moves" on a particular woman, and the woman so as not to seem too easily obtained plays "hard to get". Now of course, this is not always the case, men can play hard to get and women can make moves as well, but what's listed above is the general tendency for relationship forming. (I also realize that homosexual relationships create a different nuance but some level of this mutual seeking and game-playing exists in forming these relationships as well. And dare I say, even in friendship as well, since we're taught to not appear too needy, even building non-sexual friendships has some level of game theory, even though it looks different (mostly not calling too much, etc.) Game theory goes on for a period of time until both people build a level of trust based on how well each person has played the game. Playing the game well involves giving adrenaline rushes and endorphin highs to the other through encounter, teasing, sparks, whatever you may, namely the sense of being romantic. Or in a non-sexual friendship it mostly occurs when one of the two friends breaks the game by showing brokenness. Showing brokenness changes the rules of the game and breaks the game because the masks of perfection come off, and the person is exposed for the friends to see. Yes, you can hide your self from yourself.

Next, we have to explore why it's advantageous to play a game. We've explored the psychological effect above, but I think there is also a possible biological effect to playing a game with others. I've mentioned BIS which is an incentive system which encourages people to do things which are pleasureable. People move toward those things which are pleasureable, or they move toward things which may lead to greater pleasure later even if there is some pain now. New relationship forming has some level of anxiety. A new person means new circumstances, feelings, and a new person to explore and engage. The unknown creates fun but also creates complications, especially when people trigger unknown buttons which unleash all sorts of uncontrolled feelings. But part of the exploration is the notoreity and adventure of meeting a new person which creates an adrenaline rush. The continued game of vulnerability back and forth also creates good feelings for the participants.

Again, I'm going to use stereotypes here and realize that the opposite can be true depending on circumstance. Say a woman likes being pursued by a man before she dates him. She doesn't like to submit easily to saying yes for a date. So most men back off before asking this particular woman out. She enjoys the conquest of overcoming a "weak" man by getting him to step aside. She gets a happy adrenaline rush by taking control of another person and utilizing emotion and circumstance to her advantage. This is a great feeling for her. The other feeling she enjoys is when a man continues to pursue her and eventually enough magic happens for her to submit sexually to him; however that looks. Biologically she also feels good when a man has given enough pursuit and has continued to "hunt" her. However, she has issues about 2-3 months into the relationship when she notices that he cannot fulfill her any longer. He starts to beat her and starts dating other women looking for more conquests. She wonders why this behavior continues in her relationships.

Though this is stereotyped, it gives some insight into the minefield of dating at college campuses and with young adults in general. Women that like being pursued (of course not all of them) are acting on biological impulse. If a man continues pursuit of a woman, she is going to get a man who is strong and can target prey. His physical aggression will be comforting because she'll feel protected, which in turn leads to an increase in sexual pleasure. The man who goes after a woman who is hard to get also gets a large adrenaline rush from finally capturing his target. (Again, this can and does work in reverse too, I just wanted to use the stereotype that people would be familiar with). In a sense, it's a playing out of primal instinct, if man can hunt and do enough to capture the target (in this scenario the woman), he'll keep the woman happy. However, this is a danger in relying only on a BIS, because the Biological Incentive System tends to be short-sighted, unless an individual has trained his/her goals to be higher. The short-sightedness comes when the woman realizes all she has captured is a man who can hunt and she'll quickly become boring. The man gets bored unless the woman performs or is forced into more extreme sexual positions (handcuffing, beating to inspire orgasm, etc.) (Again, can work in reverse too.) However, eventually the hunt ends, the masks come off and people have to engage their own lives and stories. Sometimes this "hunt" transfers over into a meaningful, compassionate relationship, but oftentimes it doesn't, because it no longer feels good for the participant(s) involved. When that happens, at best all one can have is a mutual break-up, unless it's a hook-up relationship which then presents it's own complications. This inevitably hurts both participants, and it's because both participants chose a game which feels good in the short term instead of caring about the other and asking about feelings in order to build a long-term care. The short term game creates a burst of good feeling, while the long-term build up feels good but it's slow and not necessarily the lose your mind drunk on feeling adreanline, endorphine, alcohol, caffeine, and whatever else goes into enhancing one's short term burst of sentiment.

The other issue with the game is that it makes any sort of care reflex impossible. Since care, control, and flirting look very similar, it's easier to think that someone is wanting to play the game and respond whether one wants to play the game or not. A care reflex is beyond most people's imaginations for two reasons, a) there isn't a whole lot of a care reflex for most people to begin with, and b) a care reflex is extremely nuanced so a person must be capable of nuance and communication in order to engage someone with a care reflex. Care also has to become a habit, which is hard because it can be discouraging to be a caring person, especially when many people assume a caring person's intention is either control or flirting.

Now to nuance this more, sometimes the game is needed for security, because people have been hurt by those who appeared to be caring, or they want some relief after a bad long term friendship/relationship break-up and want some semblance of control in their lives. These psychological needs must be met; however, in order for society to really change, we need to be a people that care less about control, and care more about caring for others. We have to be people that not only recognize the game but also work to do something about it, even if the game is an endemic cultural problem that teaches people to be focused only on short-term sentiment. (Which is another nuance I want to throw in, we all need short term intense sentiment in order to feel good and function. Depression happens when life becomes unstable and people are unable to count on others for support. Short bursts of feeling can keep people feeling and healthy, adrenaline rushes are a good thing, but what I want to argue against is building a relationship philosophy that seeks these rushes as ends in themselves, either in how much we control others or how well we can play games with other people to get them to do what we want.)

So to conclude, I want to leave with a few remarks about how we can build a society of more caring people.

1) Be a caring person. The habits of a caring person will eventually spread in reputation and people will know there is something different about person X. Be that person that asks how others are doing and try hard to remember things going on in different people's lives. Remembering that someone is in a Greek class she likes is something that can be a deeply caring intention (it can also be used in the game so intention is important as well.)

2) Know how your responses can be taken and be patient with others if they mistake or catch certain parts of other intentions. Flirting and control are not necessarily bad things and these intentions may come in certain actions. If you're walking with someone and you grab their arm because a car comes close you're taking control of the other person. Now this is also a caring response, and can be a flirting response that activates a "spark." However, the person is not going to know what one's intention is unless there is a habit of care and time spent with each other (which is another problem is that people don't want to invest time and intention in relationship, but that can be saved for another post/discussion, etc.) So people may react poorly, and it's partly the society we live in, partly the fears of someone being controlled or someone having unwanted feelings, and partly the awkwardness certain situations bring forth because of the unseen givenness of one or both persons. Part of being patient is talking honestly about one's feelings and engage what's going on with each person, in other words having a conversation and meeting/privileging the other where he/she is at.

3) Finally, talk. Talk about what you're feeling and encourage others to do the same. Build a friendship environment where people can be themselves and encourage an ethic of care. And if we take Jesus as an example, in the modern age a lot of his actions could be seen as controlling or flirting. Jesus did heal women and break social custom by actually talking to women (note he had women followers and John 4 where he talks to a Samaritan woman who have been a major social taboo for any Jew.) Jesus kept caring and talked about what society was like and how people engaged either other. In his teaching and healing, He remained open to the other. This openness to the other can only happen if we know our own feelings, especially if they're complicated. If we fear for someone we care about making poor choices, or if we like someone and care about them, these nuances are important to know for both people to think about and engage in friendship/relationship building to build an ethic of care for the common good.

This discussion is far from complete, though I will end it here for now. All I can really say is to try to love like God loves, privileging the other, listening, and caring, and in these actions, different habits will form and people will see difference. Also, we have to know the "signs of the times" and understand how relationships form and think about why are things happening the way they are. When we know our habits and know how society construes relationships, we can work to be the change we want to see. And also, we can't count on religion to help us in a lot of circles, because these same cycles of competition and hunting in relationship building occur, even though they look different and focus on purity and laughter, rather than a "hunt" persae, even though it is a hunt of sorts, because the end goal is the same of having some sort of relationship with the other. All we can really do to start is show why our faith must be about building a real care ethic and act in those ways that show care.

Peace,
Aristocrates

Gender Imagery and the Bar Scene

Hello Readers,

Yes, I did something out of character the past couple weeks and that was to go to the bar a few times during my vacation. A friend of mine and I joked about writing a paper about the bar scene and discussing relationship building and people's interactions in the bar. He suggested it as a way for me to earn money from the federal government and drink at the same time. However, as our time in the bar progressed we both thought about the bar scene a little more seriously and watched interactions. So to my friend, here is a thought process to start an idea for a paper and I hope to have more discussions about it soon.

To start, the main thesis for this paper is: the bar scene is a place of searching. However, the gender constructions promoted at the bar hinder people's searches for love and fulfillment. This thesis will emphasize an experiential and existential approach to prove these conclusions. My effort for this paper will be a mostly existential look as I am approaching this from a direction of philosophy and ethics associated with particular philosophies. The sociological data will have to wait until we can actually conduct a study, which is hard considering the inebriated condition most people find themselves at at the bar. Recognizing this lack, I hope to present an existential view utilizing my own experience and perceptions upon observation at the bar.

We need to understand the two objects of my thesis before continuing. First, gender constructions: these are ideas about the relationship and roles between male and female in response to phenomena (e.g. a certain environment that encourages x behavior.) Gender constructions can also be identified in close connection with social pressure as they often go hand-in-hand. Gender constructions also tend to favor one particular gender over the other dependent upon the leadership and subtle social cues. Second, searching: searching is usually utilized as a religious term emphasizing people's search for God in an existential sense. The term has a similar usage here but instead of emphasizing on God exclusively, searching refers to an existential search for something greater than oneself, particularly in seeking relationship with others. Different bar scenes will seek different kinds of relationships (namely hetero v. homosexual) but the search in going to a bar revolves around relationship to others.

Now that these two concepts are clear we need to build a gender construction of a bar. For purposes of this essay I'm going to stick to a heterosexual bar as that is where my experience has led me, but I would reckon to guess there might be some constants at homosexual bars. And yes, bars do get rumored as places for hetero and homosexual involvement so there is a socialized segregation enforced by mores, though there are no explicit rules in place. Gender construction can be seen in three main areas in an existential search. A) The dancing between "ritual" participants at the bar. (The word ritual is utilized on purpose here as there are particular patterns which are consistent, and certain dances and types of dancing associated with different songs as well based on social mores, again nothing real explicit besides stares from other participants.) B) The concept of the alpha-male and its promotion at the bar based on two factors: drinking and picking up women. C) The model of female favored at the bar, one who is loose and will draw herself to the alpha male. This model emphasizes women who drink heavily to compete and engage the alpha-male. While there are exceptions to every rule, these general tendencies rule the bar scene.

Gender construction is seen in dancing as most dancing emphasizes grinding and physical closeness to the other person. One positive of this dancing is that touch is never at a lack. Also, some physical proximity is necessary as the loud noises of the bar scene necessitate close quarters to hear the other person. So the touch can help communication as well as being its own form of communication. However, this type of dancing tends to endanger women as men tend to be quicker to get a physical release from physical contact and tend to be more willing to have this close contact with more than one woman in the same night. While alcohol helps lead to these decisions, part of the issue also stems from the image of the male portrayed by the bar scene.

The alpha-male is one who leads, is strong, can drink a lot, and gets all the women, or the hottest one, whichever is preferred by himself or the group. This image of male is promoted by alcohol commercials in mainstream media, as well as a social more of the bar scene. One particular example is observing a couple who was dancing and a guy comes and pushes the couple closer together. While this gesture might not seem significant it does show how difference is awkward for some. However, we can joke that people like the pusher just want to see more "cheap floozy sex" on the dance floor. Jokes among guys about who got the woman or is x going home with y woman also emphasize the prevalence of the alpha-male mentality at the bar scene.

The alpha-male is also favored in the bar scene in seeing the drinking contests that go on between men. At one table a party bought over a dozen beers for two guys to drink as fast as possible. Chants like "chug, chug" emphasize and build the image of strength, alcohol tolerance, etc. The amount of alcohol consumed is also matched by a desire to dance. And while dancing and touch can be good, excessive amounts of alcohol consumption can lead to an abuse of persons which is not ethical, especially considering the deeper existential search for relationship sought after in a bar scene.

Women that go to a bar scene implicitly understand this model of the male promoted at the bar, if not explicitly. The hard part in writing this paper is that the female seems passive in creating the bar scene, merely as a response to the male. I do not want to oversimplify and say that is the case. However, there is a reciprocal response between drunk women wanting alpha-male men and alpha-male men wanting easy women to build ego, hubris, etc. It all boils down to people's choices, and the influence of alcohol and pheromones in interaction with the other. The image of the female preferred at the bar scene is one which complements the alpha male: women willing to grant sexual favor to men, women who want to participate in drinking with men, and women who make themselves up to be attractive to a male. While some would say this is beneficial for equality, these actions only appear equal in deed but not in process and final result. Yes, a woman can drink with a man, a woman can grant lots of sexual favor to different men and this is not a problem in the bar scene in deed. However, with more of this favor/dancing, etc, this equality turns into an expectation needed for social standing at the bar. Popular women that many guys want to dance with wear lots of make-up, dress with as little clothing as possible, and are relatively skinny and have larger chests and butts, accentuated by their choice of clothing.

In a normal societal model promoting the alpha-male (promoted in both a religious and secular sense) this bar scene just accentuates that model. It favors the aggressive, leader male and males who prefer to care and be gentle are pushed out or coerced to try to be more aggressive and more like everyone else. This societal model also favors women who are submissively sexual, made to look like a model (very skinny, moderate to tall (so like 5'6"-5'9" just to take a guess, bigger breasts and bigger butt), and women who are sort of strong. Woman are called to equality, sort of. There are a lot of sort of's because while we've progressed in allowing women to work with males, made sexual discrimination policies to protect women (mostly), and given women the same rights as men, there are a lot of social norms that keep women subliminally if not actually degraded in comparison to men. So the bar accentuates these gender differences and draws them out with more physicality, so the bar is a good place to examine as it gives a vibrant image to examine gender imagery and differences.

These images affect people's existential search for relationship when at the bar. The biggest consequence is that the individual gets quickly lost or not privileged in an encounter. The encounters tend to follow an unwritten code of norms trying to promote individuality. First encounters have to be smooth, magical, and provide some sort of physical sensation that is pleasureable to both parties. Second, encounters after an initial meeting in a bar have a three-day rule where you don't contact the other person so as not to appear needy or dependent on the other person in a co-dependent way. (This holds true for encounters outside of bars as well.)

Part of the existential search is wanting to have people with whom you share fuzzy warm memories. Fuzzy warm memories make the existential toils of life easier to engage when they come. In this sense, a bar is a great place to release from life. Though too much drowning one's trouble in alcohol, dancing, and a night out can lead to addictive tendencies and a poor ability to cope, some ease is good for those who get stressed or need some help loosening up in meeting people. So the bar codes help build this pleasureable experience. However, part of the greater goal of going to a bar, finding relationship, has to engage the reality that life is difficult at times, and that life isn't always warm and fuzzy as much as we'd like it to be. The bar by itself cannot provide an atmosphere to teach this part of relationship. As mentioned above, conversation is hard in a bar because of the amount of noise at the bar. Also, conversation is difficult because it has to be relatively low-key in order to deal with the disconnectedness of a conversation in the midst of dancing, interaction, music, noise, order for drinks and various other distractions at a bar. In effect, this eliminates the individual part of the existential search and all which is left is desire, the desire for relationship exists, even as the individual part of searching is annhilated because of the social mores of relationship and the bar (which as shown above are deeply connected.) This desire then becomes manifest in a deeply physical way as that is an instinctual way of relating to others. This instinct is very good and needs to be fostered; however, this needs to respect individuals, their differences, and different needs for touch and affection in particular. Individuality is important to perserve as we are individuals with different needs and sublimating those needs will only harm ourselves and those with whom we relate in the future. Not all people fit the alpha-male or the sexually submissive female type of persona. In fact, alcohol contributes to more people fitting to these stereotypes in a particular time and place, even if their personality outside that setting does not match these personas.

Also, in thinking about different personas, we need to think briefly about how interaction occurs. For some people the three-day rule is a test of will, to be sure that I don't need the other person. However, if the self is an interactive entity that relates to objects, people, and God, then others' input necessarily affects our selves positively and negatively. Also, it means that we inherently need others in order to build our own worldview, because we need interaction. If another person contributes positively to loving God and neighbor (or loving neighbor for those who don't believe in God), then why shouldn't we want to be loving, merciful, and willing to encounter the other? The three-day rule seems to hinder this ability to encounter the other. While it's an attempt to prevent a perceived danger, it ignores our existential experience as persons who interact and need reception from others. It's a question to leave open in thinking about societal interaction. (Note: The same thing happens even in a religious sense as well, particularly in those who try to not overvalue any person by placing all value on God. The fear of dependency is placed upon others not taking the place of God. It seeks to prevent idolatry, but this argument ends up being moot as it turns idolatrous very quickly, because it favors a passive role for people in God's life, which comes with certain images and problems but that's another paper and story entirely.)

However, as I've said, there are exceptions to every rule. There are people who are dragged to bars by their friends either because of a perceived need to experience this type of social interaction or to be a designated driver for others. There are people who also don't follow these rules at the bar. There are those who protect others from stalkers, care for those who are drunk and try to protect them from being taken advantage of, and those who don't proscribe to the social norms for dancing and interaction. These exceptions fit certain personalities and are needed to help teach other ways of relating and love of other. These people can also help us find what we are looking for. The individuality helps us dispel of gender models and seek connection with others for being others who can challenge and love us despite our differences.

That is how I enjoyed my night at the bar, is finding one woman who actually didn't proscribe to these models of gender and could engage me in dance and conversation. In the midst of seeing all these potential issues around me I found someone different. Light in the midst of darkness, while I don't like this line for the Gnostic interpretation this could give, it's appropriate for my own state of my mind as I think back on my experience in what I saw in writing this paper. It was originally my friends' decision to go to the bar and I was like ehhh :(, but I was blessed to find the exception to the rule, and have interesting material to think about and dissect as we observed others and talked. Also, I hope this piece is a conversation starter, to engage our own experiences at the bar and socially, and start to talk about them to think about what we really experience and do as we are social with others. In conversation, we can find the means to love God and neighbor, even when having fun, by perserving others' dignity and opening ourselves to the other.

Peace,
Aristocrates

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

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

On Experiential Idolatry

Something's been bothering me lately, and usually when that happens I think about it for a while and then I decide to write about it. I want to do three things here. I want to present an anecdotal situation, analyze both parts of it, and then evaluate based on what I'm observing.

Here's a metaphorical situation which I've encountered before, but it's been told a few different ways to me so I'm not thinking of any particular person. For example, there is a male person who is going to a retreat. On this retreat, there is a lot of talk about religious vocation. During the adoration session, this person feels inspired by some means to want to become a priest. He feels affirmed in this call when he prays and talks to his adviser (person in charge of the retreat) and it feels right for him, so he goes and pursues seminary work.

Of course, this may sound like a familiar situation, and one which many people favor. Some may ask, oh Aristocrates, why does this bother you so much? What could you possibly be thinking? To analyze this situation, I want to look at two parts of what is going on. The first part of the situation is that God gives grace through prayer, conversation, service, and many other means. To see God's grace is a wonderful thing, and when proper discernment is done about God's grace being present, rejoicing in God's grace is good. Of course, there are situations where the community will say God's grace is present when it violates the supreme law of love, and that's where discernment is needed. But this isn't what I want to talk about.

The problem with this scenario is the equation made between seeing grace, having a feeling, and then equating it to God's will to make a particular choice (in this case for the man to become a priest.) Grace can be experienced in many different ways, and this grace can cause us to have particular feelings. Happy or sad feelings because grace can also lead us to look at the hard parts of ourselves and where we need conversion. However, when grace causes us to think about negating free choice, or thinking that God's love will only come (or will mostly come) if a person makes a particular choice, then this equation must be questioned.

I want to name this phenomenon experiential idolatry using the philosophical definition of idol given by Jean-Luc Marion. Simply put, the idol is anything which saturates our image of God in one particular phenomenon (thing, concept, etc.) In the example above, the retreat experience is placing his image of God in the particular calling of becoming a priest, which hinders his decision making ability. Grace should influence our decisions, but just because one has a feeling of something in response to a particular experience doesn't mean that God loves us more if we make that choice. Also, we have to be honest and admit when we are making choices for ourselves.

For the man above, there are many reasons he might consider being a priest. Some people like service, some people like Church, and others like ontological assimilation. None of these things are necessarily God's will. The danger in choosing a particular vocation and thinking it's God's will and instilling this belief in others is that we can believe that God doesn't love people as much if they don't follow their particular vocation. To limit God in this way is a serious issue because it contributes to idolatry and draws worship away from an infinite God of infinite possibilities.

The solution for this ministerial problem is simple. Help people evaluate their choices honestly, help people think about what's good for them, but take out the language of God's will, and avoid the jump from feeling in experience to necessitating a certain choice. It doesn't matter if we "need" priests in the Catholic Church, to build psychological pressure on people to move toward religious vocation by emphasizing God's will is morally problematic. God's will must equate with love, and this includes not using others. Use of others, also includes promoting experiential idolatry

On A Big Week in Politics and Catholicism

I miss my blog, so I wanted to post since it's been a while. Life has been crazy but that's what happens when life happens and work does as well. This, however, is a big couple of weeks in Catholicism so I want to be creative and write a post responding to the big two weeks which are occurring. In a short post, I hope to cover topics of racism, ecumenism, and abortion, so this will be a heavy post, but I hope a productive one.

The first big day in Catholic world is MLK day. It's a big day for a lot of people, not just Catholics.
What Martin Luther King, Jr. teaches us is about dignity and love of all people. I hope this internal dialogue can bring a little light to what Dr. King teaches us.

"What does this person mean that I can't hang out or play games with my friend? He says we also can't talk about spirituality, because I'm white trailer trash and he's a native. But I like my online multiplayer games with my friend, and I like my deeper conversations with him. Just because he's native and I'm white doesn't mean we can't relate. We're still people capable of loving others and participating in a friendship. I'm not intrinsically different because I'm white and he's not. To say that means that one is capable of love and good and the other not, and that's not my experience. I also have seen the inverse be true where white people are awful and people of other races show generous mercy and hospitality."

In caring about racism, it is important to affirm the dignity of people because all are capable of love, and all deserve to be loved because God creates all things. The lesson from Dr. King is this precise message, that people must be treated equally, and all people are capable of love.

This week is the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. I believe Cardinal Kasper has been quoted as saying that the greatest scandal in Christianity is the division of the Church. The divisions of the Church are a deep problem because it divides the message of Christ. The reading from Mass today from 1 Corinthians places Paul in a situation where he is dealing with a divided community and focusing on their leader. Some are for Paul, some are for Cephas, and some are for Christ. This divides the community because people are unsure of their leader, and which path they should follow. Paul calls the community to be one and remember their call to Christ (1 Cor 8).

There are two major problems that come with ecumenical discussions. Some believe that the differences in faith need to be blurred and people are really more alike than different in their belief. Others believe that their one religion is the true religion and there can be no compromise and everyone else must convert. I want to challenge these ecumenical classifications and as my discussion on racism I want to bring the focus on people who love and people who are really trying their best to love God and neighbor. The problem with the first ideology of ecumenism is that people show they are not really listening and loving to the unique experience of people. The problem with the second mentality is that it is a) judgmental and b) not reflective of the ways their Church may have screwed up in the past. (This is particularly common in Catholic circles among people of more traditional belief.) To love means to be willing to engage experiences different than one's own. Ecumenism is a deep need because it opens people up to listen to the heart of other's experience.

Now before we continue to the final reflection, I want to expose the real reason I'm writing this piece. There are many issues which come up in theology, but one issue which is exposed by this time in the calendar is the divisions between people who value fighting racism and ecumenism, and people who value fighting abortion. Often times people who value fighting racism and ecumenism become angry at people who fight against abortion because of a perceived judgmental mentality which contributes to racism and superiority and too narrow of a worldview since many sources who fight against abortion proclaim it is the greatest moral evil in society. This caricature leads to hatred. However, there is also a problem with people who fight against abortion. They tend to believe those who are fighting against racism and for ecumenism are contributing to the moral degrading of society because they don't focus enough on sexuality and there is a perceived lack of objective truth which leads to a degrading of morals. This caricature is built up by elites on both sides who want to lead people to do something for society, but their imagery causes more hurt than help. When a perceived other is made to be the cause of problems in society and imagery of what is good and bad continues to build up this animosity, then people lose the ability to listen and understand the other. All three issues: racism, ecumenism, and abortion, require a deep empathy in listening in order to deal with these major societal problems. Listening allows us to love even when it is hard to, and even if it seems like an everyday, ordinary thing. To deal with the major societal issues, people also have to think differently, because a narrow, judgmental, non-listening thought process inhibits one's ability to act.

So now let's think about abortion. Abortion is just as intrinsically evil as racism because it is lacking care toward a vulnerable and different member of society (e.g. born and unborn). Abortion is just as scandalous as the division of Christian religions because it ruptures a deep union between family and child. Abortion divides couples, their friends, and their extended family because many people have different feelings about abortion. Abortion, racism and the division of Christian religions are all serious problems because they all have implications for the dignity of people. All of these problems invade the dignity of people because the emphasize difference to an extreme and do not take into account that all people love, and all people are loved by God. Our response to these issues can only be to love, and this starts with listening and engaging others in their lives. This week can be a great week to listen to other's stories and share lives in order to grow the community but also affirm the individual who acts in community. When love is love, and dignity is dignity, in the big and the small, will the Catholic Church as a people grow to be the symbol of love that it seeks to represent in its sacrament and life.

Aristocrates

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"

"The Saturated Phenomena" (Marion)

Greetings readers,

Yes, today I will be using something that is not Freestyle Lyric Poetry to express a point, and I will be writing in sentences. :) Yay!! (as much as that style of writing is cool, it's not my particular strength I don't think.) Now, I want to talk about a strange concept in philosophy, or at least when it first appears, namely, the inversion of subject and object. The subject being the human self which observes phenomena, and objects which are phenomena, (which includes things, events, etc.) However, there are certain times that instead of observing phenomena subjects are actually overtaken by phenomena. Marion lists 4 types of Saturated Phenomenon: a) the event; b) the idol; c) flesh; d) the icon. These four types of phenomenon explain interactions where objects affect the subject more then simply being there.

A: The event. Events are saturated phenomena because the object involved is something which affects the subject and ultimately builds the self. Events affect and build sensitivities for people which in turn affects people as they look at future phenomenon. The subject takes in events based on past experience, but also can be changed by events in unforeseen ways. A good example of this is examining conversion experiences. When people have a dramatic conversion experience people do not foresee this consequence going in, but something in the event stimulates the self to react. This reaction causes growth toward something different and the event will be remembered as a key event in the life of the self. (Events include many things, speeches, movies, video games, music, etc.)

B: The idol: The idol captivates the subject because it possesses the person with an image of the divine in something concrete. The idol then captivates the self because the image of the divine affects how a self receives phenomenon. If an image of God is created (particularly in statues, but also in word images people use of God) then people influence their actions based on that image of God. For example, if people are given and receive an image of God as powerful and judgmental, then people's actions will be affected by that image. (There are many possible effects which this could have, but this is outside the scope of this entry.)

C: Flesh: "Flesh is that which feels itself feeling." (Marion, The Erotic Phenomenon) It is different from a body because the body is the object which can only be felt. Flesh is the source of overwhelming stimulation because everything which feels and feels itself feeling stimulates the senses in ways the subject does not control. For example, if you touch something hot unexpectedly, you quickly pull your hand away, but you don't rationally pull your hand away. The flesh feels something hot and pulls itself away on reflex with no thought.

D: Icon: The icon is also related to the divine like the idol but the icon has a different purpose. The icon does not build an image of God but rather provokes reflection of the infiniteness of God. This can be done in artwork, stained glass images, and various other things. (Honestly, the icon is complicated because it's not an idol but it's similar.)

The inversion of subject and object is important because it builds philosophies of conscience because it shows how people interact with being but also how being interacts with people. Conscience is affected because it must add to its examination how being affects the sensitivities of the self which affect the reception of being (particularly with events, but the flesh and idols also affect this, especially when language is considered.) (yes, outside of my thesis, conscience has become my new research buddy.) Manipulation is something which also is affected by these thoughts because people can use these saturated phenomena (knowingly or unknowingly) to affect the sensitivities of others. (hehhee more ideas for more posts.) I hope you've all enjoyed the read.

Aristocrates

God's Will? Really, can this be? Part 1

Greetings readers,

Today's blog entry is a perfect example of one of my situations where I do a "what if we thought about it like this?" The standard use of God's call language is that God has a perfect plan for everyone that everyone should accept in their lives for the most happiness for themselves. That vocation is something which is given and not fully chosen (because if it is to draw one to the most happiness when one is discerning God then one by this model is going to find their vocation because one will not often make themselves miserable. (unless it's for the sake of some other good which in this model there is no higher good than God, so of course in the people who promote this ideology have no real outs for not following one's vocation because nothing can be higher than God.)
While this is true, this makes God a robot master and a puppeteer at best. Plus it always serves one image of God, which is a introverted image of God. It always serves the prayerful person in monastery or seminary image of God who can live alone. It does not serve the extroverted person who wants to love and be available for other people necessarily because by exposing oneself to real community, we find as people that we need real community of those like us. In the above model, this means that a perceived need is placed before God, other people.
Of course, we are not perfect people, we screw things up, so there are times when we might not be real community for other people and cause a negative image of love (of hurt). And psychology tells us that hurts are powerful, negative images tend to stay in our minds more than positive ones, at least without training. Now keep in mind, this is where the above model gets power from people. If an institution/person/vocational director can show how community relationships cause suffering because humans are imperfect, then one can make a certain kind of religious life more appealing because it isolates the person from real relationships. It seeks to take the vulnerability out of relationships by establishing an ordered argument for creation. When one takes out the relationship in humanity; however, we are not contributing to the growth of real people, rather on the contrary, we are contributing to brainwashing and harming the overall Church.
A New Statesman article I read recently ("The Pope, the people and the paedophiles") touched on two different models of priesthood which are present in the Church with one having more influence (because it's initiated by the Pope, e.g. the introverted model of God.) and one which was favored by John Henry Newman (which I'll call an extroverted model because he focuses on the priest having good relationships with people (male and female) drinking fine wine, and overall living life (paraphrase) www.newstatesman.com/print/201004010012. This extroverted model of priesthood is tucked under the back burner now because it is not a popular response to the sex abuse crisis in the "more traditional" (I use this label as an identifier, but it really doesn't do it justice) sect of the Catholic Church. The popular response to the sex abuse crisis is asceticism, that priests (and I'm going to include religious as well, for this argument.) Priests and religious in this light should be more separated from people because they are higher than normal people and since they are following a call from God, it gives them a different life purpose, which all in all stands against the human community because it focuses exclusively on the community of God.
However, an extroverted model of priesthood is going to examine life as an experience. When one sees life as an experience, it means there is an examination of people's choices and interests. It takes into account real people. God is important because God is a guiding source for each person, but it is not for a specific end (e.g. there is no one way which favors God's light, because the goal of a life is to live an authentic Christian life, however each individual person experiences that reality. This needs to become a feasible option for priesthood and religious life because until this happens, God's will language will be used to manipulate people away from community and into extreme religious practice. When this happens, even people who find love are told of the horrors of love and a life with someone or any real community, and then as such get slowly taken to an introverted life where they are told they will find communion with God. The extroverted model then replies, it is in the experience of other people that we see signs of God. People/friends/family can bring us God's healing or the devil's hurts, and it's bull shit to believe that God wills suffering for people. God is not like, hey look this person gets cancer, or this person gets into a car wreck which isn't their fault. God's control is not that explicit. Where the power of God reigns is in the individual response to their situation to live an authentic Christian life in every moment of every day.
This entry is complete for now, however, there needs to be more discussion of this, because this affects so many issues. Til next issue, love deeply, be vulnerable, and seek the face of God. Amen.

Aristocrates.

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.)

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.