Four years ago, and for almost a solid year thereafter, I experienced the most horrendous back pain. This in itself is nothing unusual. I have experienced some form of back pain for much of my life. My earliest memory of back pain is the time I experienced a back spasm when I was 16 years old. My parents were away and I had just come in for the night and was talking to my grandparents when suddenly I was overcome with mind numbing pain. My grandfather helped me to a chair and my grandmother asked me if I wanted her to call a doctor. I told her “No, I just want to sit for a moment.” Then decided I would go up to my room and lie down, only to realize I was most likely completely unable to make it up the stairs.
Since then, and for most of my adult life, I have experienced numerous aches, pains, pinches, burnings, and spasms in my low back. My father has had back trouble most of his adult life and I suppose everyone assumed my back trouble was “genetic,” that, like the color of my eyes, my father had a bad back, so I would too. This kind of complacency of thinking is dangerous, mostly because I became convinced early on that there was nothing I could do to prevent back trouble. I had inherited this problem, and I would simply have to suffer and accept these occasional interruptions to my life.
At one point, after a car accident in Austin irritated my back, my co-workers encouraged me to visit a chiropractor. As luck would have it, I found, quite by accident, a remarkably talented chiropractor that, almost effortlessly, erased my pain. I was convinced that this man had the healing touch and whenever the inevitable ache or pain would rise, I would rush to him without a moment’s hesitation. Once, while shaving, I leaned forward, ever so slightly, towards the mirror to glimpse the underside of my chin and found I could not lean back, so powerful and so sudden were these attacks, and yet it never occurred to me that these were anything more that my own genetic curse, the proverbial cross I was to bare.
Four years ago, as said before, all this changed. I woke up one morning (to the best of my recollection this is how it began) feeling the telltale signs of oncoming back pain, not the sudden jarring pain of the spasm or the pull, but the general tenderness that the blossoms into full discomfort. Time and experience had taught me to be careful, but I was reckless and went to the gym for a 4-5 mile jog on the treadmill. Half way through my usual routine I knew something was wrong. Cautiously I slowed the pace of the machine and dismounted. I thought perhaps a few light stretches would do the trick, so I began to lie down and realized that, if I followed through, I would be trapped, helpless on the floor of my gym, surrounded by dozens of strangers. Terrified, I limped to the stairs and made my way down to the locker room and home.
For the next few weeks I suffered discomfort. I was unable to walk upright, and most of the time my torso leaned over and to the left. I knew that these pains were temporary, sometimes lasting as much as a week, but after two and a half weeks nothing changed. Concerned, I felt powerless and confused. “Why wasn’t the pain going away?” I adopted rigorous treatment (that means heavy applications of Tiger Balm.) A month passed by and then six weeks. Each day I would wake and make careful mental inventory of my condition. As time passed no two days seemed the same. The pain was there, to be sure, but the symptoms always seemed to vary and kept my constantly confused and off balance. Some days it seemed like the pain was almost gone, the next I would experience violent spasms that would leave me on my knees. I could walk upright on Monday, on Tuesday I would barely be able to get out of bed, then Wednesday, walking with a lean.
I had long since stopped seeing my chiropractor, and had moved to another city, so I began to look around. I visited a few and was shocked by the variety and intensity of treatments I was given. No two chiropractors were the same. My innocence shattered, I settled on the one that seemed to offer the most relief and began to visit him every day.
Here is the thing. I visited the chiropractor, I exercised, I tried to lose weight, but nothing seemed to help. Then, almost magically, I got a reprieve. A year after it had started, a year of limping around, groaning as I got out of bed, and straining to pick anything up, the pain went away.
I’m not sure if the pain completely went away. But Jenny describes it as a dramatic change. One in which I was suddenly “cured.” The problem, six months later it was back (no pun intended) with a vengeance. Jenny was pregnant with Scout and I went snowboarding with a friend, upon my return, my back was making itself known. I didn’t suffer any horrendous fall; I didn’t twist myself around a ski pole or sleep on the floor of some mountain cabin. I just began to feel the familiar burning, pinching sensation that lives somewhere between the middle of my low back and my left hip.
Something was different though. This time the pain never seemed to let go. Eventually I was in so much pain that all I could do was to sit in a chair and watch Lost episodes until even this was unbearable. Hunched over, unable to move, much less breath, I begged Jenny to take me to a hospital. That in itself was quite an ordeal, just getting in the car was almost more than I could do. Honestly I have no idea how I did it. Jenny drove me to the nearest emergency room. I was admitted and given a room and put on morphine. An MRI later, it turns out I had swelling in the three of the disks in my low back, and that the channel in my vertebrae through which the spinal nerve ran, had narrowed, possibly putting pressure on the nerve itself.
Everyone told me I was going to need surgery, but I opted for the less invasive cortisone injections into my spine. The first one allowed me to sit up, a week later the second injection made life bearable again. I could move around I could walk, but I would always feel that slight twinge in my low back, but was so happy I could stand up I didn’t complain. I had a second MRI four months later and it showed improvement, but the pain was still there. I talked to a neurosurgeon who recommended against surgery since there was improvement. “Wait and see” was the diagnosis.
For the next two years I have undergone these injections every 2-3 months. For brief periods I have even been pain free, once for as much as for four months. That period ended, with the most horrible sense of irony, on Christmas morning last year.
So here is the thing. It is now six months and another injection later and I still feel the tenderness. Part of me is resigned to the fact that I am going to feel this pain forever, and part of me realizes that it is this kind of complacent thinking that (in part) got me into this mess. My first lesson is that managing pain has everything to do with how you think about it. Everything from your preconceived notions about the source of the pain, to the daily routines that evolve to manage pain affects your decisions. Rule number one? Don’t get comfortable.
My second thought is, upon reflection I realize that in talking to chiropractors and doctors I made an assumption that I no longer believe is true. I assumed that someone could treat my pain like the common cold, but I think pain is unique to each individual, not only in how we feel or deal with pain, but because pain has the power to isolate an individual from within, and this isolation is as unique as the individual who experiences it. No two pains are alike, so no two treatments are going to be alike. You have to find the treatment that best suits the pain, and in my experience, the pain evolves, so the treatments must continually evolve with it. Rule number two? Don’t get comfortable.
Finally, in my experience medication and traditional medicine are often futile against pain. Without exception every healer I have talked to, traditional or otherwise, has adopted a wait and see attitude. This patient approach offers a unique opportunity for self-reflection and self-examination. After all pain is just the body's way of letting you know there is something wrong, and without an immediate cure in sight, that pain is screaming for attention. In the past I have found it easy to succumb to the mind's continuous chattering with commentary or judgment about the situation, and much of it based on erroneous or biased assumptions. However this provides a unique opportunity. By noticing that the mind is continually making commentary, one has the ability to carefully notice those thoughts, seeing them for what they are. What am I talking about? In a word: mindfulness. The more mindful I become, the more I am able to see myself internally without aversion or judgment. In this way I am able to challenge old assumption about who I am, and how I choose to deal with the constancy of pain and ultimately how I choose to live. While mindfulness isn’t a cure, it does make life more bearable while suffering from chronic pain and stress. Sometimes this relief can mean the difference between sanity and madness.
Almost any kind of contemplative state can be good for the body. When people meditate, the blood pressure comes down, the heart rate falls, immune changes take place in the body, and so on. So meditation is certainly a way of bringing about healing influences in our own body. Mindfulness controls the pain and stress, it slows the breathing to give one some peace and downtime. As one more closely observes the inner reality, one finds that happiness is not exclusively a quality brought about by a change in outer circumstances, but rather by realizing happiness often starts by releasing attachment to our thoughts and pre-dispositions. Perhaps in this way mindfulness can help release those automatic reactions towards pain. Basically I allow myself to be aware of my reality, and by challenging old assumptions and the bric-à-brac of my own mind, and sometime able to make better judgments for myself.
So I am feeling less complacent about my situation, and am looking at options, second opinions, faith healers and the power of the ancients of Atlantis. Last week I got yet another MRI, and while I am still in pain, the doctor said my back looks "much improved." I have no idea what that means. So I breath slowly, think calmly, and try to do the next right thing.
“One must free oneself by mindfulness and never put oneself down, as surely as self is the only friend of the soul, and its only enemy” –The Bhagavad Gita
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
Another #@%$! opportunity for Spiritual Growth
I was listening to an interviewer discuss an author’s new work on the radio the other day, when he said something that caught my attention. They were discussing one of the themes of the book, adultery, when the commentator made the off hand remark that the book sounded very “American” for “only in America would something as terrible as adultery be viewed as an opportunity for spiritual growth.”
“Is that right?” I thought to myself. It is true that there has hardly been a time in my life when I didn’t think about my relationship/connection with a higher power. I always supposed it was the by-product of growing in a home where both of my parents were very involved with their church. As a child I went to church camp every summer, as a teen I went to youth group every fall. After I left home I earned an undergraduate degree in philosophy, and did graduate work in the history of early Christianity. I have had my share of profound experiences. Looking back, I guess I have always questioned the nature of God, spirituality, and morality, and as I grew older these questions seem less adversarial and more about growth, but I never thought about it as being a quintessentially American characteristic, or that by virtue of my being an American, I was somehow culturally predetermined to look for opportunities for spiritual growth.
I certainly don’t think that Americans have the corner market on Spiritual growth. How could anyone categorize it in such broad terms? Is spiritual growth linked to liberal progressivism? Does that mean Social conservatives aren’t inclined to spiritual growth? Does it have its roots in the (myth of the) American pioneer spirit? I think there is something to the idea that judicial review, and the system of checks and balances, in theory, creates a government with the capacity to be self-reflective. Additionally our Constitution protects individual freedoms and guarantees a range of legal protections from federal restriction.
Perhaps it is this language of freedom that is so ingrained in the story of the foundation of America that lends itself to the potential for spiritual growth. I think this language reinforces the notion that any person, American or otherwise, has been bestowed with a unique destiny, a destiny that unfolds in accordance with the free exercise of the choices and opportunities presented in life and that it is through the moral exercise of human individual free will that opportunities are provided for spiritual advancement.
Americans have had our Unitarians, our Quakers, and our transcendentalists. We have had Emerson, Thoreau, W. E. B. Dubois and William James. We have had the counter culture revolution of the sixties; we have adapted yoga, transcendental meditation, gnosticism, Kabbalah, and even Asian meditation to American sensibility.
I think of all the times I have heard people say, I am Spiritual but not religious. Americans love to shrug off institutional religions as being some how invasive or derisive. The real joy of American government is that we allow ourselves to be self-critical, to hate one’s government and yet love ones country. I think it is what makes the war in Iraq that much more terrible for me, that I can be critical, and I do feel a moral obligation to make a change and yet I feel so powerless, that I cannot find the opportunity for spiritual growth, one that effects change, or at least, the change I want.
Knowing that until I release this expectation that the war will end, that a peaceful solution will be found, and that we can somehow remove ourselves from this situation, these expectation are holding me back from an opportunity for spiritual growth. I believe moral maturity comes from spiritual awareness. So, if I want to effect change, I try to let go and look for opportunities for change where I can. If I want to change the world, it has to begin with me, to look to my own growth, to try to let go of these expectations and be of service to others. Finally, I take solace in the words of one of America’s great leaders (spiritual or otherwise):
“Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.” - A. Lincoln
“Is that right?” I thought to myself. It is true that there has hardly been a time in my life when I didn’t think about my relationship/connection with a higher power. I always supposed it was the by-product of growing in a home where both of my parents were very involved with their church. As a child I went to church camp every summer, as a teen I went to youth group every fall. After I left home I earned an undergraduate degree in philosophy, and did graduate work in the history of early Christianity. I have had my share of profound experiences. Looking back, I guess I have always questioned the nature of God, spirituality, and morality, and as I grew older these questions seem less adversarial and more about growth, but I never thought about it as being a quintessentially American characteristic, or that by virtue of my being an American, I was somehow culturally predetermined to look for opportunities for spiritual growth.
I certainly don’t think that Americans have the corner market on Spiritual growth. How could anyone categorize it in such broad terms? Is spiritual growth linked to liberal progressivism? Does that mean Social conservatives aren’t inclined to spiritual growth? Does it have its roots in the (myth of the) American pioneer spirit? I think there is something to the idea that judicial review, and the system of checks and balances, in theory, creates a government with the capacity to be self-reflective. Additionally our Constitution protects individual freedoms and guarantees a range of legal protections from federal restriction.
Perhaps it is this language of freedom that is so ingrained in the story of the foundation of America that lends itself to the potential for spiritual growth. I think this language reinforces the notion that any person, American or otherwise, has been bestowed with a unique destiny, a destiny that unfolds in accordance with the free exercise of the choices and opportunities presented in life and that it is through the moral exercise of human individual free will that opportunities are provided for spiritual advancement.
Americans have had our Unitarians, our Quakers, and our transcendentalists. We have had Emerson, Thoreau, W. E. B. Dubois and William James. We have had the counter culture revolution of the sixties; we have adapted yoga, transcendental meditation, gnosticism, Kabbalah, and even Asian meditation to American sensibility.
I think of all the times I have heard people say, I am Spiritual but not religious. Americans love to shrug off institutional religions as being some how invasive or derisive. The real joy of American government is that we allow ourselves to be self-critical, to hate one’s government and yet love ones country. I think it is what makes the war in Iraq that much more terrible for me, that I can be critical, and I do feel a moral obligation to make a change and yet I feel so powerless, that I cannot find the opportunity for spiritual growth, one that effects change, or at least, the change I want.
Knowing that until I release this expectation that the war will end, that a peaceful solution will be found, and that we can somehow remove ourselves from this situation, these expectation are holding me back from an opportunity for spiritual growth. I believe moral maturity comes from spiritual awareness. So, if I want to effect change, I try to let go and look for opportunities for change where I can. If I want to change the world, it has to begin with me, to look to my own growth, to try to let go of these expectations and be of service to others. Finally, I take solace in the words of one of America’s great leaders (spiritual or otherwise):
“Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.” - A. Lincoln
Friday, June 20, 2008
Call me Ishmael
I am reading this great book the Hakawati, a story ostensibly about a son’s journey back to Beirut to be by his father’s deathbed. A hakawati is a story teller, a poet that weaves together this contemporary narrative of his life with the myths and tales that are the foundations of many religions, especially those of the Middle East, Jewish, Christian, Sunni, Shiite (Muslim). It is interesting because some of the stories are so familiar, dressed up by the hakawati to appear new and fresh, others are familiar themes told from new perspectives, and finally there are so many I have never heard before and want to hear again and again.
One particular story that caught my eye was the tale of Ishmael, the son of Abraham and his wife’s Egyptian slave girl, Hagar. It falls into that category of familiar themes told from new perspectives, as the story related in the book recounts the tale of Ishmael from the Muslim pespective. Ishmael is said to be an ancestor of the Prophet M., the first-born son of Abraham, the Muslim tradition holds that it was he, and not his brother Isaac, who was taken by Abraham to be sacrificed atop a mountain. A quick search online confirms a few scant facts about Ishmael, and added that the Bahá'í faith also believed that the Prophet M. was a descendant of Ishmael and that Ishmael was also the used as the sacrifice, (though it seems to say it doesn’t matter one bit whether is was Isaac or Ishmael as either could have been used as a symbol) I checked these facts out with a Bahá'í friend who quoted a favorable Bahá'í text and added “Have you read the Koran passages?” (This friend is also a Johnnie, and Johnnies love to reference primary sources)
I love discovering alternate endings to stories, especially ones as old as the story of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael. So I read the Koran and the Bible passages, and, just for good measure, because it mentions Hagar, Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. Starting with the bible, I think we can sum up the Ishmael story in this way. Abrahams’ wife Sara, unable to produce a male heir, offers her slave girl, Hagar, as a surrogate mother, only to become jealous when Hagar becomes pregnant. She becomes abusive of Hagar, who runs away. God stop Hagar and tell her to return home and promises, her child will have “too many descendants to be counted.” Second, god makes a covenant with Abraham, and tells him his wife Sara will have a son who will be the progenitor of great kings of many nations, Abraham stands up for Ishmael, and God reassures Abraham that Ishmael will be taken care of, again, god will give Ishmael many descendants. Abraham obeys and circumcises every male in the household including himself and Ishmael. Finally, Isaac and Ishmael are playmates and Sara objects and tells Abraham to send Ishmael and his mother away, Abraham acquiesces and God promises they will be taken care of and will be the leader of a great nation. Cast into the desert, and dying of thirst Hagar pleas to God who sends an angel to protect them and reassure them a fourth time that they will be the makers of a great nation. Upon lifting Ishmael from the sand, Hagar discovers a spring beneath the boy that sustains them. God tells Hagar that Ishmael will live a hard life, and that he will have twelve sons, each of which will be a king in his own right.
It was interesting rereading the Merchant of Venice because it frequently makes references to the dichotomy between Jews and Christians, an allegory between Jewish Law and Christian Love on the one hand and a bond that exists between the two traditions on the other. Shakespeare is probably drawing inspiration from the Pauline letter to the Romans where the traditional case for this shared heritage is interpreted by the Apostle Paul. In Romans, Paul talks of Divine favor as having passed from the Jews to The Christian, However, he cautions his fellow Christians that the Jews still remain the Biblical “Chosen People of God” and that they will eventually be returned to a place of favor. Paul likens the Christian faith to a branch grafted to an olive tree and reminds Christians to be mindful of their origins.
In Galatians Paul further explains the story of Sara and Hagar as an allegory in which the women represent two covenants: Hagar proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves as representing the old Testament and Sara “corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother,” Or the New Testament.
I am not sure I can get on board with this reading, for one, the Gospel Mathew 5, 17-20 reminds Christians of the importance of obeying of the Old Law, which remains itself to be perfectly fulfilled. And until "all things are fulfilled," and as long as “Heaven and Earth endure,” we must continue to respectfully observe this Law. Suggesting that Christian Love is not the immediate fulfillment of Jewish Law. Rather, they coexist seemingly for the purpose of mutual fulfillment. This co-existence of Love and Law seems to reconcile one another suggesting that Love, i.e., spiritual freedom, and Law, i.e., moral responsibility, must coexist in human relationships.
Again, a close reading of the Genesis account of Ishmael reveals that God thinks very highly of Ishmael and never intends to abandon him, or allow him to fall into harm. On the contrary God goes to great lengths to protect this child of Abraham and in the process draws parallel between Ishmael and other Old Testament figures including Moses with the image of a spring rising in the desert, Jacob with twelve sons, and Isaac with the language of a leader of great nations.
Rather than an allegorical figure representing the Old Testament, Ishmael seems to represent those people who have, in the words of the poet Frost “Taken the road less traveled.” Far from being alien, these people share many of the same basic beliefs, and rather than incurring Gods punishment and admonition, God delights in these people and raises up the faithful among them. The story of Ishmael then, in my mind, is one of tolerance, faith and piety.
In a world where borders seem to shrink and evaporate as cultures and consciences are pressed ever closer together, the story Ishmael, one of an indissoluble bond of filial piety and mutual respect, has something to teach us all.
One particular story that caught my eye was the tale of Ishmael, the son of Abraham and his wife’s Egyptian slave girl, Hagar. It falls into that category of familiar themes told from new perspectives, as the story related in the book recounts the tale of Ishmael from the Muslim pespective. Ishmael is said to be an ancestor of the Prophet M., the first-born son of Abraham, the Muslim tradition holds that it was he, and not his brother Isaac, who was taken by Abraham to be sacrificed atop a mountain. A quick search online confirms a few scant facts about Ishmael, and added that the Bahá'í faith also believed that the Prophet M. was a descendant of Ishmael and that Ishmael was also the used as the sacrifice, (though it seems to say it doesn’t matter one bit whether is was Isaac or Ishmael as either could have been used as a symbol) I checked these facts out with a Bahá'í friend who quoted a favorable Bahá'í text and added “Have you read the Koran passages?” (This friend is also a Johnnie, and Johnnies love to reference primary sources)
I love discovering alternate endings to stories, especially ones as old as the story of Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael. So I read the Koran and the Bible passages, and, just for good measure, because it mentions Hagar, Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. Starting with the bible, I think we can sum up the Ishmael story in this way. Abrahams’ wife Sara, unable to produce a male heir, offers her slave girl, Hagar, as a surrogate mother, only to become jealous when Hagar becomes pregnant. She becomes abusive of Hagar, who runs away. God stop Hagar and tell her to return home and promises, her child will have “too many descendants to be counted.” Second, god makes a covenant with Abraham, and tells him his wife Sara will have a son who will be the progenitor of great kings of many nations, Abraham stands up for Ishmael, and God reassures Abraham that Ishmael will be taken care of, again, god will give Ishmael many descendants. Abraham obeys and circumcises every male in the household including himself and Ishmael. Finally, Isaac and Ishmael are playmates and Sara objects and tells Abraham to send Ishmael and his mother away, Abraham acquiesces and God promises they will be taken care of and will be the leader of a great nation. Cast into the desert, and dying of thirst Hagar pleas to God who sends an angel to protect them and reassure them a fourth time that they will be the makers of a great nation. Upon lifting Ishmael from the sand, Hagar discovers a spring beneath the boy that sustains them. God tells Hagar that Ishmael will live a hard life, and that he will have twelve sons, each of which will be a king in his own right.
It was interesting rereading the Merchant of Venice because it frequently makes references to the dichotomy between Jews and Christians, an allegory between Jewish Law and Christian Love on the one hand and a bond that exists between the two traditions on the other. Shakespeare is probably drawing inspiration from the Pauline letter to the Romans where the traditional case for this shared heritage is interpreted by the Apostle Paul. In Romans, Paul talks of Divine favor as having passed from the Jews to The Christian, However, he cautions his fellow Christians that the Jews still remain the Biblical “Chosen People of God” and that they will eventually be returned to a place of favor. Paul likens the Christian faith to a branch grafted to an olive tree and reminds Christians to be mindful of their origins.
In Galatians Paul further explains the story of Sara and Hagar as an allegory in which the women represent two covenants: Hagar proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are to be slaves as representing the old Testament and Sara “corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother,” Or the New Testament.
I am not sure I can get on board with this reading, for one, the Gospel Mathew 5, 17-20 reminds Christians of the importance of obeying of the Old Law, which remains itself to be perfectly fulfilled. And until "all things are fulfilled," and as long as “Heaven and Earth endure,” we must continue to respectfully observe this Law. Suggesting that Christian Love is not the immediate fulfillment of Jewish Law. Rather, they coexist seemingly for the purpose of mutual fulfillment. This co-existence of Love and Law seems to reconcile one another suggesting that Love, i.e., spiritual freedom, and Law, i.e., moral responsibility, must coexist in human relationships.
Again, a close reading of the Genesis account of Ishmael reveals that God thinks very highly of Ishmael and never intends to abandon him, or allow him to fall into harm. On the contrary God goes to great lengths to protect this child of Abraham and in the process draws parallel between Ishmael and other Old Testament figures including Moses with the image of a spring rising in the desert, Jacob with twelve sons, and Isaac with the language of a leader of great nations.
Rather than an allegorical figure representing the Old Testament, Ishmael seems to represent those people who have, in the words of the poet Frost “Taken the road less traveled.” Far from being alien, these people share many of the same basic beliefs, and rather than incurring Gods punishment and admonition, God delights in these people and raises up the faithful among them. The story of Ishmael then, in my mind, is one of tolerance, faith and piety.
In a world where borders seem to shrink and evaporate as cultures and consciences are pressed ever closer together, the story Ishmael, one of an indissoluble bond of filial piety and mutual respect, has something to teach us all.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Jenny Tagged me to do this exercise:
Here are the rules:
1. Write the title to your own memoir using 6 words.
2. Post it on your blog.
3. Link to the person who tagged you.
4. Tag 5 more blogs.
For my own I think I choose
"The Golden-Age of all things Pat"
(I realize hyphenating Golden-Age might be cheating)
and of course would tag Libby, Anna, Roy, Jill and Virgie
Here are the rules:
1. Write the title to your own memoir using 6 words.
2. Post it on your blog.
3. Link to the person who tagged you.
4. Tag 5 more blogs.
For my own I think I choose
"The Golden-Age of all things Pat"
(I realize hyphenating Golden-Age might be cheating)
and of course would tag Libby, Anna, Roy, Jill and Virgie
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Zen and the Art of Shaving
Every couple of years I get the idea for a new book. I haven’t written one yet, but I dutifully jot down the basic premise, run each new idea by a few good friends, monitor the idea for a few months, and then bring it to rest on the shelf of old ideas. I could cite numerous examples, but the one I still love the best is a simple concept, the kind of book you might find on the counter next to the register at a Borders, or a Barnes and Noble, an impulse buy around fathers day, a book about knowledge passed down from generation to generation, father to son, a book titled "Zen and the Art of Shaving".
I suppose I am guilty of imposing a stereotype of the westerner, one that would find strange the idea of any simple, everyday activity becoming an act of meditation, and instead might think of meditation only as this lofty, noble pursuit. In reality, the act of meditation has a profound effect on the human psyche, calming the body, while centering the mind and spirit. Western tradition has long understood that any activity, carried out with the mind properly focused, can become an act of meditation. From St. John of the Cross to the New Age phenomena, numerous groups have embraced modern variants of traditional Western esoteric philosophies and practices.
Why Zen and the Art of Shaving? The keynotes are attention and simplicity. The setting is simple, the morning bath, the atmosphere, harmonious, scented with the fragrance of lather and aftershave that could challenge any incense, and the shaving brush, the razor, the water all echo the need for pristine cleanliness. The flow of the water from the tap, the scent of hot steam rising from the basin, the repetition of each gesture each generate unique sounds and profound silences that allow for moments of stillness in which the practitioner can become fully aware of each moments that opens into opportunities of insight or that coalesce into a single meditative experience. How many shavers can report that “Ah Ha!” moment while they were in the bath, from Euripides to Benjamin Franklin the stories and tales abound.
Attended to in the right frame of mind, shaving can be a profound meditative experience, a ritual passed down from father to son that demonstrates how even the most apparently mundane actions can become sacred. Though I suppose realistically it is fantasy to assume we could approach shaving in this manner every time, none the less the act of shaving does offer an opportunity to reflect on the opportunities of unhurried grace and attention that can be adopted in our daily tasks and lives
As a purist I might also add that straight razors are best, horse hair brushes for the application of foam a must, and never, never under any circumstances should use of the electric razor be employed.
I suppose I am guilty of imposing a stereotype of the westerner, one that would find strange the idea of any simple, everyday activity becoming an act of meditation, and instead might think of meditation only as this lofty, noble pursuit. In reality, the act of meditation has a profound effect on the human psyche, calming the body, while centering the mind and spirit. Western tradition has long understood that any activity, carried out with the mind properly focused, can become an act of meditation. From St. John of the Cross to the New Age phenomena, numerous groups have embraced modern variants of traditional Western esoteric philosophies and practices.
Why Zen and the Art of Shaving? The keynotes are attention and simplicity. The setting is simple, the morning bath, the atmosphere, harmonious, scented with the fragrance of lather and aftershave that could challenge any incense, and the shaving brush, the razor, the water all echo the need for pristine cleanliness. The flow of the water from the tap, the scent of hot steam rising from the basin, the repetition of each gesture each generate unique sounds and profound silences that allow for moments of stillness in which the practitioner can become fully aware of each moments that opens into opportunities of insight or that coalesce into a single meditative experience. How many shavers can report that “Ah Ha!” moment while they were in the bath, from Euripides to Benjamin Franklin the stories and tales abound.
Attended to in the right frame of mind, shaving can be a profound meditative experience, a ritual passed down from father to son that demonstrates how even the most apparently mundane actions can become sacred. Though I suppose realistically it is fantasy to assume we could approach shaving in this manner every time, none the less the act of shaving does offer an opportunity to reflect on the opportunities of unhurried grace and attention that can be adopted in our daily tasks and lives
As a purist I might also add that straight razors are best, horse hair brushes for the application of foam a must, and never, never under any circumstances should use of the electric razor be employed.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Sex and Art
I started work on Monday, so vacation is over. Well, at least until the middle of July, and then it picks up till the end of August. I am teaching a summer class in art appreciation. Art appreciation is one of those nebulous titles like comptroller that seems to mean everything and nothing. What does it mean to teach an appreciation of a thing?
I am given free reign in what I can teach and after some trial and error I have settled on a format that includes a few weeks of art theory and basic terminology, followed by a series of lectures that blend my own mix of philosophy, humanities, and personal insights into the history of (western) art.
I really like the job and I take it very seriously. I try to come up with lecture points I think will be both informative and amusing, and am always modifying my approach in hopes o finding the right “fit” for each class. Some are talkers and require little prompting, while others need more of a “prod” now and again. (See my sister-in-laws blog for an excellent example of the frustrations of teaching)
I “borrow” much of my teaching style from former art professors, and try to incorporate the best from their teaching styles into my own. I remember with great clarity one such professor taking about Manet’s Olympia in very open and sincere terms, and at one point overheard him say jokingly, “Now I am going to lose my job.” Manet’s Olympia, for the uninitiated, is a frank and candid depiction of a prostitute displaying her “wears.” The painting itself caused a sensation when it was first exhibited in 1865 and was quickly condemned as "immoral" and "vulgar."
My professor raised an interesting dilemma, one that I take to heart. Conversations in art often deal with works, which are, at their core, controversial. Many works of art protest social injustices, question political and religious institutions and acknowledge the existence of (gasp) sex. While it is perhaps silly, talking, even casually, about a sexually provocative work can be a bit tricky, and while I try to be forthright, open, and honest about the material, I have found myself very self-conscious talking about sex and art, perhaps for fear of some Janet Jackson-esque mishap reprisal.
Still, if art truly reflects life, then it needs to acknowledge the fact that we're humans, and that sex is just a part of human life. At the same time there seems to be an endless supply of examples of the controversial nature of sex in art, and while in Manet’s time painting was the preferred medium, in today’s society we see a new generation of art forms coming under attack, in movies, music, video games, and on television.
Those critical of sex and violence in these mediums often decry the tendency in art to be more about the sex and violence than about real life situations, or the human condition. At the same time many of these critiques ignore the fact that many characters on TV or in games are just as often desexualized or are completely asexual, especially animated characters, The problem being that this somehow implies that those characters are normal. Stereotypes abound for both the asexual and hyper sexualized characters, the Asian man portrayed as an asexual, unromantic martial arts masters, Viet Cong guerrilla, man-servants, or geek, or Black men portrayed as sexually aggressive gang bangers. Rap musicians and drug addicts. This split between the hyper-sexualized and the desexualized characters seems to suggest a kind of denial about how we address issues of human sexuality and violence, (not to mention racism). It is as if there is a kind of psychological split in the portrayal of human sexuality in the arts.
Author Camille Paglia in her book Sexual Personae notes that Western culture is a very complex combination of two traditions, the Judeo-Christian and the Greco-Roman. These two traditions manifest as a struggle between paganism and Christianity, and notes that paganism was never defeated by Christianity but merely pushed underground only to emerge at specific moments throughout art history.
In her book Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, Elaine Pagels explores a similar theme noting that early Christian sexuality is a formulation of Jewish and Roman sexual practices. These Christians eschewed polygamy and divorce, which Jewish tradition allowed and repudiated extramarital sexual practices commonly accepted by pagan contemporaries, including prostitution, homosexuality and non-procreative sex acts.
Artists have had to skate the changing attitudes of this social schizophrenia throughout human history, navigating the tides of social change and the creative impulse, an impulse that informs and that can profoundly affect society, and perhaps even heal this psychic scar. Freud believed that the greatest achievements in civilization were due to the effective sublimation of our sexual and aggressive urges, one that rechannels these urges into creativity and production. Indeed there is a profound connection between sexuality and art, one that seems to both mock the symptoms of our social psychosis, even as it tries to heal the rift.
The poet Rilke sums it up something like this: “Artistic experience lies so incredibly close to that of sex, to its pain and its ecstasy, that the two manifestations are indeed but different forms of one and the same yearning and delight.” Sex and art are intimately bound. I suppose I want to say that in rechannelling our desires, art strives towards greater human achievement, and in the process heal societies ills. However it is just as likely that the interconnection of sex and art merely suggests a sort of bubbling over of the psychosis of our collective unconscious into the mainstream, and, rather than acting as a healing agent, art is merely a symptom our imperfections. Either way talking about it is sure to incite debate, and so I steer a middle course neither dumbing down its existence, nor focusing on it to the exclusion of all else.
I am given free reign in what I can teach and after some trial and error I have settled on a format that includes a few weeks of art theory and basic terminology, followed by a series of lectures that blend my own mix of philosophy, humanities, and personal insights into the history of (western) art.
I really like the job and I take it very seriously. I try to come up with lecture points I think will be both informative and amusing, and am always modifying my approach in hopes o finding the right “fit” for each class. Some are talkers and require little prompting, while others need more of a “prod” now and again. (See my sister-in-laws blog for an excellent example of the frustrations of teaching)
I “borrow” much of my teaching style from former art professors, and try to incorporate the best from their teaching styles into my own. I remember with great clarity one such professor taking about Manet’s Olympia in very open and sincere terms, and at one point overheard him say jokingly, “Now I am going to lose my job.” Manet’s Olympia, for the uninitiated, is a frank and candid depiction of a prostitute displaying her “wears.” The painting itself caused a sensation when it was first exhibited in 1865 and was quickly condemned as "immoral" and "vulgar."
My professor raised an interesting dilemma, one that I take to heart. Conversations in art often deal with works, which are, at their core, controversial. Many works of art protest social injustices, question political and religious institutions and acknowledge the existence of (gasp) sex. While it is perhaps silly, talking, even casually, about a sexually provocative work can be a bit tricky, and while I try to be forthright, open, and honest about the material, I have found myself very self-conscious talking about sex and art, perhaps for fear of some Janet Jackson-esque mishap reprisal.
Still, if art truly reflects life, then it needs to acknowledge the fact that we're humans, and that sex is just a part of human life. At the same time there seems to be an endless supply of examples of the controversial nature of sex in art, and while in Manet’s time painting was the preferred medium, in today’s society we see a new generation of art forms coming under attack, in movies, music, video games, and on television.
Those critical of sex and violence in these mediums often decry the tendency in art to be more about the sex and violence than about real life situations, or the human condition. At the same time many of these critiques ignore the fact that many characters on TV or in games are just as often desexualized or are completely asexual, especially animated characters, The problem being that this somehow implies that those characters are normal. Stereotypes abound for both the asexual and hyper sexualized characters, the Asian man portrayed as an asexual, unromantic martial arts masters, Viet Cong guerrilla, man-servants, or geek, or Black men portrayed as sexually aggressive gang bangers. Rap musicians and drug addicts. This split between the hyper-sexualized and the desexualized characters seems to suggest a kind of denial about how we address issues of human sexuality and violence, (not to mention racism). It is as if there is a kind of psychological split in the portrayal of human sexuality in the arts.
Author Camille Paglia in her book Sexual Personae notes that Western culture is a very complex combination of two traditions, the Judeo-Christian and the Greco-Roman. These two traditions manifest as a struggle between paganism and Christianity, and notes that paganism was never defeated by Christianity but merely pushed underground only to emerge at specific moments throughout art history.
In her book Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, Elaine Pagels explores a similar theme noting that early Christian sexuality is a formulation of Jewish and Roman sexual practices. These Christians eschewed polygamy and divorce, which Jewish tradition allowed and repudiated extramarital sexual practices commonly accepted by pagan contemporaries, including prostitution, homosexuality and non-procreative sex acts.
Artists have had to skate the changing attitudes of this social schizophrenia throughout human history, navigating the tides of social change and the creative impulse, an impulse that informs and that can profoundly affect society, and perhaps even heal this psychic scar. Freud believed that the greatest achievements in civilization were due to the effective sublimation of our sexual and aggressive urges, one that rechannels these urges into creativity and production. Indeed there is a profound connection between sexuality and art, one that seems to both mock the symptoms of our social psychosis, even as it tries to heal the rift.
The poet Rilke sums it up something like this: “Artistic experience lies so incredibly close to that of sex, to its pain and its ecstasy, that the two manifestations are indeed but different forms of one and the same yearning and delight.” Sex and art are intimately bound. I suppose I want to say that in rechannelling our desires, art strives towards greater human achievement, and in the process heal societies ills. However it is just as likely that the interconnection of sex and art merely suggests a sort of bubbling over of the psychosis of our collective unconscious into the mainstream, and, rather than acting as a healing agent, art is merely a symptom our imperfections. Either way talking about it is sure to incite debate, and so I steer a middle course neither dumbing down its existence, nor focusing on it to the exclusion of all else.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
That Rock-n-Roll Music
Well it has certainly been a wild week; most of it blurred together, a hodge-podge of parenting, chores, and home improvement projects. It has been non-stop for the most part, and it is all about to change again as I go back to work on Monday, Jenny flies back home, and the kids start their regimen of summer related activities, swim lesson, gymnastics, and the general summer ruckus
I was pretty excited Tuesday evening when a friend called me out of the blue and said his wife had foregone the opportunity to see the Cure in concert, and would I like to go instead? A Friday night break from the kids aside, what a great opportunity. The Cure is one of the first great alternative bands to achieve the level of popularity at a time when big hair rock defined commercial success. (Poison, Ratt, Whitesnake) Early devotees were easy to pick out owing to their wild hairstyles, pale complexion, smudged lipstick, and excessive use of black eyeliner that blurred gender distinctions.
Still, I liked the Cure, with albums like Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Standing on the Beach, and Disintegration, to name a few; only to have my budding interest in the Cure interrupted by the rising fame of Jane’s Addiction in the late 80’s, and the emergence of grunge groups like Nirvana in the early 90’s. A Google search on “Alternative Rock bands” reveals the litany of my musical tastes from grade school to college. As a musical genre, alternative rock consists of a myriad of subgenres that emerged from the independent music scene in the early 80’s. These genres, in turn, owe their genesis to punk rock, which laid the groundwork for alternative music in the 1970s. None of this, of course, captures the feel of the music, or the spontaneous generation of so many bands during such a fertile time of music making.
The difficulty, if there is one, in talking about the evolution of music is, how do we conjure an explanation of the phenomena of music which will be satisfactory to the average musician or devotee, a difficulty that is rooted, perhaps, in the vastly different standpoints from which individuals, like artists and or fans, regard music. Music to the musician is a perfectly natural activity, like breathing or walking, to the composer of music it may even come to dominate a larger portion of both their conscious and unconscious mental activities. Though, most of us, I think, look at music through the other end of the telescope, seeking an explanation or an evolution to the music, an excuse to talk about the presence of music in our lives, indeed, in the world as a kind of abstract truth about which we are a bit unsure…
Music holds a special place in the Arts. Where a painting or a sculpture is usually scrutinized, examined and ultimately dissected, as in: “Yes but what does it mean?” Music is in a class all by itself. While lyrics may communicate a certain meaning through poetry associated with the instrumental strains of song, music itself is not bound to any particular meaning, object or idea. How do you validate a piece of music against the things of the world? The artist Kandinsky proposed this problem in his “Concerning the Spiritual in Art” and sought to create a kind of art that was more like music, not tied to any particular real world object.
Another author, the philosopher Schopenhauer, also romanticized music in this way, “To stimulate the knowledge of these Ideas by depicting individual things… is the aim of all the other non-musical arts . . . [but] music, since it passes over the Ideas, is . . . quite independent of the phenomenal world, positively ignores it, and, to a certain extent, could still exist even if there were no world at all, which cannot be said of the other arts” Music, then, for Schopenhauer, dwelt somewhere in between our world, with its notes and chords, and the world of Platonic forms transmitting the noblest of truths to the human soul.
Music "stands alone, quite cut off from all the other arts." What is it about music that affects the inmost nature of man so powerfully and is so entirely and deeply understood in the deepest parts of our (un) consciousness? Schopenhauer believed the function of art to be a meditation on the unity of human nature, with the power to communicate to the audience a certain existential angst for which most forms of entertainment—including bad art—only provided a distraction. In short, it is music that unites us and taps the still, mysterious deep well of our emotions, preparing the soul, and binding us together. Perhaps that is the best thing I can say that communicates the feel of music, short of picking up my guitar.
I was pretty excited Tuesday evening when a friend called me out of the blue and said his wife had foregone the opportunity to see the Cure in concert, and would I like to go instead? A Friday night break from the kids aside, what a great opportunity. The Cure is one of the first great alternative bands to achieve the level of popularity at a time when big hair rock defined commercial success. (Poison, Ratt, Whitesnake) Early devotees were easy to pick out owing to their wild hairstyles, pale complexion, smudged lipstick, and excessive use of black eyeliner that blurred gender distinctions.
Still, I liked the Cure, with albums like Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Standing on the Beach, and Disintegration, to name a few; only to have my budding interest in the Cure interrupted by the rising fame of Jane’s Addiction in the late 80’s, and the emergence of grunge groups like Nirvana in the early 90’s. A Google search on “Alternative Rock bands” reveals the litany of my musical tastes from grade school to college. As a musical genre, alternative rock consists of a myriad of subgenres that emerged from the independent music scene in the early 80’s. These genres, in turn, owe their genesis to punk rock, which laid the groundwork for alternative music in the 1970s. None of this, of course, captures the feel of the music, or the spontaneous generation of so many bands during such a fertile time of music making.
The difficulty, if there is one, in talking about the evolution of music is, how do we conjure an explanation of the phenomena of music which will be satisfactory to the average musician or devotee, a difficulty that is rooted, perhaps, in the vastly different standpoints from which individuals, like artists and or fans, regard music. Music to the musician is a perfectly natural activity, like breathing or walking, to the composer of music it may even come to dominate a larger portion of both their conscious and unconscious mental activities. Though, most of us, I think, look at music through the other end of the telescope, seeking an explanation or an evolution to the music, an excuse to talk about the presence of music in our lives, indeed, in the world as a kind of abstract truth about which we are a bit unsure…
Music holds a special place in the Arts. Where a painting or a sculpture is usually scrutinized, examined and ultimately dissected, as in: “Yes but what does it mean?” Music is in a class all by itself. While lyrics may communicate a certain meaning through poetry associated with the instrumental strains of song, music itself is not bound to any particular meaning, object or idea. How do you validate a piece of music against the things of the world? The artist Kandinsky proposed this problem in his “Concerning the Spiritual in Art” and sought to create a kind of art that was more like music, not tied to any particular real world object.
Another author, the philosopher Schopenhauer, also romanticized music in this way, “To stimulate the knowledge of these Ideas by depicting individual things… is the aim of all the other non-musical arts . . . [but] music, since it passes over the Ideas, is . . . quite independent of the phenomenal world, positively ignores it, and, to a certain extent, could still exist even if there were no world at all, which cannot be said of the other arts” Music, then, for Schopenhauer, dwelt somewhere in between our world, with its notes and chords, and the world of Platonic forms transmitting the noblest of truths to the human soul.
Music "stands alone, quite cut off from all the other arts." What is it about music that affects the inmost nature of man so powerfully and is so entirely and deeply understood in the deepest parts of our (un) consciousness? Schopenhauer believed the function of art to be a meditation on the unity of human nature, with the power to communicate to the audience a certain existential angst for which most forms of entertainment—including bad art—only provided a distraction. In short, it is music that unites us and taps the still, mysterious deep well of our emotions, preparing the soul, and binding us together. Perhaps that is the best thing I can say that communicates the feel of music, short of picking up my guitar.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Freedom and Tolerance
I found two items in the news particularly interesting today. First, a car bombing targeting Denmark’s embassy in Pakistan in an anti-Danish attack over 2006 cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad and secondly, a Texas judge has ordered the return of more than 400 children taken from a polygamist group's ranch by state authorities. Why are these two things linked? For myself, it got me thinking about the difference and similarities between (religious) Freedom and Tolerance.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations defines freedom of religion and belief as the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to manifest this religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. Some think Freedom is almost synonymous with Democracy, at least in one sense of that word, while others see Democracy being nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. Either way, the idea of Freedom is generally tied to political philosophy, and yet, Freedom is one of those hard to define, fundamental rights that serves as a litmus test for the civic, religious, and moral authority of the state.
The word “tolerance” on the other hand, is an integral part of our description of western democracy that expresses an attitude of being open to the views of others in matters of world-views and religion. Tolerance is an answer for questions of life-style choices, religion, race, and morality or, more generally, political world-views. The civilized man is a tolerant man, and he sees people who don’t practice his kind of tolerance as backwards or unsophisticated. More and more it seems that tolerance is substituted for freedom. Where once we spoke of freedom of religions, now we are tolerant.
What is the problem with tolerance? Tolerance is entirely subjective, with its own system of values, which may or may not agree with classical ideals of freedom, ethics or natural law. Moreover, as it is something relative and subjective, questions of right and wrong can be trivialized as merely a matter of taste or popular opinion. The ideology of tolerance has become one of the most important requirements of “political correctness”.
The more we substitute the word tolerance for Freedom, the more we will be faced with an ethical dilemma. This is dangerous not only because tolerance is subjective, but because the more we are asked to be tolerance, the more permissive we are asked to become, and ultimately the more we are manipulated to speak and think in terms of tolerance in place of morality, permissiveness in place of conscience. There is a real danger here. Aristotle, in his Politics, observed that a man without morality is “… the most unholy and the most savage of animals.” The subjective nature of tolerance suggest that it must be tempered, lest it mean anything and ultimately nothing. But how does one temper tolerance, what does that even mean?
Part of the problem is that there is no commonality to the application or understanding of the term tolerance, making debate on it difficult. Some regard toleration and religious freedom as quite distinct things and emphasize the differences between the two. They understand toleration to signify no more than forbearance and the permission given by the adherents of a dominant religion for other religions to exist. Others define tolerance as all inclusive, claiming all values, all beliefs, all lifestyles are equal and brands anyone holding the opposite opinion as "intolerant." The differences are subtle. For myself, I think it is important to be open and to be willing to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others, without necessarily holding that other beliefs are necessarily true. In short, I do not require people to believe what I believe, and I can respect them for theirs. Moreover I realize that there are things that I am tolerant of (same sex marriage, abortion, puppies) that would make other people cringe.
Interestingly, in his Letter Concerning Tolerance, John Locke posits that, rather than being divisive, a wider diversity of religious groups might actually prevent civil unrest. Locke argues that civil unrest results from confrontations caused by any magistrate's attempt to prevent different religions from being practiced, rather than tolerating their proliferation. Locke's primary goal is to "distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion." The thing that he wants to persuade the reader of is that government is instituted to promote external interests, or freedoms relating to life, liberty, and the general welfare, while the church exists to promote internal interests, i.e., faith, tolerance, and salvation.
Unfortunately, what we have instead is a growing predominance of three or four “world” religions, whose ideologies and methodologies grow ever closer to the institutions of world government. This blending of government and religion is evident not only in the blurring of tolerance and freedom, but in individual political policies as well. Consider research for same sex relationships. This topic came up recently with my sister-in-law, a professor of Human Development at U. of Wisconsin in Green Bay. In her Human sexualities class, the students' research requirement is to do four research reports wherein they take something from class, select the two best sources and contrast/compare them. Each semester, while searching in multiple databases, they discover that there are a vast number of experiments, lab tests, genetic tests, work with primates, surveys, etc. done on the “cause” of homosexuality, while virtually no research is available on other aspects of human sexuality, including female ejaculation or the G-spot. She said “the amount of money spent and the amount of knowledge of basic female anatomy is teeny tiny in comparison. That brought us to a much larger discussion of how research funds are allocated, and how Congress has actively interfered in sex research. They have been (no surprise) particularly active in the last 7 years, pulling or stopping funding for nearly all research that has even a tangential relationship to sex unless it has some promise of "curing" homosexuality or promoting abstinence.”
The more religious ideology encroaches in the arena of politics, the more likely we are to see a lessening of true tolerance, and finally moral, civic and religious freedom. Ultimately, the greatest threat to religious freedom is religion's institutional intrusion into the control of the state and, ultimately, the lives of individuals, because the loss of freedom means that only one viewpoint is tolerated…
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations defines freedom of religion and belief as the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion and to manifest this religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. Some think Freedom is almost synonymous with Democracy, at least in one sense of that word, while others see Democracy being nothing more than the tyranny of the majority. Either way, the idea of Freedom is generally tied to political philosophy, and yet, Freedom is one of those hard to define, fundamental rights that serves as a litmus test for the civic, religious, and moral authority of the state.
The word “tolerance” on the other hand, is an integral part of our description of western democracy that expresses an attitude of being open to the views of others in matters of world-views and religion. Tolerance is an answer for questions of life-style choices, religion, race, and morality or, more generally, political world-views. The civilized man is a tolerant man, and he sees people who don’t practice his kind of tolerance as backwards or unsophisticated. More and more it seems that tolerance is substituted for freedom. Where once we spoke of freedom of religions, now we are tolerant.
What is the problem with tolerance? Tolerance is entirely subjective, with its own system of values, which may or may not agree with classical ideals of freedom, ethics or natural law. Moreover, as it is something relative and subjective, questions of right and wrong can be trivialized as merely a matter of taste or popular opinion. The ideology of tolerance has become one of the most important requirements of “political correctness”.
The more we substitute the word tolerance for Freedom, the more we will be faced with an ethical dilemma. This is dangerous not only because tolerance is subjective, but because the more we are asked to be tolerance, the more permissive we are asked to become, and ultimately the more we are manipulated to speak and think in terms of tolerance in place of morality, permissiveness in place of conscience. There is a real danger here. Aristotle, in his Politics, observed that a man without morality is “… the most unholy and the most savage of animals.” The subjective nature of tolerance suggest that it must be tempered, lest it mean anything and ultimately nothing. But how does one temper tolerance, what does that even mean?
Part of the problem is that there is no commonality to the application or understanding of the term tolerance, making debate on it difficult. Some regard toleration and religious freedom as quite distinct things and emphasize the differences between the two. They understand toleration to signify no more than forbearance and the permission given by the adherents of a dominant religion for other religions to exist. Others define tolerance as all inclusive, claiming all values, all beliefs, all lifestyles are equal and brands anyone holding the opposite opinion as "intolerant." The differences are subtle. For myself, I think it is important to be open and to be willing to recognize and respect the beliefs or practices of others, without necessarily holding that other beliefs are necessarily true. In short, I do not require people to believe what I believe, and I can respect them for theirs. Moreover I realize that there are things that I am tolerant of (same sex marriage, abortion, puppies) that would make other people cringe.
Interestingly, in his Letter Concerning Tolerance, John Locke posits that, rather than being divisive, a wider diversity of religious groups might actually prevent civil unrest. Locke argues that civil unrest results from confrontations caused by any magistrate's attempt to prevent different religions from being practiced, rather than tolerating their proliferation. Locke's primary goal is to "distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion." The thing that he wants to persuade the reader of is that government is instituted to promote external interests, or freedoms relating to life, liberty, and the general welfare, while the church exists to promote internal interests, i.e., faith, tolerance, and salvation.
Unfortunately, what we have instead is a growing predominance of three or four “world” religions, whose ideologies and methodologies grow ever closer to the institutions of world government. This blending of government and religion is evident not only in the blurring of tolerance and freedom, but in individual political policies as well. Consider research for same sex relationships. This topic came up recently with my sister-in-law, a professor of Human Development at U. of Wisconsin in Green Bay. In her Human sexualities class, the students' research requirement is to do four research reports wherein they take something from class, select the two best sources and contrast/compare them. Each semester, while searching in multiple databases, they discover that there are a vast number of experiments, lab tests, genetic tests, work with primates, surveys, etc. done on the “cause” of homosexuality, while virtually no research is available on other aspects of human sexuality, including female ejaculation or the G-spot. She said “the amount of money spent and the amount of knowledge of basic female anatomy is teeny tiny in comparison. That brought us to a much larger discussion of how research funds are allocated, and how Congress has actively interfered in sex research. They have been (no surprise) particularly active in the last 7 years, pulling or stopping funding for nearly all research that has even a tangential relationship to sex unless it has some promise of "curing" homosexuality or promoting abstinence.”
The more religious ideology encroaches in the arena of politics, the more likely we are to see a lessening of true tolerance, and finally moral, civic and religious freedom. Ultimately, the greatest threat to religious freedom is religion's institutional intrusion into the control of the state and, ultimately, the lives of individuals, because the loss of freedom means that only one viewpoint is tolerated…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)