The other day, I finally realized what post-modernism signifies. Post-modernism introduces an ambiguity, an uncertainty, a series of paradoxes into the understanding of everyday language and experience. I have witnessed a profound distaste for this probing and inquisitiveness, and I have directly shared this hesitation.
For a long time, I have viewed forms of post-modernism as empty, meaningless, and unnecessarily skeptical. To ask things like, 'what is the meaning of truth', 'who is the Other', and 'who are the People in "We the People"'? What's the point?
This rogue questioning seems to be a silly exercise - it ignores finding a solution to problems such as violence and poverty in favor of analyzing how we discuss problems such as violence and poverty.
Besides, isn't focusing on the problems themselves enough? The human race does, after all, have a great expertise for solving problems. Humanity has exercised a tremendous capacity for knowledge and discovery. Should I reject or cast doubt upon the workings of science and technology which have brought such monumental greatness and convenience into my life?
I am disturbed by the urgings of post-modernism, but I have realized something: I need this disturbance in my life -- and I have not yet begun to be disturbed enough.
"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword." - Jesus, Matthew 10:34
Today, societies have unprecedented access to knowledge of the external world around us. From the smallest imaginable wonders reached through nanotechnology to the eerily beautiful images shown from the largest echoes of space by the Hubble Telescope, humanity has a more significant grasp on reality than ever before.
Or so we think...and so we tell ourselves.
I have started to embrace post-modernism because it demands that we re-ask these questions of ourselves. So let me ask you again, not what kind of grasp you have on reality, but what kind of grasp reality has on you?
Said another way: Do you have an internal knowledge of yourself which equals your knowledge of the external world?
"What is truth?" - Pontius Pilate, John 18:38
Many post-modernists have expressed skepticism about the existence of a universal and absolute truth. Many religious people have expressed strong dismay about post-modernism because of this skepticism. Religious figures have reasoned that any skepticism about a universal truth would naturally extend to skepticism about the truth of religion, which is often claimed to be absolute and universal in nature.
I believe this skepticism of skepticism is unwarranted. (Skepticism of skepticism? Isn't that just the kind of unnecessarily complicated phrase a true post-modernist would use? What is it about post-modernism which erodes the use of language? What better evidence that what questions does in fact erode!)
The skepticism (from religious people) of the skepticism (of post-modernists) is not warranted because both religion and post-modernism share some of their most important values and perspectives on the world.
Mystery Enters the World
I'm not a Christian. But I am willing to accept that a fellow named Jesus very likely existed at some point, and could have done many of the things described in the Bible.
In the Gospels, Jesus vigorously questions the religious authorities of his day. The Pharisees constantly attempt to pin Jesus down on legalities to destroy his credibility.
Jesus denied that the prominent religious figures of his day had a monopoly on universal and absolute truth. He did not come to ease their understanding - he did not come to reassure their prejudices - he did not come to bring peace, but to bring a sword, and he did not come to bring simplicity, but to bring mystery.
Both religion and post-modernism introduce a mystery and an uncertainty into our mundane, everyday world which forces individuals to confront the structure and meaning of their inner-most, firmly-held beliefs and attitudes.
Both religion and post-modernism can lead the pilgrim into a voyage of re-examination, from which emerges a new life full of vitality and hope.
Mystery's Final Ascension
Where is the hope from mystery? Where is the light in this darkness?
The answer is the power of human imagination. Both religion and post-modernism imagine new meanings and new interpretations of life - both envision new alternatives to choose, and actively confront humanity with those choices.
Both religion and post-modernism resurrect what they divide: beneath the multiplicity and diversity of meanings lies a common connection. As words and concepts used to segment and oppose human beings are undermined, a new possibility of existence is realized.
No more Jew and Gentile, no more man and woman...
No more I and Other, no more black and white...
Both post-modernism and religion can free individuals from oppression and encourage them to see beyond the superficial differences which all too often consume humanity, to see new conditions of human life, where all individuals are free to pursue their creative potential as human beings.
Both Jesus Christ and Friedrich Nietzsche can tell you that underneath truth, there is life.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
What Are Liberal Values?
What Are Liberal Values?
I am currently taking a class called "History of the Modern Conservative Movement". My professor is an ardent conservative. He usually does not engage directly in political arguments during class, but he occasionally challenges liberal ideas in an indirect and subtle way. He'll offer a conservative attack on a liberal idea, and then say "this is what conservatives tend to think, not necessarily what I think - and you're taking this class to hear the conservative view, so here you go".
My professor addressed the following challenge to liberals during the first month of class, and I have been considering how to answer his questions since then:
"A conservative recognizes the same rights that have been traditionally recognized by thinkers such as John Locke: life, liberty, and property. Also, a conservative believes that these rights are not given by the government - but by an external source. I always want to ask liberals this: what is your vision of the country? Where would you stop if you could have your ultimate wishes? Conservatives know what kind of country they want - with the protection of the same traditional rights which have been the heritage of America since the Founding. But liberals keep trying to create new 'rights'. Where will you stop? You can see that there may be a kind of validity to Hayek's argument that once citizens depend on the government for more and more 'rights', the government can become oppressive."
Why do liberals keep trying to invent new rights? This is the wrong question.
What's the right question?
Why aren't conservatives doing more to preserve and secure the rights they cherish?
That's the correct question.
Securing Our Rights
Life. Liberty. Property. That's a celebrated trifecta - a trilogy - a trinity - and it seems simple and convenient enough to understand. If you're an American, you heard about it from Thomas Jefferson, who scribbled something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" once upon a time.
Isn't it enough that the government assist individuals in their pursuit of these three things? Why should the government do otherwise? Government is inherently oppressive - the less it does, the better the country.
Point taken - let's start there. Suppose you want to establish a government solely devoted to ensuring the rights of life, liberty, and property. Let's assume that the government should only intervene in cases where the public cannot accomplish a task effectively on its own, and the task relates directly to one of our big three times: life, liberty, or property. For each right, let's assess the capacity of individuals to secure the right on their own, without the intervention of government, and see if it's plausible for a government to take any additional measures to secure those rights.
Life
The right to life is the right to personal security. If society is enmeshed in a condition of anarchy and lawlessness, the right to life may be extremely difficult to secure. Can private citizens secure law and order successfully without the aid of a government? Perhaps - to a limited extent and for a small scale. A voluntary association of citizens could access a certain supply of small arms and protect a smaller area. However, most people lack the resources to defend themselves against more threatening fears, such as a conventional military or terrorist attack.
Another option is to establish a corporation which individuals pay to protect them. However, it would be difficult to distinguish in an emergency who paid dues and who did not. Further, by failing to address a public threat only because someone did not pay for protection, there could be harm to those who did pay. It would be far more practical to establish a police force or a military. I feel that this assertion is non-controversial, and that the majority of conservatives would agree with me on this.
Liberty
Liberty is a difficult concept to understand. It's not a tangible object, like life or property. Alexis de Tocqueville noted this in "Democracy in America", when contrasting public support for liberty and equality: because equality is more tangible and easier to understand, there is a danger that the public will always favor measures which bolster equality at the cost of weakening liberty.
Unfortunately, the problem is even worse than de Tocqueville imagined. The public also is liable to favor measures which bolster security at the cost of weakening liberty. However, this assertion cuts across many political ideologies. I know conservatives and liberals who are wildly opposed across political issues who would make this same argument regarding the dangers of abandoning liberty in the name of security. The funny thing about this phenomenon is that it is completely foreseeable. The culprit here is that there is a wide variety of definitions of liberty.
I told you liberty was a renegade. How many possible human activities can you imagine? That's how many definitions of the word 'liberty' exist today.
Rights as Restraints
This quibble over the meaning of the word 'liberty' leads me to an important point about the understanding of rights: many of the Enlightenment thinkers believed that rights can only be secured when the actions of other people are restrained. My professor for History of the Modern Conservative Movement put it this way: "our Founders believed that with every right comes a certain responsibility".
It's no wonder liberty is preposterously hard to grasp - it's an internally contradictory concept. Every person who uses the word 'liberty' has a hidden assumption of which kinds of behavior citizens should have liberty to choose. Generally, it has been suggested that the proper limit on action should be taken when an action would infringe on another person's life, liberty, or property. Said another way: you can basically have the liberty to do what you want until you take away someone else's liberty.
Let's assume we can decide that the type of liberty we should protect is the kind that does not take away someone else's liberty - that's a simple enough definition. Now let's return to the original premise of our discussion: what should be done to secure liberty (as we have defined it), and who should be in charge of those efforts?
Reconsidering Liberty
To secure liberty as we have defined it (that individuals should have the liberty to do all things which do not remove someone else's rights) - let's try to identify some actions which may or may not violate liberty, and decide on that basis whether they are permissible. To secure liberty, we should want to stop actions which erode it.
Does abortion violate rights? If the fetus is a person, then it has a certain set of rights which should be considered. However, the mother is also a person who has a certain set of rights, too. When does the personhood of the fetus eclipse the right to liberty a woman has over her own body?
Does the death penalty violate rights? If a person has been convicted of murder, that individual has already violated another person's liberty. Should the government violate a person's rights just because he or she did it first-isn't that fighting a wrong with a wrong? Or, should the government remove the liberty of a criminal to protect the liberty of the public?
Does a ban on online gambling violate rights?
Does a ban on marijuana violate rights?
Does a ban on same-sex marriage violate rights?
I hope you are beginning to understand the difficulty of weighing liberty against other rights. It is an extremely serious and delicate matter to consider just how far a government should act to limit the actions of individuals in order to protect the liberty of other citizens. Where is the balance between the greatest freedom of action and the strongest possible security of the rights of others?
I have heard conservatives argue this one way and I have heard liberals argue this another way, but both sides should agree that the question is a matter of balance and difficult to discern.
A Return to Our Premise
I mentioned earlier that there are two questions hanging over this exploration of rights:
1. Why do liberals keep trying to invent new rights?
2. Why aren't conservatives doing more to preserve and secure the rights they cherish?
It may appear that liberals accept a broader number of rights besides the major three enumerated traditionally: life, liberty, and property. However, I reject this view. I believe that liberals have a different perception of what is necessary to preserve and secure life, liberty, and property.
A liberal assumes that each right is dependent on a host of others. A liberal has a more extensive idea of what each of the three traditional natural rights entails.
If a bank forecloses on my home because they offered fraudulent mortgage terms, my right to property is violated.
If a corporation imported goods from China which contained poisonous lead, and I fall ill from ingesting it, my right to life is violated.
If the institution of public education is dismantled, and my ability to participate in civic processes in an engaged manner is therefore lacking, my right to liberty is violated.
A 'right to health care' is a right to life. A 'right to education' is a right to liberty. A 'right to consumer protection' is a right to life and a right to property, depending on the case. This is obvious, intuitive, and self-evident to liberals.
Does it make sense that these things are natural extensions of the rights to life, liberty, and property? Can a coherent notion of the rights to life, liberty, and property exist without guaranteeing those conditions which allow them to flourish?
A liberal doesn't want new rights: a liberal wants to secure the rights we have, and is dismayed when conservatives refuse to act to protect those rights for all Americans.
I am currently taking a class called "History of the Modern Conservative Movement". My professor is an ardent conservative. He usually does not engage directly in political arguments during class, but he occasionally challenges liberal ideas in an indirect and subtle way. He'll offer a conservative attack on a liberal idea, and then say "this is what conservatives tend to think, not necessarily what I think - and you're taking this class to hear the conservative view, so here you go".
My professor addressed the following challenge to liberals during the first month of class, and I have been considering how to answer his questions since then:
"A conservative recognizes the same rights that have been traditionally recognized by thinkers such as John Locke: life, liberty, and property. Also, a conservative believes that these rights are not given by the government - but by an external source. I always want to ask liberals this: what is your vision of the country? Where would you stop if you could have your ultimate wishes? Conservatives know what kind of country they want - with the protection of the same traditional rights which have been the heritage of America since the Founding. But liberals keep trying to create new 'rights'. Where will you stop? You can see that there may be a kind of validity to Hayek's argument that once citizens depend on the government for more and more 'rights', the government can become oppressive."
Why do liberals keep trying to invent new rights? This is the wrong question.
What's the right question?
Why aren't conservatives doing more to preserve and secure the rights they cherish?
That's the correct question.
Securing Our Rights
Life. Liberty. Property. That's a celebrated trifecta - a trilogy - a trinity - and it seems simple and convenient enough to understand. If you're an American, you heard about it from Thomas Jefferson, who scribbled something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" once upon a time.
Isn't it enough that the government assist individuals in their pursuit of these three things? Why should the government do otherwise? Government is inherently oppressive - the less it does, the better the country.
Point taken - let's start there. Suppose you want to establish a government solely devoted to ensuring the rights of life, liberty, and property. Let's assume that the government should only intervene in cases where the public cannot accomplish a task effectively on its own, and the task relates directly to one of our big three times: life, liberty, or property. For each right, let's assess the capacity of individuals to secure the right on their own, without the intervention of government, and see if it's plausible for a government to take any additional measures to secure those rights.
Life
The right to life is the right to personal security. If society is enmeshed in a condition of anarchy and lawlessness, the right to life may be extremely difficult to secure. Can private citizens secure law and order successfully without the aid of a government? Perhaps - to a limited extent and for a small scale. A voluntary association of citizens could access a certain supply of small arms and protect a smaller area. However, most people lack the resources to defend themselves against more threatening fears, such as a conventional military or terrorist attack.
Another option is to establish a corporation which individuals pay to protect them. However, it would be difficult to distinguish in an emergency who paid dues and who did not. Further, by failing to address a public threat only because someone did not pay for protection, there could be harm to those who did pay. It would be far more practical to establish a police force or a military. I feel that this assertion is non-controversial, and that the majority of conservatives would agree with me on this.
Liberty
Liberty is a difficult concept to understand. It's not a tangible object, like life or property. Alexis de Tocqueville noted this in "Democracy in America", when contrasting public support for liberty and equality: because equality is more tangible and easier to understand, there is a danger that the public will always favor measures which bolster equality at the cost of weakening liberty.
Unfortunately, the problem is even worse than de Tocqueville imagined. The public also is liable to favor measures which bolster security at the cost of weakening liberty. However, this assertion cuts across many political ideologies. I know conservatives and liberals who are wildly opposed across political issues who would make this same argument regarding the dangers of abandoning liberty in the name of security. The funny thing about this phenomenon is that it is completely foreseeable. The culprit here is that there is a wide variety of definitions of liberty.
I told you liberty was a renegade. How many possible human activities can you imagine? That's how many definitions of the word 'liberty' exist today.
Rights as Restraints
This quibble over the meaning of the word 'liberty' leads me to an important point about the understanding of rights: many of the Enlightenment thinkers believed that rights can only be secured when the actions of other people are restrained. My professor for History of the Modern Conservative Movement put it this way: "our Founders believed that with every right comes a certain responsibility".
It's no wonder liberty is preposterously hard to grasp - it's an internally contradictory concept. Every person who uses the word 'liberty' has a hidden assumption of which kinds of behavior citizens should have liberty to choose. Generally, it has been suggested that the proper limit on action should be taken when an action would infringe on another person's life, liberty, or property. Said another way: you can basically have the liberty to do what you want until you take away someone else's liberty.
Let's assume we can decide that the type of liberty we should protect is the kind that does not take away someone else's liberty - that's a simple enough definition. Now let's return to the original premise of our discussion: what should be done to secure liberty (as we have defined it), and who should be in charge of those efforts?
Reconsidering Liberty
To secure liberty as we have defined it (that individuals should have the liberty to do all things which do not remove someone else's rights) - let's try to identify some actions which may or may not violate liberty, and decide on that basis whether they are permissible. To secure liberty, we should want to stop actions which erode it.
Does abortion violate rights? If the fetus is a person, then it has a certain set of rights which should be considered. However, the mother is also a person who has a certain set of rights, too. When does the personhood of the fetus eclipse the right to liberty a woman has over her own body?
Does the death penalty violate rights? If a person has been convicted of murder, that individual has already violated another person's liberty. Should the government violate a person's rights just because he or she did it first-isn't that fighting a wrong with a wrong? Or, should the government remove the liberty of a criminal to protect the liberty of the public?
Does a ban on online gambling violate rights?
Does a ban on marijuana violate rights?
Does a ban on same-sex marriage violate rights?
I hope you are beginning to understand the difficulty of weighing liberty against other rights. It is an extremely serious and delicate matter to consider just how far a government should act to limit the actions of individuals in order to protect the liberty of other citizens. Where is the balance between the greatest freedom of action and the strongest possible security of the rights of others?
I have heard conservatives argue this one way and I have heard liberals argue this another way, but both sides should agree that the question is a matter of balance and difficult to discern.
A Return to Our Premise
I mentioned earlier that there are two questions hanging over this exploration of rights:
1. Why do liberals keep trying to invent new rights?
2. Why aren't conservatives doing more to preserve and secure the rights they cherish?
It may appear that liberals accept a broader number of rights besides the major three enumerated traditionally: life, liberty, and property. However, I reject this view. I believe that liberals have a different perception of what is necessary to preserve and secure life, liberty, and property.
A liberal assumes that each right is dependent on a host of others. A liberal has a more extensive idea of what each of the three traditional natural rights entails.
If a bank forecloses on my home because they offered fraudulent mortgage terms, my right to property is violated.
If a corporation imported goods from China which contained poisonous lead, and I fall ill from ingesting it, my right to life is violated.
If the institution of public education is dismantled, and my ability to participate in civic processes in an engaged manner is therefore lacking, my right to liberty is violated.
A 'right to health care' is a right to life. A 'right to education' is a right to liberty. A 'right to consumer protection' is a right to life and a right to property, depending on the case. This is obvious, intuitive, and self-evident to liberals.
Does it make sense that these things are natural extensions of the rights to life, liberty, and property? Can a coherent notion of the rights to life, liberty, and property exist without guaranteeing those conditions which allow them to flourish?
A liberal doesn't want new rights: a liberal wants to secure the rights we have, and is dismayed when conservatives refuse to act to protect those rights for all Americans.
psychoanalysis
"psychoanalysis"
present an issue clearly and concisely
get a new perspective
probably just a lunatic
maybe that means trouble for me
a more interesting connection there
short and to the point
reject everything up to this point
can I give a more spirited defense
a certain product of history
a critical eye to the reasons you believe
very illuminating
stay on board
standing alone
on a metaphysical plane
closer to the real world
a better idea for life
actual life-happenings
because it’s easy and simple
so much more than that
take it and expand it
so many aspects of life
very abstract principles
life is like a box of chocolates
come to terms with reality
become silent and face our own existence
what if I were one of these thinkers?
in what way would I have responded?
culturally ingrained in us
we have to understand why
reactions and responses
something very different than what I was exposed to
unusual
it goes back farther than that
I was shocked
I’ve got thick skin
you’ve got to be able to dish it out as well as take it
now it sounds like bullshit
real convincing
don’t start throwing things at me
it’s got its good and bad things
the nuts and bolts
probably my fault
a springboard to rant
time-bound
focused on a specific period and a specific grievance
very frenzied
stops and starts
present an issue clearly and concisely
get a new perspective
probably just a lunatic
maybe that means trouble for me
a more interesting connection there
short and to the point
reject everything up to this point
can I give a more spirited defense
a certain product of history
a critical eye to the reasons you believe
very illuminating
stay on board
standing alone
on a metaphysical plane
closer to the real world
a better idea for life
actual life-happenings
because it’s easy and simple
so much more than that
take it and expand it
so many aspects of life
very abstract principles
life is like a box of chocolates
come to terms with reality
become silent and face our own existence
what if I were one of these thinkers?
in what way would I have responded?
culturally ingrained in us
we have to understand why
reactions and responses
something very different than what I was exposed to
unusual
it goes back farther than that
I was shocked
I’ve got thick skin
you’ve got to be able to dish it out as well as take it
now it sounds like bullshit
real convincing
don’t start throwing things at me
it’s got its good and bad things
the nuts and bolts
probably my fault
a springboard to rant
time-bound
focused on a specific period and a specific grievance
very frenzied
stops and starts
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
a double value...a figure paradoxical
"a double value...a figure paradoxical"
kneeling
suffering
revolting against what's happening
grab the truth in that moment
can't verbalize it
different views
desire to come to the truth
a bold undertaking
forever and as of this morning it hasn't been resolved
you can't grasp otherwise
unveil a secret to something that you can't have
can't explicate it in words
make preparations
the teacher says my appointed time is near
truly I tell you one of you will betray me
you have said so
this is my body
poured out for many
fruit of the vine
drink anew
bring into the present
with his right hand
hands have to be washed
there's so much here
a whole process
raising the body above the earth
holy and pure
let me just interrupt you
going to be assaulted
my appointed time is near
not a regular guy
heavens opened up
you've experienced the future
touched eternity
part of a greater drama
at the same time
that resignation
belongs to a higher truth
a new truth
I'm just coming up with this now
puzzling
all these conflicting forces
gestures lead the eye
we have a new truth in the universe
the whole world is coming into that truth
let's go onto the next
when you come into it
it overwhelms you
we look at it as outsiders
give me an insight
you said absolutely nothing right now
no deeper meaning
you have your tension but it's not fulfilled yet
coming close but not quite touching
the truth versus the betrayal
a love-hate relationship
what do they have in common?
participating in a drama which is going to give God to mankind
two wires just about to touch and set off a spark but they don't
that's as far as I can see in this
kneeling
suffering
revolting against what's happening
grab the truth in that moment
can't verbalize it
different views
desire to come to the truth
a bold undertaking
forever and as of this morning it hasn't been resolved
you can't grasp otherwise
unveil a secret to something that you can't have
can't explicate it in words
make preparations
the teacher says my appointed time is near
truly I tell you one of you will betray me
you have said so
this is my body
poured out for many
fruit of the vine
drink anew
bring into the present
with his right hand
hands have to be washed
there's so much here
a whole process
raising the body above the earth
holy and pure
let me just interrupt you
going to be assaulted
my appointed time is near
not a regular guy
heavens opened up
you've experienced the future
touched eternity
part of a greater drama
at the same time
that resignation
belongs to a higher truth
a new truth
I'm just coming up with this now
puzzling
all these conflicting forces
gestures lead the eye
we have a new truth in the universe
the whole world is coming into that truth
let's go onto the next
when you come into it
it overwhelms you
we look at it as outsiders
give me an insight
you said absolutely nothing right now
no deeper meaning
you have your tension but it's not fulfilled yet
coming close but not quite touching
the truth versus the betrayal
a love-hate relationship
what do they have in common?
participating in a drama which is going to give God to mankind
two wires just about to touch and set off a spark but they don't
that's as far as I can see in this
Monday, April 18, 2011
an illusion retained in shadow as to a moment unborn
"an illusion retained in shadow as to a moment unborn"
despair and hope
always together
blood and new life
this side is lighter and that side is darker
participate in the passion
co-existence of despair and hope
blood, death, and life
open to redemption
darkness into light
death passes into resurrection
despair comes into hope
it is now real
the end of darkness is not darkness
you have life after death
this is what I think
heaven is already present
a single truth
between life and death
articulated in different dramas
it's the same truth
collapse into it
it's already happening right now
it's even stronger
this is it
everything's pushed towards you
you are encountering this and becoming part of it
absorbing those who look upon it
* This is another found spoken word poem, which I have composed this time courtesy of Professor Gershon Greenberg and his Meaning and Purpose in the Arts class, from lecture and discussions of April 14, 2011. The same other stipulations which I mentioned as a footnote to my last found spoken word poem apply here.
** The title of this poem is an excerpted sentence fragment from Leo Steinberg's essay of artistic criticism about Leonardo's Last Supper, "The Seven Functions of the Hands of Christ".
despair and hope
always together
blood and new life
this side is lighter and that side is darker
participate in the passion
co-existence of despair and hope
blood, death, and life
open to redemption
darkness into light
death passes into resurrection
despair comes into hope
it is now real
the end of darkness is not darkness
you have life after death
this is what I think
heaven is already present
a single truth
between life and death
articulated in different dramas
it's the same truth
collapse into it
it's already happening right now
it's even stronger
this is it
everything's pushed towards you
you are encountering this and becoming part of it
absorbing those who look upon it
* This is another found spoken word poem, which I have composed this time courtesy of Professor Gershon Greenberg and his Meaning and Purpose in the Arts class, from lecture and discussions of April 14, 2011. The same other stipulations which I mentioned as a footnote to my last found spoken word poem apply here.
** The title of this poem is an excerpted sentence fragment from Leo Steinberg's essay of artistic criticism about Leonardo's Last Supper, "The Seven Functions of the Hands of Christ".
Monday, April 11, 2011
Dear Editor
"Dear Editor"
So you’d like to personally invite,
With dull generic forms that lack insight,
Yours truly to watch revealed beauty
Derived by editorial duty.
Your magazine, loaded with amazing
Works you selected – although encasing
The realms of ideal form – excludes poor me.
So you’d love me to attend your party,
To affirm your submitters’ work – indeed! –
As your lifeblood; though mine, you did not need.
Since I’m skeptical that you can’t respire
Without my poems, which you don’t admire,
I somehow lack the pretense required
To believe my presence is desired.
So you’d like to personally invite,
With dull generic forms that lack insight,
Yours truly to watch revealed beauty
Derived by editorial duty.
Your magazine, loaded with amazing
Works you selected – although encasing
The realms of ideal form – excludes poor me.
So you’d love me to attend your party,
To affirm your submitters’ work – indeed! –
As your lifeblood; though mine, you did not need.
Since I’m skeptical that you can’t respire
Without my poems, which you don’t admire,
I somehow lack the pretense required
To believe my presence is desired.
Friday, April 8, 2011
long story short
"long story short"
binary of two forces
one force in opposition to another
a multitude of different oppositions
understand the power dynamic
just about anything
share those resources
a cultural bias at work
asserting itself
totalizing itself
homogenized to look this way
differences are papered over
giving the face of something that should be feared
looking at that lens at work
close the borders
try to alleviate
suffering from the disease
as the other or as the same
determine the motivations
lack of education
this is why we help
the notion is transformed
remains in place
establishing what it meant
distinguished itself
define ourselves
a region of the world
imagine one that would not do what he opposes
interconnected as it is
sovereign within its own sphere
we have some kind of obligation
we are going to make judgments
the paradigm through which we think
considered itself the center of the world
there is no homogenous, totalizing group
there is some truth in this
you need to just get used to it
you are born in a world and you can accept it or change it
language is elastic
accidents
mistakes
not the end-all, be-all
the body of work
a major weakness
a system that allows them to come about in a fast manner
you are involved in the process
I am still making decisions
as a matter of form
at some point you have to evaluate me
I think that’s where I’m going
I hope we are able to tie up our loose ends
humor me
pretend you’ve learned something useful
* This is a found spoken word poem which I have composed, courtesy of Professor Shanaysha Sauls of American University and her Contemporary Political Thought class, and reinterpreted from the lecture and discussions in class on April 7th, 2011. The words and sentence fragments themselves, as far as I am able to record them, are accurate and in chronological order, although I have heavily excerpted and fragmented them for poetic quality and themes.
** I would prefer to present the text of this poem in a format which is center-aligned, but I am not sure if this is possible in Blogger.
binary of two forces
one force in opposition to another
a multitude of different oppositions
understand the power dynamic
just about anything
share those resources
a cultural bias at work
asserting itself
totalizing itself
homogenized to look this way
differences are papered over
giving the face of something that should be feared
looking at that lens at work
close the borders
try to alleviate
suffering from the disease
as the other or as the same
determine the motivations
lack of education
this is why we help
the notion is transformed
remains in place
establishing what it meant
distinguished itself
define ourselves
a region of the world
imagine one that would not do what he opposes
interconnected as it is
sovereign within its own sphere
we have some kind of obligation
we are going to make judgments
the paradigm through which we think
considered itself the center of the world
there is no homogenous, totalizing group
there is some truth in this
you need to just get used to it
you are born in a world and you can accept it or change it
language is elastic
accidents
mistakes
not the end-all, be-all
the body of work
a major weakness
a system that allows them to come about in a fast manner
you are involved in the process
I am still making decisions
as a matter of form
at some point you have to evaluate me
I think that’s where I’m going
I hope we are able to tie up our loose ends
humor me
pretend you’ve learned something useful
* This is a found spoken word poem which I have composed, courtesy of Professor Shanaysha Sauls of American University and her Contemporary Political Thought class, and reinterpreted from the lecture and discussions in class on April 7th, 2011. The words and sentence fragments themselves, as far as I am able to record them, are accurate and in chronological order, although I have heavily excerpted and fragmented them for poetic quality and themes.
** I would prefer to present the text of this poem in a format which is center-aligned, but I am not sure if this is possible in Blogger.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Affirmation
"Affirmation"
It’s a slap in the face to see what blooms
When a cold snap rustles against my cheek.
Harsh winds resent my gumption which presumes
That Spring’s in the world; as the love I seek
Is yet still-born as it is unfolding,
This new life bears witness to a shiver.
As I endure callous Nature’s scolding,
The chill recedes as I redeliver
A verdict upon blustery despair.
My vision swells, sense reawakening
The thankfulness that I will persevere
Among this resilient, budding, pulsing,
Lively, joyous struggle: all-consuming,
Never ending—always overcoming.
It’s a slap in the face to see what blooms
When a cold snap rustles against my cheek.
Harsh winds resent my gumption which presumes
That Spring’s in the world; as the love I seek
Is yet still-born as it is unfolding,
This new life bears witness to a shiver.
As I endure callous Nature’s scolding,
The chill recedes as I redeliver
A verdict upon blustery despair.
My vision swells, sense reawakening
The thankfulness that I will persevere
Among this resilient, budding, pulsing,
Lively, joyous struggle: all-consuming,
Never ending—always overcoming.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
A New(er) Poem: Testify
"Testify"
On haunting, starry nights in Bethlehem,
Plucking out an eye, rather than an ear--
Prophets, priests, and poets attest their craft.
But some, ensnared by patterns and pictures
Of airy canvass, instead seek palettes
Divinely gripped with pastel-plastered hands.
In vistas beneath the Arc de Triomphe
Of the mind, there a forgotten mystic
Applies a glimpse of passion by his brush:
Some speck of love and trauma depicts the
Highest joy in this transitory world--
That change is the one medium of love.
The brush flickers, embers burning boldly.
Their glow reveals an ever hidden spark
Which burns in those whose darkness lights the sky.
On haunting, starry nights in Bethlehem,
Plucking out an eye, rather than an ear--
Prophets, priests, and poets attest their craft.
But some, ensnared by patterns and pictures
Of airy canvass, instead seek palettes
Divinely gripped with pastel-plastered hands.
In vistas beneath the Arc de Triomphe
Of the mind, there a forgotten mystic
Applies a glimpse of passion by his brush:
Some speck of love and trauma depicts the
Highest joy in this transitory world--
That change is the one medium of love.
The brush flickers, embers burning boldly.
Their glow reveals an ever hidden spark
Which burns in those whose darkness lights the sky.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Surrender, Surrender (But Don't Give Yourself Away)
"Surrender, surrender, but don't give yourself away". - "Surrender", by Cheap Trick, © 1978
I have already affirmed the contest between change and stability as the greatest conflict in human life. Many other essential conflicts of human existence spring from this: the contest between the individual and society, between individuals and a relationship, between individuals and their religion, between individuals and morality, between individuals and ideology.
What does it mean to exist in such confusion? What does it mean to be an individual when one's very existence can only be defined in terms of its attachment to other, larger groups? What does it mean to live as one person in a world dominated by forces greater and more complex than any single human being?
It's fun to pretend that individuals can live only for themselves. We're all rational human beings, with perfect information at our disposal, considering all our options carefully, and then making the best decision for us. Our thoughts, our beliefs, our actions, our language, and the very words we use to express our innermost sensations, belong primarily to us first and foremost: they're not products of our environment, the groups to which we belong, or any long and tedious processes over which we have little to no control. We individuals like to imagine that we are more powerful than we are, but we are wrong.
What is the price of this knowledge? Have we sold our uniqueness and worth as individuals? Have we given away the sanctity of a precious human life?
No. We surrender, and surrender, but we do not give ourselves away.
I surrender to those groups in which I belong, to all those groups which make my life possible and meaningful. My parents, my family, my peers, everyone I've ever met: you gave me norms, values, ideas, words, and symbols -- you equipped me and gave me my power, gave me my ability to interpret this world and to shape it in my own image. And yet, this image toward which I shape the world is not just my own, but it also belongs to all of you, because you have given me the image of the world which I hold now.
I surrender some of my desires and goals, my resources, my aims and ends, because I have agreed to participate in a project which is greater than myself. When it is late at night and there are no cars in the streets, I stop at traffic lights until I receive the proper signal. I register for the Selective Service, which means I am eligible to be drafted into the military should my country ever decide again to mandate citizens to fight its wars. This summer, I worked a minimum wage job in the fast food industry to help pay for college, and some of my earnings went to pay taxes which support an entire system of government.
But I do not give myself away. Because who am I anyway? After all, I am society; I am a relationship; I am a religion; I am a morality; and I am an ideology. I express my individuality through the collective character I share with others. I accomplish my individual goals and ambitions because I am motivated by values which are instilled in me by other people, that I share with other people, and which serve common ends and common interests. A true individual must always, when acting in his or her own interest, strive to remember how this interest is inseparably and inextricably linked with the interests of others.
Yes, I am in one sense a self-made man. But I'm not the only self that's made it.
I have already affirmed the contest between change and stability as the greatest conflict in human life. Many other essential conflicts of human existence spring from this: the contest between the individual and society, between individuals and a relationship, between individuals and their religion, between individuals and morality, between individuals and ideology.
What does it mean to exist in such confusion? What does it mean to be an individual when one's very existence can only be defined in terms of its attachment to other, larger groups? What does it mean to live as one person in a world dominated by forces greater and more complex than any single human being?
It's fun to pretend that individuals can live only for themselves. We're all rational human beings, with perfect information at our disposal, considering all our options carefully, and then making the best decision for us. Our thoughts, our beliefs, our actions, our language, and the very words we use to express our innermost sensations, belong primarily to us first and foremost: they're not products of our environment, the groups to which we belong, or any long and tedious processes over which we have little to no control. We individuals like to imagine that we are more powerful than we are, but we are wrong.
What is the price of this knowledge? Have we sold our uniqueness and worth as individuals? Have we given away the sanctity of a precious human life?
No. We surrender, and surrender, but we do not give ourselves away.
I surrender to those groups in which I belong, to all those groups which make my life possible and meaningful. My parents, my family, my peers, everyone I've ever met: you gave me norms, values, ideas, words, and symbols -- you equipped me and gave me my power, gave me my ability to interpret this world and to shape it in my own image. And yet, this image toward which I shape the world is not just my own, but it also belongs to all of you, because you have given me the image of the world which I hold now.
I surrender some of my desires and goals, my resources, my aims and ends, because I have agreed to participate in a project which is greater than myself. When it is late at night and there are no cars in the streets, I stop at traffic lights until I receive the proper signal. I register for the Selective Service, which means I am eligible to be drafted into the military should my country ever decide again to mandate citizens to fight its wars. This summer, I worked a minimum wage job in the fast food industry to help pay for college, and some of my earnings went to pay taxes which support an entire system of government.
But I do not give myself away. Because who am I anyway? After all, I am society; I am a relationship; I am a religion; I am a morality; and I am an ideology. I express my individuality through the collective character I share with others. I accomplish my individual goals and ambitions because I am motivated by values which are instilled in me by other people, that I share with other people, and which serve common ends and common interests. A true individual must always, when acting in his or her own interest, strive to remember how this interest is inseparably and inextricably linked with the interests of others.
Yes, I am in one sense a self-made man. But I'm not the only self that's made it.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Wish to Live
What are the highest values in life? What ideas provide guidance for the best possible living? What is the inspiration which accords the best template for living, for fully realizing our potential as human beings?
Friedrich Nietzsche mentions the "will to power" as a force which has "succeeded in explaining our entire instinctive life". Is this "will to power", though, merely a description of how the world works, of how life exists, or is it also a normative statement (an outline of how life should be lived)? Should we live only according to our instincts? Does living against the pattern of our instincts hopelessly obscure and defeat life itself? Or, rather, does life only begin to soar once it transcends our basic instincts for higher goals?
Which parts of the "will to power" should be embraced by society? Nietzsche repeatedly asserts that those conditions which enable life to flourish should be promoted. But what does it mean for life to flourish? Does life flourish when it is restrained, or when it is constricted; does life flourish only when it is maintained and managed, or only when it is free and independent? What does it mean to preserve and enhance life? And what kinds of life does Nietzsche value?
Nietzsche objects to those who place more emphasis on suffering in this life, in exchange for a better future life, than on experiencing life in the present world. But for many people, the experience of life essentially contains suffering - and suffering really can be described as the origin of life. Perhaps suffering is the main mode of life, after all: not the "will to power", but the "will to suffer" predominates, or perhaps the "will to power" is also a "will to suffer". Lastly, perhaps Nietzsche is not really against an acknowledgment of suffering, but merely disagrees as to what manner people should direct their suffering.
A preacher here on campus has suggested that God created the world in an act of love as suffering. I have heard it said, "to love someone truly, you must allow them to have the chance to make you suffer".
Did God create the world in an act of love as suffering? Even if there is no God, is this the essential state of our world as it exists now? Does all the world in the world owe its existence to some form of suffering?
And who would punish a lover for one's own love, if there is a God who has created such a world? Jesus in the Gospels tells the parable of the prodigal son. The father allows the son to experience life on his own terms, and allows the son to suffer the consequences of his actions. Would a loving God allow us to suffer merely as a consequence of Its actions, merely because a world was created wherein we humans were given this life which has built itself upon our suffering?
To love is in part to suffer. And suffer I do, as we all do...adrenaline, oxytocin, estrogen...coursing through the channels of my soul, of every "soul". Chemicals corrode my soul, yet they restore my body. My body atones for my soul. These hapless emotions, what poor excuse of a being am I? Too far gone in this world. Too near-sighted for the things to come. Not spiritual enough. Too human.
That lustful glance is the adultery of my spirit. But not to glance is the adultery of my body. To glance, to live: to commit adultery of the mind, or the heart? I have been ripped to shreds and torn apart, glued together again, haphazardly...this is the way life has developed over billions of years, ripping and tearing itself apart, to time and time again, build things that are newer and stranger, odd and more odd are these evolved creatures, these "thinking things" that are called human beings. This is the worst and the best that I am. I give my love, I give my pain, and I give my innocence...all in the name of life.
This is what God gave me, if it was indeed a divine gift...my own freedom, my own shame; my own love, my own suffering. All that and less: some of the things He gave me I'm apparently supposed to disown. In the name of a Higher Life. In the name of a Higher Love, and a Higher Truth.
Pilot washed his hands before he condemned Jesus. Did God wash His mind in the hormones of our psyches before condemning us?
If God exists, then God should commend evil instead of condemning it, for this evil has propelled us to life. We love ourselves. We love our family. We love our tribe, our sect, our friends. This is evil, since we love them for their suffering, because only that has brought us into this world and continually sustains us. Perhaps someday, when we remember the suffering that endures and surrounds us, the suffering that has created life in all its stark beauty and terror, then we will love our neighbor as ourselves, most of all because they suffer as we suffer.
Friedrich Nietzsche mentions the "will to power" as a force which has "succeeded in explaining our entire instinctive life". Is this "will to power", though, merely a description of how the world works, of how life exists, or is it also a normative statement (an outline of how life should be lived)? Should we live only according to our instincts? Does living against the pattern of our instincts hopelessly obscure and defeat life itself? Or, rather, does life only begin to soar once it transcends our basic instincts for higher goals?
Which parts of the "will to power" should be embraced by society? Nietzsche repeatedly asserts that those conditions which enable life to flourish should be promoted. But what does it mean for life to flourish? Does life flourish when it is restrained, or when it is constricted; does life flourish only when it is maintained and managed, or only when it is free and independent? What does it mean to preserve and enhance life? And what kinds of life does Nietzsche value?
Nietzsche objects to those who place more emphasis on suffering in this life, in exchange for a better future life, than on experiencing life in the present world. But for many people, the experience of life essentially contains suffering - and suffering really can be described as the origin of life. Perhaps suffering is the main mode of life, after all: not the "will to power", but the "will to suffer" predominates, or perhaps the "will to power" is also a "will to suffer". Lastly, perhaps Nietzsche is not really against an acknowledgment of suffering, but merely disagrees as to what manner people should direct their suffering.
A preacher here on campus has suggested that God created the world in an act of love as suffering. I have heard it said, "to love someone truly, you must allow them to have the chance to make you suffer".
Did God create the world in an act of love as suffering? Even if there is no God, is this the essential state of our world as it exists now? Does all the world in the world owe its existence to some form of suffering?
And who would punish a lover for one's own love, if there is a God who has created such a world? Jesus in the Gospels tells the parable of the prodigal son. The father allows the son to experience life on his own terms, and allows the son to suffer the consequences of his actions. Would a loving God allow us to suffer merely as a consequence of Its actions, merely because a world was created wherein we humans were given this life which has built itself upon our suffering?
To love is in part to suffer. And suffer I do, as we all do...adrenaline, oxytocin, estrogen...coursing through the channels of my soul, of every "soul". Chemicals corrode my soul, yet they restore my body. My body atones for my soul. These hapless emotions, what poor excuse of a being am I? Too far gone in this world. Too near-sighted for the things to come. Not spiritual enough. Too human.
That lustful glance is the adultery of my spirit. But not to glance is the adultery of my body. To glance, to live: to commit adultery of the mind, or the heart? I have been ripped to shreds and torn apart, glued together again, haphazardly...this is the way life has developed over billions of years, ripping and tearing itself apart, to time and time again, build things that are newer and stranger, odd and more odd are these evolved creatures, these "thinking things" that are called human beings. This is the worst and the best that I am. I give my love, I give my pain, and I give my innocence...all in the name of life.
This is what God gave me, if it was indeed a divine gift...my own freedom, my own shame; my own love, my own suffering. All that and less: some of the things He gave me I'm apparently supposed to disown. In the name of a Higher Life. In the name of a Higher Love, and a Higher Truth.
Pilot washed his hands before he condemned Jesus. Did God wash His mind in the hormones of our psyches before condemning us?
If God exists, then God should commend evil instead of condemning it, for this evil has propelled us to life. We love ourselves. We love our family. We love our tribe, our sect, our friends. This is evil, since we love them for their suffering, because only that has brought us into this world and continually sustains us. Perhaps someday, when we remember the suffering that endures and surrounds us, the suffering that has created life in all its stark beauty and terror, then we will love our neighbor as ourselves, most of all because they suffer as we suffer.
Friday, February 11, 2011
February Evening
I tread lightly, as I am underneath a luscious purple sky on a vivid, frigid evening.
I do not belong here. I am a vagrant: I am the monk wondering aimlessly through the desert. This hermit does not belong there. He has taken a vow of silence. His words do not belong there.
A few of the street lights are broken, extinguished. They do not belong here. The night has returned to its splendor; it is uninterrupted, free, and hidden once again.
The trees are illuminated, their branches all too barren and exposed. The leaves do not belong here. They have had their splendor; for now they have vanished, though more will take their place.
And so it is with me. The streets are empty and devoid of life, but in just a few hours, they'll be thronging with cars and buses and people, haphazardly making their way. And the streets will not belong to me.
I tread lightly, for underneath me is the residue of abandoned civilizations and demolished ecosystems.
I do not belong here. I am a wonderer: as I glance toward the ever distant stars, I remember that I have traveled a path I cannot reverse. I am star stuff, glimpsing at my past, in swirling points of light. But I do not belong there.
For a countless time I walk alone, unnoticed. I do not belong here. The sun rises and the day reigns, the spring arrives and the leaves regenerate, and I am not required.
The past is illuminated, its branches barren and exposed. Its accounts do not belong here. They who walked and wondered and spoke have had their splendor; for now they have vanished, though more will take their place.
And so it is with me. My tongue is still and devoid of speech, but for just a few moments, my words will be thronging in ears and minds and memories, haphazardly making their way. And my words will not belong to me.
I do not belong here. I am a vagrant: I am the monk wondering aimlessly through the desert. This hermit does not belong there. He has taken a vow of silence. His words do not belong there.
A few of the street lights are broken, extinguished. They do not belong here. The night has returned to its splendor; it is uninterrupted, free, and hidden once again.
The trees are illuminated, their branches all too barren and exposed. The leaves do not belong here. They have had their splendor; for now they have vanished, though more will take their place.
And so it is with me. The streets are empty and devoid of life, but in just a few hours, they'll be thronging with cars and buses and people, haphazardly making their way. And the streets will not belong to me.
I tread lightly, for underneath me is the residue of abandoned civilizations and demolished ecosystems.
I do not belong here. I am a wonderer: as I glance toward the ever distant stars, I remember that I have traveled a path I cannot reverse. I am star stuff, glimpsing at my past, in swirling points of light. But I do not belong there.
For a countless time I walk alone, unnoticed. I do not belong here. The sun rises and the day reigns, the spring arrives and the leaves regenerate, and I am not required.
The past is illuminated, its branches barren and exposed. Its accounts do not belong here. They who walked and wondered and spoke have had their splendor; for now they have vanished, though more will take their place.
And so it is with me. My tongue is still and devoid of speech, but for just a few moments, my words will be thronging in ears and minds and memories, haphazardly making their way. And my words will not belong to me.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
What I'd Say If I Used Twitter: Part One
I have a Twitter account. I don't use it. If I used it, then I would say things...
...like this:
I have failed the Turing test.
*
I got 99 problems. / Pointless math homework.
*
I have a dream / sicle.
*
Forgive them their syntax. / They do not know what they.
*
Yes we can / tuna
*
All your base / belong to Richard Pryor
*
We're all going to die / eventually
*
Caught in a bad romance. / Get a lawyer.
*
You bet your life / sentence
*
Necessity is the mother / word to Edison
...like this:
I have failed the Turing test.
*
I got 99 problems. / Pointless math homework.
*
I have a dream / sicle.
*
Forgive them their syntax. / They do not know what they.
*
Yes we can / tuna
*
All your base / belong to Richard Pryor
*
We're all going to die / eventually
*
Caught in a bad romance. / Get a lawyer.
*
You bet your life / sentence
*
Necessity is the mother / word to Edison
Monday, February 7, 2011
Living and Knowing Anxiety
Anxiety does not know itself and cannot know itself. Anxiety often barely knows what it fears: it knows the object of its fear well enough, but it does not fully know why it fears. Sometimes, it doesn't even fear that which it claims to fear, but something else entirely.
Oh, many times before I have canvassed a room with fear, tangoed with tension, waltzed with it across corners and over the ceiling tiles, my eyes averting faces, my mind averting anything but the beckoning of fear itself...
I have several friends who can be quite insecure, bemoaning their loneliness and lack of friends. Yet, through their defensiveness, they push people away because of that very insecurity. Sometimes I wonder how often I have done something similar.
How sad and disappointing it is that we so often reach out for a human connection, any kind of connection, and find ourselves grasping empty space.
What's in that space? What lurks between human beings who float indifferently, through the routine, glued to iPods and iPads and cell phones? What exists beneath us, underneath that unheralded territory? Perhaps you will forgive me for navigating to the edge of the map, toward those places long populated but rarely mentioned.
I have this desire to share my most embarrassing foibles and my most dispiriting tales of mishap and woe, to more fully share my overdramatizations and misunderstandings. I don't indulge myself, yet those are the stories of my life - those are the stories of the times that I've most often grown, and triumphed, and overcome.
As human beings, we all have a certain amount of fear, anxiety, and tension which we try to handle on our own. We all have a certain number of stories and secrets we may wish to share, but do not know how to reveal. We all have our hidden histories, our inner torments, our daily distortions.
What would happen if we brought this abyss into the daylight? What would happen if we stretched our shadows into shade? Our shared temptations and struggles could be the refuge for our continued living. I, however, must retreat from this talk of darkness and dimness, at least for a moment.
For all that I have said, anxiety still does not know itself. Sometimes I feel that if other people knew what I had been through, no matter how trivial or mundane, that it would be easier to feel strong and authentic. But I also tell myself again and again that I can't depend on an unknowable sense of how other people may view me for my feeling of well-being.
I know we're all trying to get by. I know I'm not the only one.
I'm not perfect. I'm a human being. And I wish I could allow myself the liberty of being one more often.
Oh, many times before I have canvassed a room with fear, tangoed with tension, waltzed with it across corners and over the ceiling tiles, my eyes averting faces, my mind averting anything but the beckoning of fear itself...
I have several friends who can be quite insecure, bemoaning their loneliness and lack of friends. Yet, through their defensiveness, they push people away because of that very insecurity. Sometimes I wonder how often I have done something similar.
How sad and disappointing it is that we so often reach out for a human connection, any kind of connection, and find ourselves grasping empty space.
What's in that space? What lurks between human beings who float indifferently, through the routine, glued to iPods and iPads and cell phones? What exists beneath us, underneath that unheralded territory? Perhaps you will forgive me for navigating to the edge of the map, toward those places long populated but rarely mentioned.
I have this desire to share my most embarrassing foibles and my most dispiriting tales of mishap and woe, to more fully share my overdramatizations and misunderstandings. I don't indulge myself, yet those are the stories of my life - those are the stories of the times that I've most often grown, and triumphed, and overcome.
As human beings, we all have a certain amount of fear, anxiety, and tension which we try to handle on our own. We all have a certain number of stories and secrets we may wish to share, but do not know how to reveal. We all have our hidden histories, our inner torments, our daily distortions.
What would happen if we brought this abyss into the daylight? What would happen if we stretched our shadows into shade? Our shared temptations and struggles could be the refuge for our continued living. I, however, must retreat from this talk of darkness and dimness, at least for a moment.
For all that I have said, anxiety still does not know itself. Sometimes I feel that if other people knew what I had been through, no matter how trivial or mundane, that it would be easier to feel strong and authentic. But I also tell myself again and again that I can't depend on an unknowable sense of how other people may view me for my feeling of well-being.
I know we're all trying to get by. I know I'm not the only one.
I'm not perfect. I'm a human being. And I wish I could allow myself the liberty of being one more often.
Friday, February 4, 2011
My Doubt, My Threat, My Appetite
The band Jimmy Eat World wrote a song that I'm in love with: "My Best Theory", from their album "Invented". A brief snippet of the song goes:
"My doubt seems fine/
My true desire/
My threat/
My appetite"
Outstanding lyrics.
Doubt is many things. It is my annihilation. It is my preservation.
Doubt erodes, a steady stream of questioning which removes the face of well-worn notions, and it sculpts a new impression in old surfaces.
Doubt in its own nature embodies the biggest and most substantial conflict we know of: the chasm between permanence and stability, and change and chaos.
Every human being is a product of change. We originate as embryos, progressing through many stages, until a fully-grown adult form is realized. Each facet of our physical body is in flux: a multitude of cells appear and die each day within our body. Each facet of our consciousness and personality changes, too: throughout our interactions with other humans, we are molded and crafted in accordance with our fellow human beings. Their being is ours.
We depend on change to sustain us. If the seeds for our crops remain seeds, then we die. If the water which feeds many of our reservoirs remains snow or ice, then we die. If the rain which waters the crops remains water vapor in the sky, then we die.
Is it really true that we look for things to stay the same? We are surely blind to the immense changes which surround us in their exquisite insignificance.
We owe everything we have to change, but we seek to ground our lives in eternal truths. To doubt these truths, to chip away at them, is a betrayal of the truths towards which we aim. Our lives are bigger than this trivial nonsense. "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter", such great religious authorities as Yoda from Star Wars inform us.
Yet what exactly are we considering when we ponder these eternal truths? Our messages and teachings come to us from specific historical eras, and specific cultural contexts. Is it really appropriate to allow the message of Jesus, for example, to remain stale for two thousand years, when he castigated the religious leaders of his day for allowing the laws to become stale within their own hearts?
We humans express our knowledge and our truth through what we actively partake. We partake the body and the blood of truth, when we speak its voice for our times, when we allow our own doubts to refine and distill our beliefs and our values.
Doubt threatens to undo everything, but doubt also allows us to remember everything. Doubt allows us to exercise our faith, to propel ourselves upward, to participate again in the sacred enterprise - we are captivated by it and refreshed by it. We remember. We remember both why we believe now, and why we believed in the first place.
Certainty cannot exist without doubt, nor without change: for if we do not doubt, if we do not risk the possibility of change, then we forget why we are certain in the first place. When we forget to doubt, then we lose ourselves entirely. Our own desire for certainty enables change to erase ourselves: we become clean on the outside, but rotten within. Oh, you hypocrites, you brood of vipers...
"My doubt seems fine/
My true desire/
My threat/
My appetite"
Outstanding lyrics.
Doubt is many things. It is my annihilation. It is my preservation.
Doubt erodes, a steady stream of questioning which removes the face of well-worn notions, and it sculpts a new impression in old surfaces.
Doubt in its own nature embodies the biggest and most substantial conflict we know of: the chasm between permanence and stability, and change and chaos.
Every human being is a product of change. We originate as embryos, progressing through many stages, until a fully-grown adult form is realized. Each facet of our physical body is in flux: a multitude of cells appear and die each day within our body. Each facet of our consciousness and personality changes, too: throughout our interactions with other humans, we are molded and crafted in accordance with our fellow human beings. Their being is ours.
We depend on change to sustain us. If the seeds for our crops remain seeds, then we die. If the water which feeds many of our reservoirs remains snow or ice, then we die. If the rain which waters the crops remains water vapor in the sky, then we die.
Is it really true that we look for things to stay the same? We are surely blind to the immense changes which surround us in their exquisite insignificance.
We owe everything we have to change, but we seek to ground our lives in eternal truths. To doubt these truths, to chip away at them, is a betrayal of the truths towards which we aim. Our lives are bigger than this trivial nonsense. "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter", such great religious authorities as Yoda from Star Wars inform us.
Yet what exactly are we considering when we ponder these eternal truths? Our messages and teachings come to us from specific historical eras, and specific cultural contexts. Is it really appropriate to allow the message of Jesus, for example, to remain stale for two thousand years, when he castigated the religious leaders of his day for allowing the laws to become stale within their own hearts?
We humans express our knowledge and our truth through what we actively partake. We partake the body and the blood of truth, when we speak its voice for our times, when we allow our own doubts to refine and distill our beliefs and our values.
Doubt threatens to undo everything, but doubt also allows us to remember everything. Doubt allows us to exercise our faith, to propel ourselves upward, to participate again in the sacred enterprise - we are captivated by it and refreshed by it. We remember. We remember both why we believe now, and why we believed in the first place.
Certainty cannot exist without doubt, nor without change: for if we do not doubt, if we do not risk the possibility of change, then we forget why we are certain in the first place. When we forget to doubt, then we lose ourselves entirely. Our own desire for certainty enables change to erase ourselves: we become clean on the outside, but rotten within. Oh, you hypocrites, you brood of vipers...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)