Honesty

Lying can take two forms. We can lie to others, and we can lie to ourselves. We start off by lying to others. We do it so often, and so well, that we actually convince ourselves of our untruths. Not just the untruths we tell others, but those we tell ourselves. We might use nice words like "rationalize," but it's really just a fancy word that means lying.

We lie to other people because it saves us. We make excuses for things not done or done, we fib so that we don't hurt others' feelings, but really, when it comes down to it, it's because we can't bear the discomfort that the truth brings. We don't want to be the messenger; there is a reason why the saying 'don't shoot the messenger' exists.

Lying to ourselves is a balm for an even deeper discomfort. If we told ourselves the truth about everything, we would make ourselves accountable for everything that we did. It would be our own responsibility to improve the parts of our lives that we dislike so much. We wouldn't be able to pin it on anyone else anymore, because we would have to be honest about it. Lying is a way of avoiding personal responsibility, Life and the Truth. How can we get closer to the Truth if we can't even bear to tell it to ourselves?

"Integrity is telling myself the truth. And Honesty is telling the truth to others."-Spencer Johnson

Maturity

I once had a professor in college initiate a discussion about what point a person is truly considered an adult. His firm belief was that once you have a child, you are mature. He believed this because his definition of maturity was that when you put someone else's needs before your own, as most (emphasis on the most) parents do, you are acting maturely. I agree that parenting is a sign of maturity (again, emphasis on most parenting) but for a different reason.

We live in uncertain times. To be a parent today is difficult because you have experts saying 5 different things. Discipline, but be positive, be firm, but nice, give your kids freedom, but protect them...etc etc. To make any kind of decision for your children gets more and more difficult especially as they get older and they become yet another figure looking over your shoulder telling you how to do your job. As a parent, you make decisions regardless of your uncertainty, hoping for the best. That is what maturity is.

Not only in parenting, but in life, we must make difficult decisions for ourselves. The more important the decision is, the harder it is to make, and we are often paralysed by indecision. We then use religion (God has the answers), science (we can find the answers using a specific process) and conspiracy theories (some group of people have the answers) to try to soothe ourselves. Marx's statement that religion is the "opium of the people" rings true and the problem with that is that we shouldn't be relying only on others for guidance. We have to thoroughly analyse and believe something to be true on our own terms, not because some authority said so.

"The popularity of conspiracy theories is explained by people's desires to believe that there is some group of folks who know what they're doing."-Damon Knight

It takes courage to take a stand in today's world. Rollo May had an interesting discussion of this in his book Man's Search for Himself. Courage because it is very possible that there are no real answers. I do not mean this in a nihilistic sort of way, but as perhaps more of a relativistic sort of way. Perhaps our quest for definite answers is due to our discomfort with uncertainty. The higher road then lies not in finding definite answers, but in finding the right answers for the right time. We can then also avoid relativism whereby people can use their "culture" as an excuse for comitting atrocities. This is not an easy thing to do. For instance, Canada is currently trying to pass legislation in favour of same-sex marriage. They are having difficulty because there are some people who do not agree that it should be passed. However, this is why it is a good debate: there are two sides to the issue, and one will prevail. If there were only one side of the debate, how would we have the possibility of analysing it to be true? We would have to assume that it was, since it is in the only answer provided. We would then never have the possibility of changing our minds at a future time when we have made more progress, because any sort of progress would be eliminated.

Analysing history provides us with insight for the future. At any point in history when there is great change, we are plagued with doubts. I am sure when the right for women to vote was in parliament the same sort of debate roared that currently does. Now we think nothing of the fact that less than 100 years ago women were not allowed to vote. What is a conservative but a worshipper of dead radicals? Progress is being made, however, we must keep in mind, as Oliver Wendell Holmes reminds us that "All change is not growth, all movement is not forward." Again, more uncertainty. If we do move forward, we risk moving in the wrong direction. But if we don't move forward, we are lost .

"He who risks and fails can be forgiven. He who never risks and never fails is a failure in his whole being. "-Paul Tillich
"Maturity is the capicity to endure uncertainty." -Finley

Personal Responsibility (or lack thereof)

The biggest problem in the world today, as I see it from my post as a junior high school teacher, is lack of responsibility. We often hear about these irresponsible teenagers, but I'd like to consider for a moment what the word really means and the implications of it. Responsibility does not necessarily mean that things are done the way they are supposed to be done, or even that they are done at all. It simply means that someone is responsible for doing it, and accepts that they did or didn't do and the consequences that may follow. To use a familiar example, a students are responsible for their homework. If a student attempts to make excuses for why their homework isn't done in order to avoid the consequences, they are acting irresponsibly. If a student accepts the consequences readily, they are acting responsibly. If a student fails a test, the responsible student knows that they must study harder, or do something if they wish to pass. An irresponsible student blames the teacher, or bad genes, or anything else to avoid the responsibility of the fact that it is they who have failed. I will avoid a discussion about how parents are encouraging irresponsibility by siding with their "angels" and confirming their immature belief that their failure is not their fault, but it needs to be mentioned that this is the society that we are living in. Immaturity and irresponsibility are literally breeding immaturity and irresponsibility.

How do we avoid our responsibilities? One way is by living in the past, also known as the land of "if only." If only I had (or hadn't) done this, I wouldn't be such a failure, if only my parents had done that, I could be so much better, etc. etc. We can also live in the future, another if only land. If only I was older, if only I was married, if only I had children, if only the kids would grow up and move out, if only I was retired, and then what? If only I was dead? No wonder so many of our retired population suffers from depression. If you spend your whole life looking forward instead of living, what do you do when there is only death to look forward to?

We must grasp what it truly means to live, which is the same as what it means to live in the present. Living in the present means we must give up our aversion to responsibility, hard as it may be. Nobody wants to admit their failures are their own, but we must own them. How can we overcome them if we do not? Society is made up of individuals. If each individual minded their own business, and took responsibility instead of blaming others for their own failures, imagine what we would be able to accomplish. If we would look carefully at ourselves and our failures we would be able to see how we could turn them (and ourselves) into successes. I, for one, will not wait until the world is such, but will act so each day.

"If we really want to live, we'd better start at once to try." -W. H. Auden

Religion and Science

Another eternal debate. Some would think that the schism that separates these two is unbridgeable. I believe, however, as does Rollo May, that they are more alike than different. "philosophy may be a flight from reality into a harmonious 'system' as a protection from the anxiety and disharmonies of day-to-day life or it may be a courageous endeavor to understand reality better. Science may be used as a rigid, dogmatic faith by which one escapes emotional insecurity and doubt, or it may be an open-minded search for new truth." (from Man's Search for Himself, a truly excellent book).

The question should not be which is right or wrong, but what they can both bring us to enrich our lives. Each has their place in society, and believing in one does not negate belief in the other. We should not fall prey to the "God of the Gaps," either. This is the belief that God is responsible for all that science cannot explain. As science explains more and more, God is responsible for less and less until he finally disappears. Perhaps this is why Nietzsche stated that God is dead.

I agree that each of these things has their own place "and never the twain shall meet." If we try to explain mysticism scientifically, not only are we taking away from the mysticism itself (in that it is not a valid system unless it can be backed up empirically) but we are bastardizing the scientific process. However, merely exploring the realm of the objective world without our own personal subjectivity (which is the goal of science, and a worthy endeavor) is not enough. To be whole, integrated beings we must be students of ourselves. We must study the self in a way that is not sterile as is done by scientists.

What do we stand to gain from self-consciousness (and I am not speaking of it in the negative)? "The greater a person's awareness of himself, the more he can acquire the wisdom of his fathers to make it his own." (Rollo May, Man's Search for Himself)

ps. For those concerned by the lack of posts, I am still continuing with my "studies." My feeling is that if I have nothing worthwhile to say, I shouldn't talk about things that are not worthwhile. But I will still try to post at least once a week.

"How vain it is to sit down to write when one has not stood up to live." -Thoreau

To tide you over until the next substantial post

Here's a thought to muse on as I delve into the world of Jung. Another kindred spirit, perhaps?

I have always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in a amazingly stupid way.
-Carl Jung

Adam and Eve

The story of how original sin came into the world is literally as old as Adam. It has been interpreted in many ways, and here are my two cents on the subject.

The literal interpretation (and I will avoid that f-word that gets me into so much trouble) is that man sinned and was kicked out of the garden of Eden, forevermore to toil. It has also been the cause of much misogyny, because Adam wouldn't have eaten the apple if it weren't for Eve.

Man (and I use the generic abbreviation for humans) was created with free will. Regardless of what we believe about creation, we know we can choose to do Good or Evil, and this is the concept known as free will. Free will existed before evil entered the world, because Adam and Eve were able to make a choice about whether or not to eat from the Tree.

What is the nature of this original sin that Adam and Eve had committed? It is not a Pandora's box they opened, because they couldn't have chosen to do an evil act if evil did not already exist. If evil existed beforehand, then eating the apple was not the cause of evil existing in the world. What exactly was their fall from grace?

I don't claim to understand the theology of original sin, or even what the definition of sin is. But the negative connotation it has in this case, that Adam and Eve did something quite wrong by their actions is not necessarily accurate, depending on how you look at the situation.

First, of course, God told them not to eat from this tree. If we believe in a God that is loving and wants the best for his creations (which commonly knowing God as the Father figure), then we must believe that he did not want them to do eat from the tree for their own good. What was He trying to protect them from?

The tree is called the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. This means that Good and Evil existed, but that Adam and Eve were unaware of either. What does that mean for them. Would Cain still have killed Abel even in the Garden of Eden? Why not? He would not have lied to God (am I my brother's keeper?) but would have said blatantly "yep, it was me," with the innocence of someone who hasn't done anything out of the ordinary. What is the difference then? Why must people live their lives, toiling to make their livings and having pain in childbirth, when they would act the same way without knowing the difference?

It is our knowledge that makes us responsible. We are now aware, we are conscious of what Evil and what Good are. Therefore, we are responsible to choose Good over Evil, which makes life difficult for us. The distinctions are not always so clear. Thou shalt not kill, but what about self-defense? The list goes on and on and on. Now everyone carries the burden of "original sin." Our lives are difficult as we try to know more to save our souls.

"A little learning is a dang'rous thing; Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." -Alexander Pope [Essay on Criticism]

Death Becomes Us

Death. Modern medicine is making promises that we will all live to be 150. Everyday we make our attempts to cheat death, whether by eating well, exercising, or by using our anti-aging creams. It surprises us, scares us, and saddens us, even when it comes at a ripe old age. What we seldom realise is that death is a part of everyday life, not only because people die, but because death is an everyday occurrance.

There are many faces of death in everyday life, and some of them we actually see as good. My challenge to you is to see all of them as worthwhile, including when our physical bodies cease to dwell on this plane.

First, there is the renewal of our self. We are constantly becoming. One cannot become something new if one is not losing part of the old. We shed our metaphorical skins in order to mature, to advance in our thinking. This death is to be celebrated, taking the bad with the good.

There is also the death of our ego which happens on a regular basis. The word "mortify" (as in, "I can't believe I said that! I'm so mortified!") has its roots in the word "mort," or death. Being mortified is also not a bad thing from time to time, because it reminds us of our humanity and brings us to a new level of understanding.

One final thought on another "mort," called by the French "le petit mort," the expression used to describe an orgasm. To a certain extent, we die for the instant we are completely connected to another person to become the combined person. There is something very scary in completely losing yourself like that, but it is also very enjoyable.

Many things in life we try to avoid. But we cannot accept the good without the bad. They exist together, two sides of the same coin. What would happen if we stopped avoiding the negative, stopped pretending that every day we had to be happy to be "normal" and jumped headfirst into the "bad" experiences of life?


"Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do with themselves on a Sunday afternoon." -Susan Ertz

"Everyone is a moon, and has a dark side which he never shows to anybody." -Mark Twain

L'Enfer (Us and Them 2)

"L'Enfer, wrote Sartre, c'est les autres." (Hell is other people) Sometimes, I am inclined to agree with him, and those who would say they have never agreed with him have never been on a committee. Everyone at some point has had difficulties with others. Whether it's the idiots who ride public transportation, the staff council meeting that just goes on forever, or my students who expect to get something for nothing, no one is immune to others. My personal ranting aside, unless one is a hermit in the woods (and so often I find myself thinking what kindred spirits Thoreau and myself are) we all have to deal with people (including Thoreau, who wasn't so much of a hermit anyway).

The interesting thing about people is that they apart from us. I do not think we would have the consciousness we do today if we did not have some "other" who is so different from ourselves. Someone who challenges our opinions and grates against us (for things so small as the way they chew their food) surely must be "other," alien to ourselves. If they were like us, we reason, they wouldn't be so damn annoying.

The false dichotomy of Us and Them exists even on the level of the personal Us and the everyone else Them. So often when we don't like someone we fail to realise how much of what we hate in others is what we hate about ourselves. We exist, however, partly because others do, and precisely because they are so alien. Others people's actions create part of our perception, even influence the way we perceive things, and our perceptions are all we have to say "I am here."

"Our quarrel with the world is an echo of the endless quarrel proceeding within us." -Eric Hoffer