It's a bit like an infinite loop, though this one is tied around your neck. The killings of several young Amish girls tied up by a sexual predator in a one-room schoolhouse is all too reminiscent of last week's horrific sexual assaults and murders in a Colorado classroom. Reasonable people conclude that the one influenced the other; reasonable people see the causal chain between one attack and its emulation somewhere else. And astute people know that the chain which brings us such sad facts is wrought in steel as tempered as original sin.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
[A related essay, "Interceding On Our Behalf, With Groans Too Deep To Be Uttered," can be found here.]
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
[A related essay, "Interceding On Our Behalf, With Groans Too Deep To Be Uttered," can be found here.]
22 comments:
Bill--
When I find myself paralyzed by the cruelties in the world, I try to remember how many MORE people DIDN'T molest, threaten or shoot any schoolchildren today. Indeed, most of us will never do such things, or even feel capable of such things.
I know this thought doesn't help those who suffered, or make the feelings of frustration and helplessness go away, but sometimes it helps me to retain a small shred of sanity.
It seems morbid, to me, to burden all of humanity with the concept of original sin when those who disturb us the most are in such a small minority. I understand the temptation to do so, but I see no evidence that humanity in general is inherently evil.
Luke
Luke,
What do YOU mean by original sin?
BG
Bill,
You know of the beauty that surrounds that one room school house. Farmlands, manicured gardens, horse and buggies slowing up traffic and quilts hanging from clotheslines, this is where the tragedy took place.
As we were watching the Press Conference on that gorgeous fall day it reminded me of the beautiful day we watched two towers tumble.
One of the woman who lost a daughter was a widow. One of the families had two daughters shot, one died and one in critical condition. Many of our friends know the families.
I was curious as to how the Amish community would respond.
Their young boys are trained from little on not to provoke an attacker. To sit and not resist is a sign of spirituality.
Will these young boys in later years regret their lack of defense?
Their sisters died, their little sisters.
I'm awed by the Amish's response, I'm convicted. Forgiveness sums up their defense. They are quiet, they are gentle, they don't want the media to give current updates.
I am so not like an Amish.
I wondered if they would consider land lines now and possibly cell phones. My friend in an understated way said, "Probably Not."
I roll up my sleeves, let's think this thing though, let's get to the bottom of this, let's tweek this system, let's get, let's go...
The respond with quietness, gentleness, forgiveness.
Then I think about the man, Charles, who did a very wrong thing when he was twelve. Who was there in his life helping him work through his issues. Who are the children in our life who need us to help them. Are we giving these little people the respect that they deserve, are we giving them an ear, are we giving them the time? Childhood is a crucial time.
Lynne,
Yes, yes. It is a beautiful place. I can hardly speak of it all. And you are right to feel convicted; I, too, feel the same way.
Forgiveness, grace, moving on; forgetting evil, remembering the good. Who can do these things? Not we English, it seems. But the Amish, ahh. Such strength.
The media press in for a closer look, to understand, to comprehend. But only for a moment. It's all tourism for the masses, of a different sort.
Blessings, dear friend.
BG
R. Sherman,
I agree with you. Small sins, even just one, disrupt the whole complex. If time is our only real asset, if it is limited and priceless, than when I waste one dishonest moment following one little white lie, my time is robbed; it cannot be returned to me; and I have robbed others of their priceless moments inquiring into petty falsehoods; I cannot repay them, even if I am not the source of deception. The ripple effect of one tiny lie, or even one tiny mistruth in tone, is massive and perpetual; there is no stopping it or making amends.
Luke poses an either/or that may not be true: either humans are inherently good or they are inherently evil. He doubts the latter. I wonder if he has considered whether Christianity has always said that humans are both at the same time. But even if we are not inherently evil, there is no doubt that we are inherently broken, inherently damaged. And I admit I speak inductively: I have never met a person in my whole life who is not damaged, broken or somehow beaten. It is tough to explain this universal fact if humans are inherently whole and good.
Peace,
BG
"Luke poses an either/or that may not be true: either humans are inherently good or they are inherently evil."
No, I didn't. You're the one posting that question. And I also didn't even suggest that people are inherently good. I merely pointed out that the act of extreme malevolence you were grieving for was not a common act for the average human being. If this doesn't render the doctrine of original sin absurd, it at least renders it a tad melodramatic.
Here's an encyclodpedia definition of original sin: "According to Christian tradition, 'Original sin' is the general and non-personal condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born. It is also called hereditary sin or birth sin. Used with the definite article ("the original sin"), it refers to the first sin committed by humans, seen as the seed of future evil effects for the whole human race. Christians usually refer to this first sin as 'the Fall'."
This is more specific, and more mystical, that what you've been discussing here.
I suppose humans are imperfect because they are mortal: they simply don't have the time and the patience to perfect themselves, since they are going to die. To me, people appear to be born neither good nor evil, merely neutral. And since most people sleep-walk though their entire lives without ever posing any difficult questions, I suppose that, in a strange way, they remain neutral, their hum-drum acts lacking any real moral meaning; though it might be suggested that remaining hum-drum and sleep-walking through one's life is a terrible evil (I don't wish to be that harsh, in this case). But at least most of them don't shoot schoolchildren.
Luke
Luke,
It seems to me that you did indeed initially posit something approaching an either/or; and please note that I said your either/or MIGHT NOT be true. I did not say that it was NOT true.
You first wrote above:
It seems morbid, to me, to burden all of humanity with the concept of original sin when those who disturb us the most are in such a small minority. I understand the temptation to do so, but I see no evidence that humanity in general is inherently evil.
Then you wrote in your latest comment:
I merely pointed out that the act of extreme malevolence you were grieving for was not a common act for the average human being. If this doesn't render the doctrine of original sin absurd, it at least renders it a tad melodramatic.
OK. So where have you taken us? You have brought us to the borders of the concept of original sin's absurdities; perhaps original sin is, at best, melodramatic. Humanity is not "in general inherently evil," you say. (Note that I never said humanity was generally evil at all.) You find burdening all of humanity with original sin "morbid"; though your statement makes me wonder if you are implying that only SOME of humanity should be so burdened.
As for those who "disturb us the most", I cannot speak to that observation. I can only speak to my own self; I am the one who disturbs me the most. And I disturb myself quite a lot.
But I will say this: your own comments, and the definition of original sin you offer, seem pretty much to be something of an overall defense of the doctrine of original sin. That you believe, at least, that humans are imperfect because of death, places you rather close to what I have been suggesting here. Forgive me for repeating myself, but it was you, not I, who first talked of original sin in terms of inherent goodness and evil. It was for that reason alone that I asked you what you meant by original sin.
While it is fair of you to take umbrage with my suggesting you posited a particular either/or, I do not think it is fair of you to suggest I was talking about inherent evil when I mentioned original sin. Here is what the New Catholic Dictionary offers as the definition for original sin; notice how closely it mirrors parts of your own description of humanity's plight:
Original Sin
Not sin in the ordinary sense of a transgression of the law of God which one commits deliberately. It is one of the consequences of the sin of our first parent, Adam. As father of the human race, he was endowed with immortality, with reason and will in perfect control of the lower appetites, and with Divine grace enabling him to know and serve God in a manner far beyond the capacity of his natural powers, and therefore in a state above nature: the supernatural state. Through him these endowments were to be transmitted to the entire human race. When by his sin he lost them for himself, they were lost also for his descendants. Now the loss or privation of Divine grace, the chief consequence of sin, means the privation of the supernatural goodness to which God destined us, and therefore it is called our original stain or sin. Other consequences of Adam's sin are death, and concupiscence, or the rebellion of our lower appetites against reason and will. This concupiscence, though often the occasion of sin, is not in itself sinful; it is not original sin, as the early Protestants held, nor does it consist, as Luther believed, in such a decadence of our nature as to leave our reason incapable of understanding, our will without freedom, and our whole nature evil. Original sin does not so corrupt our natural powers as to render them incapable of natural virtues: it deprives us of the grace needed for virtues beyond our natural powers. All this is based on Holy Scripture, particularly on Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5: "Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." It is the subject of the Fifth Session of the Council of Trent.
Peace.
Gnade
I'm doing away with the either/or. I've already said that I think the answer is: neither. Of course, I've also hinted that since, for whatever reason, the average person lives a life of little meaning, the average person might be evil, if vapidity and lack of focus are evil. But even if I were to go that far, I don't see any evidence that people HAVE to be as they are, or live as they live. I see many other options. And I don't like it when someone uses the words "evil" and "good" to describe actual people. I think people are highly variable, neither good nor evil, but containing multitudes. Their apparent brokenness might be part of a perfection that most of us have grown too jaded to see. Our visions of perfection are often the most tyrannical things; and often the most truly broken, as well.
As for original sin, it is a weird mystical concept, and the catholic definition you provide just proves this once again. I find it just as ludicrous as the parts of the bible that inspired it. I have no patience with this kind of mysticism being presented as literal truth. I find it just as silly and eccentric as the Scientologist conception of human origin and destiny.
Allen Ginsberg once said "Say only what we think & observe." In other words, not what we believe through faith. I think that's a good idea, though I'm sure you'll find some way to overcomplicate it (or reveal that it's already overcomplicated? Sometimes I'm not sure which).
Which brings me to an interesting question: do you think your belief system has actually made your life more sensible and focused? You must, or wouldn't be sticking with it. But has it ever occured to you that it has actually fragmented and blurred your whole existence in ways that are unnecessary? That you've gotten lost in a dream that doesn't even belong to you?
Luke
Bill, in answer to your question "what do YOU believe original sin is?", I think the answer should be clear by now: I think it's an unnecessary and overcomplicated concept, created by the intellectuals of thousands of years ago. (Someone has said that an intellectual is someone whose learning has exceeded their understanding).
"The concept of "original sin" causes us to know that we are flawed." --r sherman
I don't agree with this; and no offense, Mr. Sherman, but I think it's downright silly. Anybody looking at the world will see flaws and brokenness everywhere; the concept of original sin is not at all necessary in order to glimpse this.
The apparent flaws in our lives do not prove or disprove ANY religious or philisophical concepts or tales; they might make some seem more plausible, that's all. The stories themselves are not necessary in order to arrive at the truth; they even obstruct that journey, for many people.
But perhaps there are those among us who would not see anything at all, if it weren't for those stories?
Luke
I may seem to have contradicted myself by saying, almost, that the stories are not necessary, but might be necessary for some people.
On second thought, I guess I should have admitted this: I'm not SURE whether or not the stories are necessary for anybody. I personally find them muddleheaded and annoying, but perhaps there are those who find it difficult to arrive at any glimpse of reality through myth; and perhaps this is because our brains are very different from one another's. In other words, some people are more likely to cling to religious concepts, while others are more likely to do away with them, due to different genetic make-ups. Hence, our argument. We obviously have very different kinds of brains. This is a simple fact that should make us more humble when expressing our beliefs, though it doesn't usually work. I'll try to keep it in "mind" in the future. good night.
Luke
I said: "to arrive at any glimpse of reality through myth"--I meant to say: "to arrive at any glimpse of reality through except through myth", though perhaps there's no important difference. good night again.
Luke,
I am fascinated by your passion and persistence. You've gone way beyond the little prose poem-like post I offered to start this discussion: my point was not about original sin, but about how one perverted assassin imitated another, and how the latter, in a real way, is partly responsible for the former.
You are free to dismiss the Catholic definition of original sin; you are free to dismiss your own position. I posted the Catholic definition because of its similarity to your own offering. You said that you "suppose people are imperfect because they are mortal." That sounds a lot like Holy Scripture: death is the soul's enemy and curse. You are right to denounce the living of life in an empty, unreflective way. But there are lots of souls, as you know, who are full of variety and enthusiasm and reflection who are still quite dead and stultifying. So mere attentive passion is no sign of real life; just as speaking in tongues or carrying a Bible is no sign of eternal life.
Of course we have different brains; our noses and eyes and feet are quite different too. Goodness knows I am glad we don't all have the same heads. But we do have many of the same experiences; and we surely have the same language which ties experience to reality, and to the media of print and speech that gives us our sense of spiritual and intellectual communion with each other. Of course, you realize this; and you realize that myth does indeed explain for us things that the propositional language of the positivists can not. You, a poet, know this perhaps better than anyone here. And I think of G. K. Chesterton's prefatory remarks in Orthodoxy: "...I have attempted, in a vague and personal way, in a set of mental pictures rather than a series of deductions, to state the philosophy in which I have come to believe." For Chesterton does exactly that: he uses mental pictures, like a lunatic in the grass or the moon in the sky, a gentleman lopping blossoms with a cane as he walks home or a glass slipper on a princess's foot, to explain and illuminate the things the positivists and scientists cannot even observe.
My simple observation is this: there is no one who has not sinned, and there is no one who has not been sinned against. Even if I discard divine moral expectations; if there is no God and each man and woman is left to create his or her own moral code, I am nonetheless convinced that humans are so frail that all men and women sin against the moral codes they've erected for themselves. This morning Mr. Smith vows to stop drinking; by noontime he is paying for rounds at the local pub. Ms. Jones lies in bed on Friday vowing to stop eating chocolate or sleeping with strangers; on Sunday morning she is licking chocolate liqueur from the belly button of the hotel concierge. People sin against their own consciences hundreds of times a day, in the smallest ways: an off-white lie, a hyperbole, a malignant phrase or caustic tone; the loose change on the bottom of a roommate's laundry hamper; a hamburger with cheese and bacon. If there is no sin, the very idea of temptation not only loses meaning, it loses its thrill. And my experience is that everyone, everyday, is tempted to do something they would rather not. Perhaps the truly lost, however, would be those who no longer have any temptations; they have given themselves over to their impulses to such a degree that temptations go unrecognized. Perhaps moral restraint gives us this one joy: it preserves temptation's thrill.
But you are free to discuss all this with R. Sherman and others. I AM a Catholic in these matters, without shame or embarrassment.
Blessings,
Gnade
Hello again, Bill of all Gnades.
Of course I have "gone way beyond the little prose poem-like post (you) offered to start this discussion"--that's exactly what I wanted to do. I wanted to illuminate the fact that your mention of the term "original sin" places this discussion in a mystical context. I wanted to illuminate that you are often a believer masquerading as a skeptic (you're gonna have fun with THAT statement, I'm sure!).
I don't agree with scripture that death is the "soul's enemy and curse"; I don't even know if there is such a thing as a "soul" in the first place. I'm not convinced that death, or imperfections as a result of that encroaching death, are things to mourn too much about. Perhaps even the violent and despicable acts are part of a larger perfection that we're too sentimental, or too tiny, to see.
You obviously take the idea of "sin" more seriously than I do. I don't even use the word "sin". It's a religious word, and I'm not a religious person. I think the girl licking chocolate out of the concierge's navel should be honest and happy in her promiscuity, unless she really thinks that a more controlled sex life is a possibility contained in her nature, in which case she should pursue that, I suppose, though she probably won't be satisfied with that either, which is part of why I wish more people would give up on satisfaction, which is not only impossible but would be highly undesirable if it could be achieved. I don't think that either path is a trespass against anything important, personally. Call me a spiritual anarchist, but the word "spiritual" means very little to me, as does the word "anarchist".
As for this comment--"myth does indeed explain for us things that the propositional language of the positivists can not"--I have to go to the encyclopedia to really dissect what this might mean to me. Here goes:
"Positivism is a philosophy developed by Auguste Comte (widely regarded as the first true sociologist) at the beginning of the 19th century that stated that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method."
I have no idea whether Comte, or his elves, were correct or not. But I will say that I am always irked when someone foists a morality on people that is gained primarily through myth. Which is:
"a myth (mythos) is a 'sacred' story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form."
By this definition, I am not a mythmaker: I have never, to my knowledge, written such a story. (I know that nobody has accused me of doing so; I'm just happy to find out that I haven't). I find such stories silly; also, the morals and lessons they contain could be easily gained without including a side-splitting "explanation" of how the entire cosmos came into being.
I usually find moralists, including myself whenever I am masquerading as one, distasteful, but I will say that, going by these definitions, I would take a positivist moralist more seriously than one who gets their morality principally from a myth. But there comes a point when both are highly annoying.
As for the things that mythmakers are able to teach us, I prefer artists to mythmakers. In other words, I enjoy those who make merriment and catharticize their griefs using the materials of this world, and don't bother claiming that they know how it all started and how it will end. I prefer their craft to that of both the mythmakers and the positivists, both of whom, in my opinion, have grown too big for their britches, since they are making such sweeping pronouncements.
Your faithful Harumphalumpogus,
Luke
PS--As for being "catholic in such matters" doesn't catholicism demand that one be catholic in all matters?
Yes, of course: if I am catholic in all matters, then I am, as I have stated, catholic in such matters. I am Catholic, really. You make a good positivist in your construction of my statement.
And you make a good Buddhist. But why give up on pursuing satisfaction? Is there a rule against this or something? And why care about getting anything right, like whether one is leading a reflective, thoughtful life? One is as good as the next; there is no meaningless life, nor is there any vapidity, if there is no standard. But since you are an anarchist, you already know this: you do not USE the word sin, of course, but you use other words for the same thing, don't you? You've at least used one word that is pejorative: hum-drum. There can be no hum-drum, do you think, if anarchy is your conviction? (Of course, a true anarchist has no problem with being contradictory. It's just that the rest of us cannot take such a person seriously, shifting, as he or she must, from one position to the next. Anarchy implies that there is nothing wrong at all with the concept of original sin. It also implies that there is nothing right about it either.)
I have no idea what distinction you are trying to make between artists and mythmakers. Mythmakers are artists; and I've not known a single artist who is not in the business of making myths. Of course, the myths might be trite, or conventional, or egotistical, or just plain dumb. But art, at least, is about making something greater than it appears; it is about transcendence and expansion; it is about giving meaning to what is either meaningless or forgotten. I do not look at a painting to have my eyes stimulated; I do not listen to music to have my eardrums compress and my stirrups rattle; I do not read poetry to hear myself talk. I experience such artistic things to take me beyond the confines of language and even the consciousness of language; novels teach me about human dignity and human depravity; great novels speak to the alienation of being; great poets and great musicians speak to this alienation and either embrace it or do battle against it.
You, sadly, seem content to ignore that nearly every piece of art on this planet -- every poem or every painting, every beat of drum or clash of cymbal -- is a call to wake us from slumber, or to remind us that we are estranged from existence. Every essay in philosophy, every religious proverb or theological precis, admits that humans are fragmented and alienated. You, curiously, admit to some sort of human alienation in your comments above; and yet somehow, somewhere, you believe that art and myth are in opposition when both, in fact, speak to the alienation common to all men. No one thinks humans are neutral, though you might. I just don't believe that you can be serious.
I appreciate you believing I am a believer hidden in sceptic's clothing. But I doubt you understand what you are suggesting; for if this were a competition, I smoke you on the scepticism.
As for your Ginsberg quote, I don't care much for it. I don't know if you read my letter to Christopher Hitchens, but it speaks, though only a bit, to what I would say to Ginsberg.
Yes, yes. I did indeed bring up original sin. But I don't, like you, HAVE to view it in mystical terms. After all, it is you who has insisted several times that it is mystical; but my posting the Chesterton quote about original sin (see here) is more about the practical and empirical fact of sin: I am not pointing to mysteries. I am pointing to the obvious.
Gnade
Luke,
By the way, I wrote an essay a few months ago about the Pope's visit to Auschwitz. In it I argued that perhaps a thing is only perfect if there is some imperfection in it. But I pulled the essay from this site; you will not find it. I rewrote it and it is to be published in a magazine in December.
I share this just to let you know that I have considered the idea that we are either too small or too odd to see the "perfections" around us.
Gnade
You call me a good Buddhist because of this, I assume:
"I wish more people would give up on satisfaction, which is not only impossible but would be highly undesirable if it could be achieved."
But my main point was that if satisfaction were possible, anyone who achieved it would no longer have any reason to do anything, much as (arguably, at least) someone who achieved fully the goals of Buddhism would also no longer have any reason to do anything. I should have said, more simply: I wish more people would be thrilled by their desires and pursuits, rather than tormented by the fact that none of their striving can fill them completely. Or, to quote TS Eliot: "Take no heed of the harvest. Take heed only of proper sowing."
And just for the record: I detest Buddhism.
You call me an anarchist, presumably because of this:
"Call me a spiritual anarchist, but the word "spiritual" means very little to me, as does the word "anarchist".
Is THIS me declaring myself an anarchist? Really, I think you are far too eager to categorize people. You're grasping at very small straws in your attempts to do so. Are you unable to deal with an unlabelled person?
Some artists are indeed mythmakers, and visa versa. I provided the classical definition of "mythmaker", and mused that my favorite artists are not, by that definition, mythmakers. You, apparently, have completely ignored this.
You have repeatedly attempted to paint me as a moral relativist, and you're doing it again here. Is it because I made comments like this one?
"Perhaps even the violent and despicable acts are part of a larger perfection that we're too sentimental, or too tiny, to see."
This is speculation, Bill, not a belief. I'm sure you know the difference.
You have set up so many straw men in this response that I can only assume that you must be baiting me. I hope I have at least taken the bait with some aplomb, but many of the things you've said here are simply so ridiculous that you must either be trying very hard to insult me, or stunningly blind to the kind of person I am. I invite anyone reading this to go to http://thenewtimes.blogspot.com and take the opportunity to compare what you've said about me here with the contents of my own site.
I've gotta go: I'm engaged in a new debate with Andy Rooney on HIS blog.
Luke
By the way, in re-reading this, I've noticed that your repeated uses of the word "anarchist" are quite a stretch of what the term actually covers (remember, I'm not defending anarchism, just defending the proper use of words). Back to the encyclopedia:
""The terms "anarchy" and "anarchism" are derived from the Greek '''' ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that the rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished. The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos or anomie, but rather a stateless society with voluntary social harmony.""
This definition does not cover those who (do they even exist? I don't think so) believe that there is no right or wrong, or that there's nothing wrong with contradicting one's self. And I'm not aware of any serious definition of the term that supports your conception of an anarchist. What you have actually done is demonstrate a popular stereotype of anarchism.
And I'm not sure why you think you would "smoke me" (though I am light on harmful additives, I hope) in s skepticism contest, or why you think I have any interest in such a contest. Perhaps I should sharpen one of my original points: I believe that you start most of your articles with your conclusion already in mind, and that everything is pushed toward that conclusion; a conclusion that is guided PRINCIPALLY by faith, not reason; and I believe you would like your readers to believe the opposite.
Luke
Luke,
My apologies for missing your October 11 comments; I opened those and your October 12 comments this morning, Friday the 13th.
You have been quite vigorous in your use of the dictionary/encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a helpful resource, but it is to be used sparingly.
Let me start where this all began, at least with you. In reply to the sentence that I penned,
"And astute people know that the chain which brings us such sad facts is wrought in steel as tempered as original sin."
you wrote:
"It seems morbid, to me, to burden all of humanity with the concept of original sin when those who disturb us the most are in such a small minority. I understand the temptation to do so, but I see no evidence that humanity in general is inherently evil."
I later noted two things, namely, that I at no point intimated that any human was inherently evil; nor did I introduce the term evil -- or its opposite, good -- to the discussion. You are responsible for that.
In defense of yourself, you cited the Wikipedia definition of original sin. I will quote your citation:
"According to Christian tradition, 'Original sin' is the general and non-personal condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born. It is also called hereditary sin or birth sin. Used with the definite article ("the original sin"), it refers to the first sin committed by humans, seen as the seed of future evil effects for the whole human race. Christians usually refer to this first sin as 'the Fall'."
You then introduced mysticism and specificity:
"This is more specific, and more mystical, that what you've been discussing here."
What is interesting is that you left out the very next sentence of the Wikipedia definition of original sin:
"By analogy the term is used in fields other than religion to indicate a pervading inherent flaw."
I appreciate this particular statement because it indicates something that you did not seem to consider, namely, that I was NOT using "original sin" in any strictly doctrinal or theological sense. In fact, I wasn't. But since you brought up specificity and mysticism, I cited the Catholic definition of original sin. This included more than the Wikipedia definition, and fits more completely my own theological convictions: original sin is not about inherent evil or total evil. It is much more balanced, and is, in my opinion, similar to your statement that humans are flawed by the anxieties of death.
Eventually this dialogue devolved into your positing a hypothesis about my character, and not about my opinions or the feasibility of your own: you asserted that I am an essential faith-monger parading before my readers as a rationalist. Of course, you may be right; but if you are right, I would like to think I am a faith-monger in the tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas, you know, the Catholic saint who is arguably the father of rationalism; the great Angelic Doctor, one of the great fathers of scholasticism (loathed by many for being too oppressively rational). I offered to you an essay about faith and reason, addressed to Christopher Hitchens, as an example of my beliefs about faith and reason. There is an ample number of examples of my convictions found on this website.
NOW FOR YOUR MOST RECENT REMARKS
When you write "I wish more people would give up on satisfaction, which is not only impossible but would be highly undesirable if it could be achieved," I believe you do place yourself in a position that Buddha would applaud. Moreover, for your comment to make any sense it requires some sort of moral absolute or standard. "Impossible" and "highly undesirable" imply you have some absolute frame of reference by which you make such judgments. This places you in something of a paradoxical position; you claim not to use the word "sin," but surely you merely use other words, and some standard, to judge things.
Here is a clip from the Wikipedia (for consistency) definition of Buddhism, particularly its highest level of attainment:
Nirvana is the extinguishment of all desire, delusion and ignorance. It has been likened to the snuffing out of a candle, where the spirit is freed from all worldly passions; it is the realization that the Self does not exist, and that human desires are empty. An enlightened Buddhist is able to act in this world with complete detachment (without desire), and their actions have no karma. A Buddhist who has attained Nirvana has escaped the world of cause-and-effect (they are free from the cycle of birth and rebirth). The realisation of Nirvana is a happy experience (but not the sensation of joy). Nirvana is fully realized at death, but can be experienced before death.
Now, I find it curious that you should tell me to call you a spiritual anarchist and then take umbrage with the fact that I take you seriously. First, you posit that satisfaction is unachievable, even though satisfaction is joy's very hope; without satisfaction, I believe, there is no joy, and hence, if we believe what you write, we find we are in the realm of Nirvana, the great joylessness. Here are your own words:
"Call me a spiritual anarchist, but the word "spiritual" means very little to me, as does the word 'anarchist'."
The words "spiritual" and "anarchist" should mean very little to you; you are an anarchist by your own account. Otherwise you would not have asked me to call you one: I am only being polite, for this is how you want to be described. What is interesting is you pull out the Wikipedia definitions of anarchy and anarchist -- focusing on governmental and social authority, and moral relativism -- with nary a word on what you mean by "SPIRITUAL" anarchy. I was not addressing you as some sort of libertarian or John Birch extremist; I was taking you at your word, that you are a spiritual anarchist indifferent to the full meaning of those words. Alas, it seems you do take the meaning of the word "anarchist" very seriously; what I don't get is how you should at all think I misrepresented a single thing here, especially since, by your own admission, these words mean little to you.
But you ignore a couple of things. First, you missed this definition of anarchy in the Random House College Dictionary:
4. Confusion, disorder, chaos.
And this definition, for anarchist, from the same volume:
3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established order.
Clearly, you understand my position: since we were talking about original sin, and since you talked of humans being neutral (at best); in other words, since YOU used the phrase, spiritual anarchist, then you can see why I would choose to assume you were talking about something OTHER THAN GOVERNMENTS AND SOCIAL RULES. So, contrary to your most recent comments, I do understand the word anarchy and anarchist, and used the appropriate definition in light of your own self-description.
Second, you argue that you posited the classical definition of mythmaker. But you did no such thing. You posited the Wikipedia definition of myth in its encyclopedia section. You never defined mythmaker. Nor did you go one step further: you did not look up (or at least cite) the Wikipedia dictionary definition of myth found in Wiktionary (I cite the only relevant entries):
1. A story of great but unknown age which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; an ancient story of a god, a hero, the origin of a race, etc.; a wonder story of prehistoric origin.
2. (colloquial) A person or thing existing only in imagination, or whose actual existence is not verifiable.
3 (colloquial) A belief or story that illustrates a cultural ideal; stories that help explain how to live. Example: Higher Education Myth: If you go to college, receive your degree, you will be a smarter person and make a lot of money. [emphasis added]
Please note numbers 1 and 3. When I challenged your distinction between "artists" and "mythmakers", it was THESE definitions -- at the very least -- I had in mind. I do NOT therefore make the distinction you make. I reject it in total. You seem to want to limit MYTH to the specifically religious writings that form the basis of organized religions. I do not use the term that way; and I do not make the distinction either that religious mythmakers are not artists, nor do I believe that one must accept the religious overtones of certain of those myths in order to appreciate or learn from those myths. When I was in college, the most popular class on campus was Modern Myth; it focused on the tremendous works of Tolkien, Lewis, Charles Williams and others. It had nothing to do with religious doctrine; it had to do with understanding the human condition in all its complexity in linguistic modes that analytical language, and mere common parlance, cannot divine alone. You know, a "set of mental pictures rather than a series of deductions." A God dying on a cross is perhaps a myth; as is a man walking on an "evening that is spread out against the sky like a patient etherized upon a table." But they are both surely mental pictures that say more than the words common to science, logical positivism (the analytics who abhorred mythic speech) or the careless can convey.
It is fitting that you should bring up T.S. Eliot, as it is fitting I should end with him. The problem here, Luke, is not that I have baited you; though I think it could be shown that you have baited me. But the problem is that you write one thing and then write something else. You tell me that satisfaction is impossible; and then when I challenge that, you write:
"But my main point was that if satisfaction were possible, anyone who achieved it would no longer have any reason to do anything, much as (arguably, at least) someone who achieved fully the goals of Buddhism would also no longer have any reason to do anything. I should have said, more simply: I wish more people would be thrilled by their desires and pursuits, rather than tormented by the fact that none of their striving can fill them completely. Or, to quote TS Eliot: 'Take no heed of the harvest. Take heed only of proper sowing.'" [emphasis added]
Yes, YOU SHOULD HAVE said what you really meant everytime I've replied to you here. If you do NOT believe that satisfaction is really impossible, or something like that, then why write it? If you do not want me to call you an anarchist, why tell me to? If you are not really interested in discussing original sin, but my own hidden religious and presumably vibrant Christian faith veiled behind phony scepticism, then why bring up inherent evil at all?
As for your accusation that I start my articles with my conclusion already in mind, I can only say this: Good God, I hope so!
Peace to you, and good luck with Andy Rooney.
Gnade
Okay. I can see how, throughout this thread, we have both been guilty of reading too much into each other's statements. But it's made the whole debate so much more interesting!
You did, in your original post, say this--
"...astute people know that the chain which brings us such sad facts is wrought in steel as tempered as original sin."
--which is, I think, what has led us both down this particular rabbit hole.
On original sin: "By analogy this term is used in fields other than religion to indicate a pervading inherent flaw."
That's part of my problem! I dislike the dilution of language that this implies. So I post another definition:
"sin: Transgression of the law of god; disobedience of the divine command; any violation of God's will, either in purpose or conduct; moral deficiency in the character; iniquity; as, sins of omission and sins of commission."
Yes, it also includes the less mystical phrase "moral deficiency in the character", but every definition of the term I can find starts with the mystical, religious origin of the term. Which means that everyone who uses it loosely could have taken the trouble to find a cleaner, sharper word, one more simply and elegantly suited to the purpose.
This is one of my pet projects: to purge, insofar as is possible, my language of any excess baggage. And when I see words being stretched beyond their proper use, or diluted by being removed from their original context, I pounce! This does not mean that I always use language perfectly, or that I even see myself as the ideal person for this project; it is simply a project of mine, and it is far from complete, believe me.
Luke
Dear Bill--
I thought you would understand that when I said "call me a spiritual anarchist" it was not a serious request. After all, it was immediately followed by a declaration that I place no personal importance on either of the words that make up the term. Which certainly strongly suggests, even screams, that I don't use it to define myself, or ask others to so use it. I don't think you missed this; instead, I think you're having a bit of fun provoking me, but that's just fine.
For the record (whose record? your record, I suppose, since this is your blog): "spiritual anarchist" is a dumb term that I picked up from a (if memory serves) William Saroyan quote, and I hereby retire it. I shouldn't have created this confusion by using such polluted language. I have violated the standard I was attempting to uphold! I am aghast at my own foolery!
I simply cannot take Buddhism seriously. The snuffing out of all desire is simply fantasy, to me, and not only that, I think it's potentially harmful fantasy. In my original comment, yes, I should've been clearer, but I think it was obvious that I was trashing the fantasy that real satisfaction is possible or even desirable; I did not trash desire. I don't believe that the presence of desire means that satisfaction is possible, or good. I know that without desire, I would not exist; satisfaction was not necessary to bring me into being: neither was the idea of satisfaction, though a bit of delusion may have helped the lovemaking along. I came too late to observe the actual event, of course, but my father, apparently, came right on time.
As for your comments concerning standards, truth, etc: surely you realize that one can form a sensible, solid morality, including absolutes, without a belief in god, or in any "divine" order. Do you think H.G. Wells or Ayn Rand were moral relativists? How about Bertrand Russell?
So far as I know, the original definition of anarchism was something very similar to what I posted, with the emphasis on chaos being added later. Perhaps the definition was broader in its beginning, but I don't think so. Since I am not an anarchist, and therefore have little to defend in this area, I'll leave at that.
Luke
PS--To Honora's comment: what a delightful scenario you paint. Yes, I've often speculated that perhaps that is exactly what waits for all of us after death; mutual laughter at our mutual silliness. I don't know anything about your beliefs, but it's nice of you to place Bill and I in "heaven". However, I hope that Bill and I share a moment much like that one BEFORE we leave this life. That would be truly memorable.
Dear Luke,
I am glad that you intend to purge your language of the extraneous, but I think that is the wrong thing to do. Language is dynamic and evolving. It is not static. Words have shades of meaning, and I like that. It is also a bit of a pain to allow language its proper flexibility, as one must be careful when speaking or writing; one must be sure that a word is being used in a way that does not confuse a reader or falls into the Babel of ambiguity. But where would a poet be, or even an orator or essayist, without ambiguity, or the double entendre?
In all candor, I don't think I've read more into your words than what was right there staring me in the face. Let's set the record straight -- OK? -- even if for pure fun. That way we won't lose track of this thread. I first mentioned original sin in a passing, poetic way. You began to analyze original sin theologically; it was never my intent to do so. You brought up evil, goodness, mysticism, desire, satisfaction, moral relativism, anarchy. I brought up none of these things; if you thought I did, then you must have been reading into my words more than was there.
Here is my original statement. Please note that there is nothing at all like a rabbit hole here:
"astute people know that the chain which brings us such sad facts is wrought in steel as tempered as original sin."
Just for the record, please note that this passage is about a chain of events: it is NOT about original sin. The chain is wrought in material as rugged, as hardened, as original sin; the chain is not original sin. That a reader is permitted to connect the chain to sin is fine with me; I am not here to lord over anyone who reads into the passage what they want. My lordship is only evident when defending myself against those who tell me what I meant.
Now, today you ask me whether I think one who does not believe in God can have absolute standards. I have no idea where this question comes from, since I only questioned whether a spiritual anarchist could have absolute standards. I said nothing about Wells, Russell or Rand, precisely because they are not anarchists. I have no doubt at all that they can hold absolutes; in fact, I personally believe that it is impossible for ANYONE, even the anarchist or nihilist, not to have absolute standards. I have said this before. My only bout here has been with any idea that a person can logically defend having NO standards. Spiritual anarchism, at least to me, suggests this last position, and is, therefore, futile.
I am not angry with you or even impatient. I thoroughly enjoy this exchange, though, now that I think I about it, it does probably prick at my level of patience. You might think otherwise, but my aim always is to write quite clearly. I hate to backtrack to restate what should have been clear the first time. But I do have to edit myself, of course; perhaps I should have done so in this thread. Alas, it is telling -- isn't it? -- how one small phrase can elicit volumes of commentary! Think of the talmudic writers straining over a passage of scripture, or my friend the Dylan aficionado poring over a Dylan couplet. There is so much in so little, or so the very birds and bees teach us.
Peace!
Gnade
"The chain is wrought in material as rugged, as hardened, as original sin" certainly suggests that original sin is real, universal and powerful, doesn't it?
But you haven't even told us whether or not you believe in original sin--have you? So I'd rather not go any further with this discussion; I was assuming that, since you refer to yourself as a christian, you share the christian belief in original sin (specifically the catholic version?).
"I am glad that you intend to purge your language of the extraneous, but I think that is the wrong thing to do."
Well, it's probably impossible to complete that mission, but that's part of the fun; I don't think it's wrong to TRY.
Luke
Post a Comment