Perplexity, I realized, was working like an X-ray of my soul, exposing much of my so-called spirituality as a vanity project of my ego, an expression of my arrogant desire to always be right, my desperate and fearful need to always be in control, my unexamined drive to tame the wildness of life by naming it and dominating it with words.
You actually need this purgation and unknowing to prepare you for a new depth of living, knowing, and loving.
-- Brian McLaren
Humility is too often just a hobby.
The irony is that it often feels like it is people that both activate our larger insecurities AND relieve them.
Over time, it seems conspicuous that so much of the efficacy of what feels dark is actually about the imminency of light—a kind of break-through relationship between the two.
What are we observing when we experience drivenness—in ourselves or in others?
Prior Randoms...
'Poem for the week' -- "Realization":
Three-quarter size. Full size would break the heart.
She, still bare-breasted from the auction block,
sits staring, perhaps realizing what
will happen to them next. There is no child,
though there must be a child who will be left
behind, or who was auctioned separately.
Her arms are limp, defeated, her thin hands
lie still in surrender.
He cowers at her side,
his head under her arm,
his body pressed to hers
like a boy hiding behind his mother.
He should protect his woman. He is strong,
his shoulder and arm muscled from hard work,
his hand, thickened by labor, on her thigh
as if to comfort, though he can’t protect.
His brow is furrowed, his eyes blank, unfocused.
What words are there to describe hopelessness?
A word that means both bull-whipped and spat on?
Is there a name for mute, depthless abyss?
A word that means Where the hell are you, God?
What would they ask God, if they could believe?
But how can they believe, while the blue sky
smiles innocently, pretends nothing is wrong.
They stood stripped up there, as they were described
like animals who couldn’t understand
how cheap a life can be made.
Their naked feet. Her collarbone. The vein
traveling his bicep. Gussie’s answer
to presidents on Mount Rushmore,
to monumental generals whose stars
and sabers say black pain
did not then and still does not matter.
-- Marilyn Nelson
You cannot build a deep connection with someone who is disconnected from themselves.
-- yung pueblo
And if you're frustrated by an unfulfilled desire for deep connection with others, maybe that's an invitation to discover the ways that you're disconnected from yourself.
-- Jason Miller
So, back to our discussion on morality:
Why is moral authority so universally appealing?
For one thing, moral authority is just so easy to grab at...and then hold on to. In fact, often, it’s something that is put right into your hand. Institutions use it and do this all the time.
It works because it is tangible—defined, understandable.
It’s systemic—using the powers of critical mass to achieve its goals by simply being overwhelming.
It objectifies things, including people.
It’s binary—keeps things simple and tries to frame things in terms of good and evil.
It doesn’t really require anything of you, other than loyalty (or even just tacit consent).
In that way, it fosters a false contentment and disengagement—a kind of passivity because it lets other people (the authoritative ones) do the work.
So, why is moral authority appealing? Too often, it is effectively a cheap means to a desired end (even if it is expensive).
At this point, it might be helpful to add that morality, in and of itself, is likely actually amoral. Because it is a mechanism, it simply functions. The content of morality is highly fluid across time, even if it does tend to revolve around a fairly small set of common things—things often way more designed to manage power than to manage the content itself. Isn't that why so many who claim authoritative mantras don't even try to live up to them personally—is that why 'righteous indignation' is so necessary?
Is morality, then, good or bad? Does it become one or the other only when moral authority is involved? When is authority good (we know when it's bad)?
All to say, while the answers to these questions remain open (like all good questions seem to), the appetite we have for such things seems pretty high because moral authority is SO appealing.
For individuals, character is destiny; for organizations, culture is destiny.
-- Tony Hsieh, Zappos
35 years of marriage, as of today; more knowing and more mystery than ever...almost as if the two are somehow secret companions.
Both involve rhythms; rhythms that can be trusted—that need to be trusted, as their gaps widen with time. Some of them feel time-tested; some feel new. Some feel deeply centering; some feel scary.
Not surprisingly, I hadn't imagined some of this. But, I am grateful that predictability and certainty are not the highest forms of the good that comes from long-term commitment.
And, I am grateful for the kind of strength that is growing within each of us. Of course, I trust more of it in Tami than I do in myself. But, that's kind of a human thing, isn't it (to privately doubt yourself more than others...or is that just me)?—evidence, after all, is quite selective. The divine thing (that I see in Tami) is the real thing AND the most human thing.
When we grow into the divine, we actually become because it is the root of our truest essence. The path to this occurs in many forms. Marriage is certainly one of them, because of its capacity to lead toward love.
Thank you, Tami, for being willing (the essence of love?) to just walk with me.
Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
-- James 1:19-21, 27
There is something so seemingly satisfying about short-term prospects, especially when compared with the likelihood of long-term fulfillment.
Self-diagnosis is hard—we tend to be either too hard or too easy on ourselves.
We all have ways of arriving at meaning—some are common, some are not.
I've been contemplating; how significant is my existence?
Prior Randoms...
Referring to Rush Limbaugh, who died this week:
He was with me right from the beginning. And he liked what I said and he agreed with what I said. And he was just a great gentleman. Great man.
-- Donald Trump
Um, nothing more really needs to be said...about what is important to Donald Trump (more on that tomorrow).
History will speak for itself on the legacy of both men; who strike me, at the very least, as opportunists (though, like all obvious understatement, there is plenty more to consider than just that...).
Once we believe in ourselves, we can risk curiosity, wonder, spontaneous delight, or any experience that reveals the human spirit.
-- E.E. Cummings
Another lingering reflection, from a recent Randoms...:
Why is moral authority so universally appealing?
But first, what is morality anyway?
How about a short version AND a longer version?
Short version:
To me, it looks like morality is mostly a device, a mechanism, a construct—created by a group of people to achieve a goal.
The goal seems to be oriented to something the group maintains as an ideal, usually some presumed kind of good. If something violates an ideal of the group, it is deemed immoral (it is bad). To be moral, among other things, often is not to be immoral.
When someone is described as a moral person, it tends to mean that the person is in some particular way a representation of what is good, as defined by a group. Those that maintain the morality of the group reinforce the ideals of the group and are accepted by the group. Those that are immoral are not accepted by the group because they don't reinforce the ideals of the group.
This question has likely created no small amount of debate and discussion throughout time, especially when the details involved seem to vary—over time or across cultures. Rather than attempt a historical review, I'm going to just wing it here a bit.
It seems to me that morality is a sense of something that relates to goodness, that that goodness involves something larger than just what is good for only one person, and that it includes a certain kind of actionability. In other words, it is more than just ideas about what is good.
When we believe, for example, personally or collectively that something is good, we also tend to believe that such goodness should be manifest and available to something between just me and all of humanity. Because it is good (whatever it is), it should be reinforced for the benefit of everyone.
Morality, then, is a mechanism that enables that manifestation, either by access or by enforcement. And, attendant to what is good is often the prevention of whatever disables that goodness, or of what might be termed badness.
It is right at this point, that morality's actionability seeks efficacy. It acquires a goal; a goal designed to promote the good and inhibit the bad.
And, often, it is here where morality seems to beg for a little push—as it takes on an element of authority to achieve this goal. Moral authority, then, emerges as a means of helping secure the desired good (and constricting threats to it—whatever is deemed bad).
Moral authority comes in many shapes and sizes. Religion, for example, has often been used as an authoritative way of maintaining morality. But, other social structures use similar dynamics (or, is it the other way around?). What is interesting is that moral authority seems to often become fixated more on immorality—on preventing what it perceives to be bad (even to the point where what it claims is bad actually isn't necessarily bad)—than it does on what is good.
Perhaps, some 'moral' issues may be of use.
Drinking: getting drunk may be viewed as immoral, because of its potentially 'bad' consequences. A moral authority, then, may say that drinking is immoral, too, because it can lead to drunkenness. But, another version of moral authority may counter-claim that as long as drinking (or being drunk) doesn't hurt anyone, then it isn't immoral. Is drinking inherently good?
Sex: morality might state that sexuality is not immoral, but at the same time that there is such a thing as sexual immorality. The distinction again might be that as long as someone doesn't get hurt (bad), moral authority should claim that sexuality, in and of itself, is not immoral and more than having a drink is.
How about a bigger one—war, or abortion: The morality of either is often determined by an appeal to some type of authority that attempts to make one perspective normative for all. Each perspective uses the basis of the goal of a common good that is either achieved or violated by each.
In the end, there is what seems to be a givenness that there is some kind of common good that is desired and that that good should be available to all and protected from that which would inhibit it. In order to achieve that, some basis of authority needs to be maintained in order to normalize it.
This, it seems to me, is the essence of what morality is or, at least, how it seems to function. And, for good or bad, morality and moral authority seem to go hand in glove.
Perhaps, now, we can return to the original question:
Why is moral authority so universally appealing?
The deepest truth is our union with the Absolute, Infinite Being, with God. That’s the root of our reality.
-- Beatrice Bruteau
'Poem for the week' -- "Then":
The afternoon was a medium.
You made it to the beach. You made to it
an invertebrate overture. Lay down slug
-like, slit belly, what gave.
You were entering what then was called
the universal. A bit
pendulous. You felt a motion that wasn’t
negative pulling you toward the ancient texts
you had discovered floating in some sewage.
They were from the heyday of psychology.
You laughed at this. An animal filament
flickered at the edge of sea. By sea
they had meant mind. You laughed at this.
You observed frothing something. Universal. Stung
your toes. Something universal at the edge you nip
your toes in. Something universal this way you become.
-- Aditi Machado
Creativity flourishes not in certainty but in questions. Growth germinates not in tent dwelling but in upheaval. Yet the seduction is always security rather than venturing, instant knowing rather than deliberate waiting.
-- Sue Monk Kidd
I'm wondering...how many of us live most of our lives in fear of the most full expression of who we are or of what we want?
...another lingering reflection, from a recent Randoms....
Isn't it the case that our most full expression of ourselves is often restrained because of the criticism or rejection we anticipate from others. And, rejection from others inhibits our sense of ourselves. The mere potential of rejection is such a powerful influence in our lives.
We often equate criticism with rejection. And, there probably is some reason to do that. However, they are actually not the same thing.
What If...we lived enough from our desire (what we want to express) that we were able to discover the difference between criticism and rejection? What if we actually prospered from that discovery?
Can we even be fully ourselves when we're maintaining our sense-of-self primarily coming from someone outside of us?
What if our sense of self cannot be developed until we find something more innate about where it comes from. If it doesn't come primarily from the outside, where does it come from?
Our sense of self is much more rooted in the true nature of what we are connected to. Of course, when we lose our sense of that (when we are not aware of our true connectedness), it seems to naturally follow that we seek it via other ways where connection looks possible.
But, if our connectedness is truly not external but rather, internal, then we have to pursue something there.
Looking in the right place is key to finding...things like our most full expression.
“Your faith has healed you.”
-- Luke 8:48
In at least one case, he said, "...saved you". Did this not uncommon response from Jesus surprise the person he said it to?
Would it surprise you?
Poems companion us.
-- Edward Hirsch
'Poem for the week' -- "The Winter Bird":
Thou sing’st alone on the bare wintry bough,
As if Spring with its leaves were around thee now;|
And its voice that was heard in the laughing rill,
And the breeze as it whispered o’er meadow and hill,
Still fell on thine ear, as it murmured along
To join the sweet tide of thine own gushing song.
|Sing on—though its sweetness was lost on the blast,
And the storm has not heeded thy song as it passed,
Yet its music awoke in a heart that was near,
A thought whose remembrance will ever prove dear;
Though the brook may be frozen, though silent its voice,
And the gales through the meadows no longer rejoice,
Still I felt, as my ear caught thy glad note of glee,
That my heart in life’s winter might carol like thee.
-- Jones Very
As soon as you trust yourself, you will know how to live.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Passion tends to burn out. Passion-lessness tends to be uninspiring.
Over time, there’s a balance; between the two or from the two or with the two.
In the end, we need to recognize that passion expresses itself in different ways, at different times, over the course of time.
Understanding things like passion exclusively with normative definitions isn't really useful.
When mythic material remains latent, unused and unexplored, it can lead to pathological behavior.
-- Jean Houston
I've noticed...there is so much about taking up space that I am uncomfortable with. Why?
Some of this has to do with my type of personality, but I suspect it also reflects something about where I still need to grow.
