I think it is true, that if you want to know about the clock, it is best to study one well made clock thoroughly before moving on. Looking quickly at five million clocks will not teach you as much as the knowledge you could gain from studying that one time piece until you know exactly how it works, how it was made, how it breaks and how to fix it again.
Such is the theory behind the study of Western Tradition. The Liberal Education seeks to school its student in the foundation of Western Society. While I make no claim to being a scholar, I will say that the education I received helped to form core principles by which I seek to live. All situations I encounter are played by bouncing them off my sounding board to hear the pitch. Does it ring true or false?
No man alive today can know everything about everything. It is simply not possible with the amount of information to which we have access. The best we can hope for is to know enough about our core beliefs in order to make an informed judgement about the world in which we live. The truth is hard to find amidst the constant barrage of propaganda thrown at us from all sides. We must be able to look at the facts given in light of our core principles and make a judgement.
The process of doing this has been labeled narrow minded. I disagree. To ask if a law is just, a program necessary, or a public figure honest and to make a judgement based on our own core belief in the definition of justice, necessity and honesty, is not narrow mindedness. To stand on a solid definition of terms and a secure foundation of beliefs does not make one unintelligent, lazy or narrow minded.
It is simply judging a new clock by the standards of the old one we have taken the time to master. Is the new clock better or worse? One clock at a time. If the new does not meet the standards of the old, we certainly are not required to make it the new standard by which to judge. We don't have to compare every new clock to ALL the clocks in the world. It is perfectly sound to simply compare it to the one clock we know and make a judgement.
I will stick to the narrow, yet deep path rather than take my chances on the wide and shallow. I may scrape the sides, but at least I won't bottom out.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Response to the Response Going 'Round
I have no business background. I am the stay at home mom of five children. I eat bon bons all day and listen to Conservative Talk Radio. I would watch Fox news, but we don't choose to have cable. I think I read a book once in college, but I can't remember what it was, unless you count Diary of a Wimpy Kid, I read that five times. I am probably a racist at heart, except that one of my children is Asian and one is African. That causes a bit of a problem for me. I could figure out what to do about the contradiction, but I never actually think about anything. I would carry a sign with some bit of propaganda on it, but I can never find anything other than a purple crayon in my house.
In truth, I am pretty sure I have no marketable qualities what so ever. Yet, I have a stake in the future of this country. Those five little souls in my care force me to do so. I would like to think I have spent some time in forming my intelligence and character. The author of the response would probably prefer to believe me to be the bon bon eating, racist robot. Oh well.
Lou Pritchett, you scare me.
In many ways, you are probably no different from many other retired executives, but unlike the others, you scare me.
You scare me because you seek to leverage the credibility you achieved in the business world in order to justify your self appointed role as political commentator, despite the fact that you have not demonstrated that you possess the knowledge or the judgment to serve in that role.
As the main problem with the Obama agenda from the Tea Party Movement, be it cap and trade, health care, stimulus, or the take over of banks and car companies is economic, it seems that someone who has lived in the midst of the capitalistic system of America for so many years may have a stake and a credibility others may not. It is also his Constitutional right to express these views. Even Kyle in the basement can express an opinion in this country. However, if he begins to be listened to, he better watch his back.
You scare me because you do not have enough intellectual curiosity to look beyond the propaganda and lies coming from the right and actually take the time to pursue the readily available facts about our President before engaging in a misinformation campaign of your own. I see no facts in your own “intelligent” response.
You scare me because you have chosen to serve as a conduit for some of the most scurrilous lies and misrepresentations about the President, either out of ignorance or out of malice. Again, do you have proof or just left wing talking points as your own “intelligent” response?
You scare me because you challenge the right of all Americans who have spent part of their upbringing on foreign soil to call themselves Americans, including the sons and daughters of our service men and women, as well as the children of those in the our diplomatic corps. As you challenge the right of those who make their living in the business sector and the new media to speak as anything other than greedy hate mongers.
You scare me because you fail to appreciate the wisdom and judgment of everyday Americans, hiding behind the misguided assumption that good judgment and common sense can only come from “running a company and meeting a payroll”. Like the common Americans who are the vast majority of the Tea Party Movement?
You scare me because you dutifully repeat right wing talking points in your pronouncements, apparently willing to sacrifice your ability to think critically for the expediency of advancing a message already prepared by others whose primary purpose is not to inform, but to inflame. To agree with someone requires thinking. I find it a personal insult that because I agree with any or all that Rush Limbaugh may say means I have done no critical thinking. If I disagree with the slow and steady chipping away of the Judaeo Christian values, capitalistic private sector based economy and strong military presence in this country and abroad. This is not because I have read a sign or listened to the radio, but because I am a Conservative. The signs and the talking points reflect my world view, my world view did not come from them.
You scare me because you attempt to assign undeserved credibility to media figures who have achieved great wealth and notoriety, not because they are knowledgeable or enlightened, but because they are loud and opinionated and they have learned that commercial success comes from pandering to an audience that prefers to hear only one side of an argument, even when that side is based on lies. Have you ever listened to the commentators you despise? Case in Point: Harriet Miers. The commercial success of said commentators comes from the simple fact that they say things many other Americans agree with. Limbaugh speaks always and consistently from a Conservative perspective. This is not pandering. He makes no claim to running a debate show. Those who listen know which side of the argument he is going to make. He does not hide this fact from anyone. We do not listen to him to discover what we think. He has made his money by saying things we already believe. Successful Comedians do not make it by telling us what jokes we should find funny, but by creating material that reflects what people will find funny. Must we listen to jokes we don’t find funny to know what we do find funny? Must we listen to arguments based on communist, socialist and atheist core principals to know whether or not we still believe in the Conservative Christian way of thinking. We do not. Yet most of us are more informed than you may think.
You scare me because you are not able to distinguish between an honorable diplomatic policy that is based on diplomacy, humility and mutual respect, and an imagined policy that is based on whatever it takes to inflame the passions on the right. Or perhaps we look at History and see that it has never worked to try and appease those who hope to destroy the Jewish Nation.
You scare me because you are so completely divorced from the reality of policy proposals of the President, preferring to wrap yourself in the comfortable cocoon of lies and misrepresentations generated by the right wing echo chamber. Hu?
You scare me because you are so out of touch with everyday Americans that you cannot recognize that our current health care system is a recipe for disaster, and that any perceived need to involve government in health care is a direct result of the catastrophic failure of an inefficient, incompetent and corrupt health care industry that has proven itself unwilling or unable to regulate itself or to adequately provide for its customers. Mr. Well informed free thinker, have you seen the Conservative Proposals for health care reform that don’t have a price tag of a gazillion dollars?
You scare me because when you step forward as a willing participant in the organized misinformation campaign directed toward our president, you stand side by side in an unholy alliance with some the most extreme elements in our society: the white supremacists, the holocaust deniers, the domestic terrorists like Scott Roeder and Jim David Adkisson, and others whose stated goal is to bring about a change in society by whatever means they deem necessary, including the violent overthrow of the government. This bit of intelligence, free from malice and without the goal to inflame is above reproach. Give me a break. Last time I checked, the Tea Party was a non-violent protest movement: More like Dr. King than anyone else you mention.
And finally, you scare me because you represent a frighteningly large demographic of seemingly intelligent adults who have locked themselves off from open discussion and independent thought, choosing instead to filter out all information that does not reinforce deeply held prejudices and right wing talking points. Mr. Pritchett, there may have been a time when your opinions could have been taken seriously, but not anymore. In your letter I recognize the characteristics of yet another American who has sacrificed his ability to generate an independent thought so that he can worship at the altar of Clear Channel and Newscorp. I find that quite sad, because the ease with which seemingly intelligent Americans can be so thoroughly indoctrinated through controlled exposure to propaganda on radio and television is the most frightening thing of all. We disagree with you. Period. You can attack our ability to think for ourselves until the cows come home. But you are wrong. Most of us worship God, I am sure you find that sad as well. We also believe and are schooled in the Liberal Arts and find our roots in Western Tradition. We find the Obama Agenda to be an attack on what we hold dear: Liberty, Democracy, Religion, Freedom of Speech, and the Spirit of Innovation fostered by the Capitalistic System.
To believe that the freedoms and rights and way of life we have come to have in America are guaranteed to last forever is a mistake. Study History. The American Experience is the exception, not the rule. Ours is a different foundation, but all foundations can crumble or be destroyed. Many of us feel that much of the current president’s agenda seeks to destroy that foundation. We find that scary, for when it falls, who knows what may emerge from the dust.
In truth, I am pretty sure I have no marketable qualities what so ever. Yet, I have a stake in the future of this country. Those five little souls in my care force me to do so. I would like to think I have spent some time in forming my intelligence and character. The author of the response would probably prefer to believe me to be the bon bon eating, racist robot. Oh well.
Lou Pritchett, you scare me.
In many ways, you are probably no different from many other retired executives, but unlike the others, you scare me.
You scare me because you seek to leverage the credibility you achieved in the business world in order to justify your self appointed role as political commentator, despite the fact that you have not demonstrated that you possess the knowledge or the judgment to serve in that role.
As the main problem with the Obama agenda from the Tea Party Movement, be it cap and trade, health care, stimulus, or the take over of banks and car companies is economic, it seems that someone who has lived in the midst of the capitalistic system of America for so many years may have a stake and a credibility others may not. It is also his Constitutional right to express these views. Even Kyle in the basement can express an opinion in this country. However, if he begins to be listened to, he better watch his back.
You scare me because you do not have enough intellectual curiosity to look beyond the propaganda and lies coming from the right and actually take the time to pursue the readily available facts about our President before engaging in a misinformation campaign of your own. I see no facts in your own “intelligent” response.
You scare me because you have chosen to serve as a conduit for some of the most scurrilous lies and misrepresentations about the President, either out of ignorance or out of malice. Again, do you have proof or just left wing talking points as your own “intelligent” response?
You scare me because you challenge the right of all Americans who have spent part of their upbringing on foreign soil to call themselves Americans, including the sons and daughters of our service men and women, as well as the children of those in the our diplomatic corps. As you challenge the right of those who make their living in the business sector and the new media to speak as anything other than greedy hate mongers.
You scare me because you fail to appreciate the wisdom and judgment of everyday Americans, hiding behind the misguided assumption that good judgment and common sense can only come from “running a company and meeting a payroll”. Like the common Americans who are the vast majority of the Tea Party Movement?
You scare me because you dutifully repeat right wing talking points in your pronouncements, apparently willing to sacrifice your ability to think critically for the expediency of advancing a message already prepared by others whose primary purpose is not to inform, but to inflame. To agree with someone requires thinking. I find it a personal insult that because I agree with any or all that Rush Limbaugh may say means I have done no critical thinking. If I disagree with the slow and steady chipping away of the Judaeo Christian values, capitalistic private sector based economy and strong military presence in this country and abroad. This is not because I have read a sign or listened to the radio, but because I am a Conservative. The signs and the talking points reflect my world view, my world view did not come from them.
You scare me because you attempt to assign undeserved credibility to media figures who have achieved great wealth and notoriety, not because they are knowledgeable or enlightened, but because they are loud and opinionated and they have learned that commercial success comes from pandering to an audience that prefers to hear only one side of an argument, even when that side is based on lies. Have you ever listened to the commentators you despise? Case in Point: Harriet Miers. The commercial success of said commentators comes from the simple fact that they say things many other Americans agree with. Limbaugh speaks always and consistently from a Conservative perspective. This is not pandering. He makes no claim to running a debate show. Those who listen know which side of the argument he is going to make. He does not hide this fact from anyone. We do not listen to him to discover what we think. He has made his money by saying things we already believe. Successful Comedians do not make it by telling us what jokes we should find funny, but by creating material that reflects what people will find funny. Must we listen to jokes we don’t find funny to know what we do find funny? Must we listen to arguments based on communist, socialist and atheist core principals to know whether or not we still believe in the Conservative Christian way of thinking. We do not. Yet most of us are more informed than you may think.
You scare me because you are not able to distinguish between an honorable diplomatic policy that is based on diplomacy, humility and mutual respect, and an imagined policy that is based on whatever it takes to inflame the passions on the right. Or perhaps we look at History and see that it has never worked to try and appease those who hope to destroy the Jewish Nation.
You scare me because you are so completely divorced from the reality of policy proposals of the President, preferring to wrap yourself in the comfortable cocoon of lies and misrepresentations generated by the right wing echo chamber. Hu?
You scare me because you are so out of touch with everyday Americans that you cannot recognize that our current health care system is a recipe for disaster, and that any perceived need to involve government in health care is a direct result of the catastrophic failure of an inefficient, incompetent and corrupt health care industry that has proven itself unwilling or unable to regulate itself or to adequately provide for its customers. Mr. Well informed free thinker, have you seen the Conservative Proposals for health care reform that don’t have a price tag of a gazillion dollars?
You scare me because when you step forward as a willing participant in the organized misinformation campaign directed toward our president, you stand side by side in an unholy alliance with some the most extreme elements in our society: the white supremacists, the holocaust deniers, the domestic terrorists like Scott Roeder and Jim David Adkisson, and others whose stated goal is to bring about a change in society by whatever means they deem necessary, including the violent overthrow of the government. This bit of intelligence, free from malice and without the goal to inflame is above reproach. Give me a break. Last time I checked, the Tea Party was a non-violent protest movement: More like Dr. King than anyone else you mention.
And finally, you scare me because you represent a frighteningly large demographic of seemingly intelligent adults who have locked themselves off from open discussion and independent thought, choosing instead to filter out all information that does not reinforce deeply held prejudices and right wing talking points. Mr. Pritchett, there may have been a time when your opinions could have been taken seriously, but not anymore. In your letter I recognize the characteristics of yet another American who has sacrificed his ability to generate an independent thought so that he can worship at the altar of Clear Channel and Newscorp. I find that quite sad, because the ease with which seemingly intelligent Americans can be so thoroughly indoctrinated through controlled exposure to propaganda on radio and television is the most frightening thing of all. We disagree with you. Period. You can attack our ability to think for ourselves until the cows come home. But you are wrong. Most of us worship God, I am sure you find that sad as well. We also believe and are schooled in the Liberal Arts and find our roots in Western Tradition. We find the Obama Agenda to be an attack on what we hold dear: Liberty, Democracy, Religion, Freedom of Speech, and the Spirit of Innovation fostered by the Capitalistic System.
To believe that the freedoms and rights and way of life we have come to have in America are guaranteed to last forever is a mistake. Study History. The American Experience is the exception, not the rule. Ours is a different foundation, but all foundations can crumble or be destroyed. Many of us feel that much of the current president’s agenda seeks to destroy that foundation. We find that scary, for when it falls, who knows what may emerge from the dust.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
To Thine Own Self Be True...NOT
My Father in Law bought us a subscription to a magazine called Touchstone. I like the magazine, but don't love it. Until today. There was an article that explained one of my greatest pet peeves. It is that Shakespeare's line "To thine own self be true" is by no means a series of words to live by. The article explains what has always been my complaint, that the Bard is not saying all of his famous lines. That Shakespeare, in fact, had his characters saying the lines. This particular line is said by a buffoon at the end of a string of ridiculous cliches meaning nothing. He is an opportunistic fool by the name of Polonius. He is by no means someone whose advice should be viewed as doctrine.
So check out the article in a few weeks at the archive of www.touchstonemag.com. It isn't one of the featured articles you can read on line yet.
And PLEASE, unless you are perfect, find something higher than yourself to which to be true. :)
So check out the article in a few weeks at the archive of www.touchstonemag.com. It isn't one of the featured articles you can read on line yet.
And PLEASE, unless you are perfect, find something higher than yourself to which to be true. :)
Thursday, May 6, 2010
The Fair Folk
I saw some pictures of signs from a radical Islamic rally in Europe and was going to write about my reaction. But I realized that my writing has tended toward the negative and wanted to write with inspiration from a different muse. So, today I will write about faeries.
Let me start by saying that yes, I believe in faeries. If you don't, I am sorry for you. And just so you don't think I am the only adult in the world who does, my best friend from college had the habit of always leaving a french fry from our fast food outings for the fairer folk. So, there are at least two of us nut jobs out there. I wish I would have left more than one fry. It could have cut down on the weight I had to lose post college.
My favorite portrayal of faeries is from The Complete Book of the Flower Fairies by Cicely Mary Barker. They are the most innocent and beautiful creatures in the world. The problem is, they are almost too sweet. Anyone who knows anything about faeries knows they can be quite vicious if they choose to be. According to j.M. Barry, they mean no harm. They are just so small, they only have enough room for one emotion at a time.
Tinker Bell is probably the most famous named fairy. I would guess the Tooth Fairy is the most famous of all, but we don't know what she calls herself or if this is a title of a group of faeries or one lone little gal. Little has been written about the Tooth Fairy (or faeries). I know of notes left behind that tell what she looks like and what she does with all those teeth. But they have never been authenticated or compiled as far as I know.
According to Mark Twain, Joan of Ark also believed in faeries, so Kathleen and I are at least in good company. At a very young age, while she was in the midst of a fever, the local village faeries were caught by a snooping old woman dancing around their tree. A hundred or so years before, the priest had banned the faeries from ever showing themselves. The priest in Joan's day was forced to ban them forever from the tree. When Joan regained her senses and discovered what awful fate had been cast upon the faeries, she immediately went to the priest. She complained to him that it was not their fault they were come upon just as it would not be his fault if someone came upon him in the bath. The priest was overcome with remorse and asked Joan how he could atone. He suggested Sack Cloth and ashes. She agreed that would be fine if he thought it fit the crime, until he bent down to the fire place to put the ashes on his head. She had no idea what the penance meant and was aghast that the priest should have to endure it. She quickly scooped up the ash and dumped it on her own head and asked if that would suffice. He assured her it most certainly would from behind a hidden smile.
Disney has made a new group of faeries popular. They are the Never Land Faeries. These are the stories of Mother Dove and all of the friends of Tinker Bell. I like the Never Land Faeries, but like the Smurfs before them, they are a little too communistic for my taste. Every fairy has a talent (Tink is a pots and pans fixing fairy, thus her name). Others are baking talent, water talent, animal talent, etc. They make for good stories, but I find it to be a bit too orderly for such free spirited creatures.
If you were wondering, faeries are born, by the most believable accounts, from the pure first laugh of a child. There are male faeries, called sparrow men. Faeries can speak to children in dreams. It is unclear if unbelief causes them harm, but as a sighting of an actual fairy has not occurred in a very long while, I would say it is likely. They seem to be more common in the regions of England and Ireland. Perhaps they like rain.
If you were hoping for a "how to" to attract faeries to your own garden, this post will not be helpful. We have made fairy gardens in our own yard and you can find suggestions on the internet of what to include to appeal to them. I frankly think it is more a matter of luck. I think the best way to get a fairy near your home seems to be the tried and true way of losing a tooth or of having a home filled with the pure laughter of a child. I can't help but think they are attracted to the likeness of their origin.
You can also do research on how to know if you have a fairy near by. Just google it. If you find no signs of fairy activity, perhaps you killed them all off one day last summer when you thought to yourself in a moment of weakness, "I don't believe in faeries."
Faeries are magical, of that I am sure. They are not purely good and they certainly are not pure evil. They can be wonderfully, marvelously good and they can be spiteful as hell. A lot like humans if you ask me. So, you don't believe in faeries. Maybe you don't believe in humanity either. And maybe, just maybe, that is why I still do.
Let me start by saying that yes, I believe in faeries. If you don't, I am sorry for you. And just so you don't think I am the only adult in the world who does, my best friend from college had the habit of always leaving a french fry from our fast food outings for the fairer folk. So, there are at least two of us nut jobs out there. I wish I would have left more than one fry. It could have cut down on the weight I had to lose post college.
My favorite portrayal of faeries is from The Complete Book of the Flower Fairies by Cicely Mary Barker. They are the most innocent and beautiful creatures in the world. The problem is, they are almost too sweet. Anyone who knows anything about faeries knows they can be quite vicious if they choose to be. According to j.M. Barry, they mean no harm. They are just so small, they only have enough room for one emotion at a time.
Tinker Bell is probably the most famous named fairy. I would guess the Tooth Fairy is the most famous of all, but we don't know what she calls herself or if this is a title of a group of faeries or one lone little gal. Little has been written about the Tooth Fairy (or faeries). I know of notes left behind that tell what she looks like and what she does with all those teeth. But they have never been authenticated or compiled as far as I know.
According to Mark Twain, Joan of Ark also believed in faeries, so Kathleen and I are at least in good company. At a very young age, while she was in the midst of a fever, the local village faeries were caught by a snooping old woman dancing around their tree. A hundred or so years before, the priest had banned the faeries from ever showing themselves. The priest in Joan's day was forced to ban them forever from the tree. When Joan regained her senses and discovered what awful fate had been cast upon the faeries, she immediately went to the priest. She complained to him that it was not their fault they were come upon just as it would not be his fault if someone came upon him in the bath. The priest was overcome with remorse and asked Joan how he could atone. He suggested Sack Cloth and ashes. She agreed that would be fine if he thought it fit the crime, until he bent down to the fire place to put the ashes on his head. She had no idea what the penance meant and was aghast that the priest should have to endure it. She quickly scooped up the ash and dumped it on her own head and asked if that would suffice. He assured her it most certainly would from behind a hidden smile.
Disney has made a new group of faeries popular. They are the Never Land Faeries. These are the stories of Mother Dove and all of the friends of Tinker Bell. I like the Never Land Faeries, but like the Smurfs before them, they are a little too communistic for my taste. Every fairy has a talent (Tink is a pots and pans fixing fairy, thus her name). Others are baking talent, water talent, animal talent, etc. They make for good stories, but I find it to be a bit too orderly for such free spirited creatures.
If you were wondering, faeries are born, by the most believable accounts, from the pure first laugh of a child. There are male faeries, called sparrow men. Faeries can speak to children in dreams. It is unclear if unbelief causes them harm, but as a sighting of an actual fairy has not occurred in a very long while, I would say it is likely. They seem to be more common in the regions of England and Ireland. Perhaps they like rain.
If you were hoping for a "how to" to attract faeries to your own garden, this post will not be helpful. We have made fairy gardens in our own yard and you can find suggestions on the internet of what to include to appeal to them. I frankly think it is more a matter of luck. I think the best way to get a fairy near your home seems to be the tried and true way of losing a tooth or of having a home filled with the pure laughter of a child. I can't help but think they are attracted to the likeness of their origin.
You can also do research on how to know if you have a fairy near by. Just google it. If you find no signs of fairy activity, perhaps you killed them all off one day last summer when you thought to yourself in a moment of weakness, "I don't believe in faeries."
Faeries are magical, of that I am sure. They are not purely good and they certainly are not pure evil. They can be wonderfully, marvelously good and they can be spiteful as hell. A lot like humans if you ask me. So, you don't believe in faeries. Maybe you don't believe in humanity either. And maybe, just maybe, that is why I still do.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Stress
Stress is a funny thing. I suppose in the natural, evolutionary, biological, whatever scheme of things it is part of our instinctual mechanism for self preservation: Part of the process leading to fight or flight. But as we are not likely to run into a bear around the corner, I wonder why it is such a very common and overwhelmingly large part of the life of modern man.
What is it that we are preparing to fight or flee? What is it that makes us think we are in danger so much of the time?
I think of the major causes of stress in the lives of those I know. Work is a biggie. I guess this makes sense as our jobs are our bread and butter. Seeing our livelihoods as something to preserve makes sense, but prior to the current economic climate, the stress did not seem to be related to losing one's job but fulfilling it. Was it the desire for preservation of status, respect, power? Is it that we so define ourselves by our work, we fear losing our very selves without it? And so we live in a constant state of stress ready to fight those over whom we have power and flee from those who hold power over us?
Kids are another major source of stress. I think this is in part due to the parent child bond which pushes our self preservation out to include our off spring. We are willing to fight for them or flee with them if we feel they are in danger of any kind. Not just the hungry bear for the modern man, but the demons watching and waiting to steal their innocence are in our sights. The dangers change from a peanut or lego left lying on the ground to a car backing out of a drive or a weak tree branch to the evil lurking yet unseen on the TV and internet or parked in a beat up old truck around the corner. It includes those we know or don't know, those they may like or love. It includes protecting them from their very selves.
I have also seen much stress in the married lives of those around me: Competing interests, jealousies, lack of respect for the contributions of one or the other to the partnership. It can be rooted in deep seeded animosities or simply due to the overwhelming nature of busy, hectic lives. It can result in hostile confrontation or the slow drifting away of a recognized need for the other for one's fulfillment. We are in a constant preparation to fight or flee from he who is central to our own preservation. We are not stressed to fight the enemy, but the friend.
I think that while many of these seem to be a conflict with an outside force or person, modern man's stress is really, in most circumstances, rooted in one singular fear. One thing we are willing to fight or flee to avoid at all cost. It is the desire not to protect our power, livelihood or even those we love. It comes as a shield to protect us from being hurt. And the hurt is not the bleeding wounds of a physical mauling, but the internal wounds of a bruised, broken or shattered heart.
With all of our modern conveniences, our worries would seem simply ludicrous to those who had to fight to stay alive. And too, we fear not just big pain, but little pain. We hope to protect ourselves not just from large scale humiliation, crushing grief and overwhelming evil, but inconvenience, irritation, and interruption.
Our natural instinct for self preservation from the elements and enemies has changed with our cushy pillow life to include an instinct to protect ourselves from dealing with any of life's unpleasantness. We are stressed about putting laundry in a machine, sending a 2 second e-mail, getting the kids' homework finished. We are stressed about putting dinner in the microwave or picking it up from a window, whether our meeting will end soon enough to allow for a round of golf, or how to get two kids to two different places at the same time. We are stressed about having our favorite program interrupted, not having time to get our coffee or being stopped at the water cooler for petty conversation.
I am now, not making accusations, but self reflecting. My stress is really selfishness. My stress is my desire to protect my time, my will, my interests from those around me. It comes from being diverted from what I want to do (important or not) by the needs of another human being: The car in front of me, the infuriating bickering of my children, my husband's travel schedule.
I do not mean to suggest that stress is not real. Ask my body, it will tell you. I do not believe that all our stress revolves around petty things. To desire to protect your heart from being broken or to avoid mass chaos which threatens to engulf your whole world is not a trite endeavour. But the fact remains that love requires pain and sacrifice. If we are to reach our human potential, we must learn to love others more than ourselves. We must be willing to accept pain and suffering. Unfortunately, this means in the biggies and the smalls. We must be willing to suffer heart break and irritation.
Okay great, but how? I keep asking myself this as my stress grows daily to become something too large for my small frame to bear. I could take drugs and function more efficiently, I guess. But it would still be there, silently crushing me, I just wouldn't know it as much.
I didn't know the answer when I started writing, I rarely do. But as I write, I just keep seeing Christ stretched out on His cross. How do I love? How do I love? Where is the Peace? Where is the peace? Is it in our human abilities that were transformed by the Passion and Death of our Savior? Did He change all the rules? Well, not change, but fulfill. Is he saying, "STOP! Do not fight or flee, surrender? Surrender to the daily irritations. Surrender to the daily worries. Surrender the fear of lack of respect, crushing grief, or humiliation."
But to whom, Lord? Where do I wave the white flag? Do I become a doormat, depressed, abused? Do I surrender to those who hold power over me, ignore me, irritate me? Do I surrender to the evil lurking in the darkness waiting to strike?
And then I see myself waving the white flag. Defeated. I can not fight anymore. There is no where left to flee. And the flag swirls from the stick to which it is attached and wraps itself around me as a sparkling garment, and I am raised above the battlefield in a circle of pure light.
"You surrender to me, my child. I am not defeat, I am victory. I make all things new. I turned death into life. Do you not think I can take stress and make it peace? Have more faith in Me."
And so my energy diverts. I will not work on managing, avoiding, anesthetizing the stress, the pain. I will work on having faith. I will not work on pulling myself up and out, but on believing I can be pulled up and out.
Lord, today I ask only one thing, help my unbelief.
What is it that we are preparing to fight or flee? What is it that makes us think we are in danger so much of the time?
I think of the major causes of stress in the lives of those I know. Work is a biggie. I guess this makes sense as our jobs are our bread and butter. Seeing our livelihoods as something to preserve makes sense, but prior to the current economic climate, the stress did not seem to be related to losing one's job but fulfilling it. Was it the desire for preservation of status, respect, power? Is it that we so define ourselves by our work, we fear losing our very selves without it? And so we live in a constant state of stress ready to fight those over whom we have power and flee from those who hold power over us?
Kids are another major source of stress. I think this is in part due to the parent child bond which pushes our self preservation out to include our off spring. We are willing to fight for them or flee with them if we feel they are in danger of any kind. Not just the hungry bear for the modern man, but the demons watching and waiting to steal their innocence are in our sights. The dangers change from a peanut or lego left lying on the ground to a car backing out of a drive or a weak tree branch to the evil lurking yet unseen on the TV and internet or parked in a beat up old truck around the corner. It includes those we know or don't know, those they may like or love. It includes protecting them from their very selves.
I have also seen much stress in the married lives of those around me: Competing interests, jealousies, lack of respect for the contributions of one or the other to the partnership. It can be rooted in deep seeded animosities or simply due to the overwhelming nature of busy, hectic lives. It can result in hostile confrontation or the slow drifting away of a recognized need for the other for one's fulfillment. We are in a constant preparation to fight or flee from he who is central to our own preservation. We are not stressed to fight the enemy, but the friend.
I think that while many of these seem to be a conflict with an outside force or person, modern man's stress is really, in most circumstances, rooted in one singular fear. One thing we are willing to fight or flee to avoid at all cost. It is the desire not to protect our power, livelihood or even those we love. It comes as a shield to protect us from being hurt. And the hurt is not the bleeding wounds of a physical mauling, but the internal wounds of a bruised, broken or shattered heart.
With all of our modern conveniences, our worries would seem simply ludicrous to those who had to fight to stay alive. And too, we fear not just big pain, but little pain. We hope to protect ourselves not just from large scale humiliation, crushing grief and overwhelming evil, but inconvenience, irritation, and interruption.
Our natural instinct for self preservation from the elements and enemies has changed with our cushy pillow life to include an instinct to protect ourselves from dealing with any of life's unpleasantness. We are stressed about putting laundry in a machine, sending a 2 second e-mail, getting the kids' homework finished. We are stressed about putting dinner in the microwave or picking it up from a window, whether our meeting will end soon enough to allow for a round of golf, or how to get two kids to two different places at the same time. We are stressed about having our favorite program interrupted, not having time to get our coffee or being stopped at the water cooler for petty conversation.
I am now, not making accusations, but self reflecting. My stress is really selfishness. My stress is my desire to protect my time, my will, my interests from those around me. It comes from being diverted from what I want to do (important or not) by the needs of another human being: The car in front of me, the infuriating bickering of my children, my husband's travel schedule.
I do not mean to suggest that stress is not real. Ask my body, it will tell you. I do not believe that all our stress revolves around petty things. To desire to protect your heart from being broken or to avoid mass chaos which threatens to engulf your whole world is not a trite endeavour. But the fact remains that love requires pain and sacrifice. If we are to reach our human potential, we must learn to love others more than ourselves. We must be willing to accept pain and suffering. Unfortunately, this means in the biggies and the smalls. We must be willing to suffer heart break and irritation.
Okay great, but how? I keep asking myself this as my stress grows daily to become something too large for my small frame to bear. I could take drugs and function more efficiently, I guess. But it would still be there, silently crushing me, I just wouldn't know it as much.
I didn't know the answer when I started writing, I rarely do. But as I write, I just keep seeing Christ stretched out on His cross. How do I love? How do I love? Where is the Peace? Where is the peace? Is it in our human abilities that were transformed by the Passion and Death of our Savior? Did He change all the rules? Well, not change, but fulfill. Is he saying, "STOP! Do not fight or flee, surrender? Surrender to the daily irritations. Surrender to the daily worries. Surrender the fear of lack of respect, crushing grief, or humiliation."
But to whom, Lord? Where do I wave the white flag? Do I become a doormat, depressed, abused? Do I surrender to those who hold power over me, ignore me, irritate me? Do I surrender to the evil lurking in the darkness waiting to strike?
And then I see myself waving the white flag. Defeated. I can not fight anymore. There is no where left to flee. And the flag swirls from the stick to which it is attached and wraps itself around me as a sparkling garment, and I am raised above the battlefield in a circle of pure light.
"You surrender to me, my child. I am not defeat, I am victory. I make all things new. I turned death into life. Do you not think I can take stress and make it peace? Have more faith in Me."
And so my energy diverts. I will not work on managing, avoiding, anesthetizing the stress, the pain. I will work on having faith. I will not work on pulling myself up and out, but on believing I can be pulled up and out.
Lord, today I ask only one thing, help my unbelief.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
I'm Bored!
I am in the process of making the "I'm Bored Box." I would like to take credit for the idea, but it was my husband's.
I am writing things on little cards to put in a box to have my children pick when I get the daily "I'm Bored" whine.
Write a letter.
Read a book.
Vacuum the stairs.
Clean the first floor toilet.
Make a card.
Do a Math Page.
Clean the blinds.
Mop the hard woods.
Play the piano for fifteen minutes.
Make a list of ten things you are grateful for.
Say a Decade of the Rosary.
Do fifty push ups.
Sort socks.
Clean muddy shoes.
You get a Second Chance...This time.
If you have any ideas to add to the mix, I would love to hear them.
I am writing things on little cards to put in a box to have my children pick when I get the daily "I'm Bored" whine.
Write a letter.
Read a book.
Vacuum the stairs.
Clean the first floor toilet.
Make a card.
Do a Math Page.
Clean the blinds.
Mop the hard woods.
Play the piano for fifteen minutes.
Make a list of ten things you are grateful for.
Say a Decade of the Rosary.
Do fifty push ups.
Sort socks.
Clean muddy shoes.
You get a Second Chance...This time.
If you have any ideas to add to the mix, I would love to hear them.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
The Meaning of Life
At a team building conference, my husband picked out of a hat the question: What is the best advice you have ever been given. With out hesitation he answered: At the age of eleven or so my father told me, the most important decision you will ever make in your life is the choice of your bride.
The answer seemed to have made an impact on at least a few people. One woman asked during the conference if he really meant it as if it seemed a bit of silly advice in the world of a corporate litigator. Another remembered it and told it as a character statement months later when introducing my husband to a client.
My husband was astonished by the first response. He mused, that even if you had made a bad choice, the enormity of that choice should be fairly clear in your level of happiness.
I don't remember ever being given similar advice. I knew inherently that the choice of my husband would be momentous. As a teenager, it helped to keep me chaste. I had very romantic notions about marriage and a high level of self esteem (even if unwarranted). I did not think anyone was worthy of my gift of self. A bit egotistical, I admit, but even at that young age, I somehow knew it was a total gift of self worth saving.
As a high school teacher at an all girls' school, I was asked to give a talk on chastity. As I thought about what I would say, I realized how much chastity had formed my own character. I recalled my first year in college when my high school boyfriend would drive eight hundred miles to visit me. He joked that his friends thought he was nuts for driving all that way "to get nothing in return." We both loved being together and enjoyed the times when he would visit. Neither of us felt that some sort of payment was required on either side.
It made me think about the girlfriends of his friends. When they were taken to a movie or out to dinner did they get a message from these boys that payment was due? Did they think the gift of spending time together with someone you enjoyed required physical payment? My physical relationships that distinguished a friend from a date were representations of how I felt differently about that person in my life in comparison to others. It had never crossed my mind to feel I owed anyone anything (probably my egotism again.) But in part, I think it was the message I got from the boys I dated. They seemed honored to be with me, and I in turn felt secure being with them.
Not sure if it was the chicken or the egg. Did they feel my self confidence and respond or did I feel their chivalry and respond? Or was it that my dad was incredibly imposing and no one wanted to cross paths with him for fear he would send them to jail with one look? Who knows? I just know that my virginity and self esteem, my confidence and relationships were all intertwined in some dramatic way and played an enormous part in creating the person I would be.
Similarly, I have found my husband's choice of his bride (and my acceptance of his offer of love) to be the single most important factor to my happiness. I was told that marriage is work, and of course I understand what this means, but really, I feel daily that to NOT be married to this man would require far more work.
And it is not just in those things "Marriagey". My confidence and self esteem that in the past hinged on previous relationships is now completely centered in him. I am who I am because of him and without him, I would not be the same person. It is love that allows me to be a mother and a friend. Even relationships I had before, like that of a sister and daughter, are impacted by his love for me. He is the glue that holds me together whether he is present or not.
I have contemplated sex, marriage and love many times over the years. I knew as a young girl, young wife, young mother and happily married middle aged (ooh ugh) woman that sex was more than sex and that marriage was more than marriage and have always believed the meaning of life was found in our ability to love God and others. However, I have just read the most amazing book that explains all this. It is Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West.
West has taken the late John Paul II's momentous work and made it accessible to the layman. I implore you to read it. The radically new and different approach of Pope John Paul II to the mystery and meaning of the human body and the meaning of life is too beautiful for words.
We all know how the Sexual Revolution of the 1960's has impacted nearly every aspect of modern culture. We all know the enormous power that sex can have in our own lives. But do we know why?
Theology of the Body is not a work to rehabilitate bad marriage or define the good. It is not a how to for those in the dating scene or for those who have chosen a celibate life. It is a book for every human, in any vocation, at any stage of life. It is a book about what it means to be a human being with a body and a soul. It is about the mystery of love and the meaning of life.
Thank you God for the mind and heart of our late great Pope. Thank you Christopher West for making this accesible to everyone. May your life be transformed by this 'Basic Introduction to John Paul II's Sexual Revolution.'
The answer seemed to have made an impact on at least a few people. One woman asked during the conference if he really meant it as if it seemed a bit of silly advice in the world of a corporate litigator. Another remembered it and told it as a character statement months later when introducing my husband to a client.
My husband was astonished by the first response. He mused, that even if you had made a bad choice, the enormity of that choice should be fairly clear in your level of happiness.
I don't remember ever being given similar advice. I knew inherently that the choice of my husband would be momentous. As a teenager, it helped to keep me chaste. I had very romantic notions about marriage and a high level of self esteem (even if unwarranted). I did not think anyone was worthy of my gift of self. A bit egotistical, I admit, but even at that young age, I somehow knew it was a total gift of self worth saving.
As a high school teacher at an all girls' school, I was asked to give a talk on chastity. As I thought about what I would say, I realized how much chastity had formed my own character. I recalled my first year in college when my high school boyfriend would drive eight hundred miles to visit me. He joked that his friends thought he was nuts for driving all that way "to get nothing in return." We both loved being together and enjoyed the times when he would visit. Neither of us felt that some sort of payment was required on either side.
It made me think about the girlfriends of his friends. When they were taken to a movie or out to dinner did they get a message from these boys that payment was due? Did they think the gift of spending time together with someone you enjoyed required physical payment? My physical relationships that distinguished a friend from a date were representations of how I felt differently about that person in my life in comparison to others. It had never crossed my mind to feel I owed anyone anything (probably my egotism again.) But in part, I think it was the message I got from the boys I dated. They seemed honored to be with me, and I in turn felt secure being with them.
Not sure if it was the chicken or the egg. Did they feel my self confidence and respond or did I feel their chivalry and respond? Or was it that my dad was incredibly imposing and no one wanted to cross paths with him for fear he would send them to jail with one look? Who knows? I just know that my virginity and self esteem, my confidence and relationships were all intertwined in some dramatic way and played an enormous part in creating the person I would be.
Similarly, I have found my husband's choice of his bride (and my acceptance of his offer of love) to be the single most important factor to my happiness. I was told that marriage is work, and of course I understand what this means, but really, I feel daily that to NOT be married to this man would require far more work.
And it is not just in those things "Marriagey". My confidence and self esteem that in the past hinged on previous relationships is now completely centered in him. I am who I am because of him and without him, I would not be the same person. It is love that allows me to be a mother and a friend. Even relationships I had before, like that of a sister and daughter, are impacted by his love for me. He is the glue that holds me together whether he is present or not.
I have contemplated sex, marriage and love many times over the years. I knew as a young girl, young wife, young mother and happily married middle aged (ooh ugh) woman that sex was more than sex and that marriage was more than marriage and have always believed the meaning of life was found in our ability to love God and others. However, I have just read the most amazing book that explains all this. It is Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West.
West has taken the late John Paul II's momentous work and made it accessible to the layman. I implore you to read it. The radically new and different approach of Pope John Paul II to the mystery and meaning of the human body and the meaning of life is too beautiful for words.
We all know how the Sexual Revolution of the 1960's has impacted nearly every aspect of modern culture. We all know the enormous power that sex can have in our own lives. But do we know why?
Theology of the Body is not a work to rehabilitate bad marriage or define the good. It is not a how to for those in the dating scene or for those who have chosen a celibate life. It is a book for every human, in any vocation, at any stage of life. It is a book about what it means to be a human being with a body and a soul. It is about the mystery of love and the meaning of life.
Thank you God for the mind and heart of our late great Pope. Thank you Christopher West for making this accesible to everyone. May your life be transformed by this 'Basic Introduction to John Paul II's Sexual Revolution.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)