09OCT05 (PM Monday): Most of the day spent getting here. Very pretty site. Retreat House beautiful, chapel beautiful, grounds beautiful. VERY quiet (except for mooing cows).
Hit the library first – not a lot of books – I found one – Engaging the world with Merton, On Retreat in Tom’s Hermitage by M. Basil Pennington. I’ve seen this book before but never bought it.
His goal for the retreat is:
“Some renewing experience of God and Contemplative Time. Some clarity on my vocational question”
Sounds a LOT like the first things I thought about when I came here, or first decided to do this.
Went to Vespers at 5:30, Compline at 7:30. Very interesting. Don’t know if I’ll make Vigils at 3:30AM. Certainly 7AM. I think as Pennington did in his retreat, I’ll build mine around the service times as well.
Was reading Matthew 5 before Compline. How good of a job do we as 21st Century Christians do with any of that? Anger? Adultery? Retaliation? Love of Enemies? Wow. Not too good. It’s all “in your face”.
“Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied”
I want to hunger and thirst for righteousness this week.
God protect my family this night.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Economies and James
For the last month or so, the weekly Mass readings have focused on the book of James.
For me, this has been an especially gut wrenching time in the word - extremely humbling.
From the week of 6 September 2009 (James 2:1-5):
"My brothers and sisters, show no partiality as you adhere to the faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. For if a man with gold rings and fine clothes comes into your assembly, and a poor person in shabby clothes also comes in,and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say, “Sit here, please, ”while you say to the poor one, “Stand there, ” or “Sit at my feet, ”have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil designs?"
From the week of 13 September 2009 (James 2:14-18)
"If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,and one of you says to them,“Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well, ”but you do not give them the necessities of the body,what good is it? So also faith of itself,if it does not have works, is dead."
And, finally tonight, one of the most hard hitting pieces of scripture I think I've ever heard proclaimed (James 5:1-6):
"Come now, you rich, weep and wail over your impending miseries. Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten,your gold and silver have corroded,and that corrosion will be a testimony against you;it will devour your flesh like a fire. You have stored up treasure for the last days. Behold, the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud;and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.You have lived on earth in luxury and pleasure; you have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter.You have condemned; you have murdered the righteous one; he offers you no resistance."
To me, this last passage sounds a LOT like a description of a lot of people who worked on Wall Street and other places and made a lot of money (and then lost it all) off of innocent investors with risky behavior.
What's interesting to me is that people who are in the habit of interpreting scripture literally and cherry picking verses never seem to talk much about these types of passages. That is because it seems to me to be a scathing indictment of how churches treat people, how individual Christians treat people, and the last passage seems to be a scathing indictment of the type of "Capitalism" that we saw from Wall Street.
A lot of Christians have bought wholly into big ruthless Capitalism and rapacious consumer consumption. They can see no other way to do business, and if you talk badly about it you are known as being "anti-Capitalism".
They seem to believe that it is somehow an entitlement of living in this country. A lot of them even believe that it is a "Blessing of God" for our exceptionalism.
As I've been seeing this (and other passages of scripture that just seem to jump out at me) over the past month, I wonder if we're doing this right, or if we have the right attitude?
Are we, as the body of Christ doing enough? I know that there are a lot of churches and individual Christians who do a lot of good work on behalf of the poor. That should always be celebrated.
But, this seems to be talking more about an attitudinal thing, at least to me it does. It seems to be talking about integrating this attitude into your WHOLE LIFE.
I've talked before about how there is not different "boxes" for the economy - it's all one economy that ties together. I think the same can be said for our life in our faith - it's all one life. There is no "church box" or "work box" or "home box" or "politics box" - it should all be in the same box.
I know that I really don't have any place to talk about this, and the fact of the matter is that I'm no better at this than any of my fellow Christians, so I'm not smugly talking about it - but it has been hitting me very hard as we've been somewhat coldly talking about who is going to get health care, and who is not. I know Church going Christians who say, "well, I pay for my health care, why should I have to worry about anyone else's health care"?
It might just be my imagination, but James seems to have something to say about making distinctions like that.
For me, this has been an especially gut wrenching time in the word - extremely humbling.
From the week of 6 September 2009 (James 2:1-5):
"My brothers and sisters, show no partiality as you adhere to the faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. For if a man with gold rings and fine clothes comes into your assembly, and a poor person in shabby clothes also comes in,and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say, “Sit here, please, ”while you say to the poor one, “Stand there, ” or “Sit at my feet, ”have you not made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil designs?"
From the week of 13 September 2009 (James 2:14-18)
"If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,and one of you says to them,“Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well, ”but you do not give them the necessities of the body,what good is it? So also faith of itself,if it does not have works, is dead."
And, finally tonight, one of the most hard hitting pieces of scripture I think I've ever heard proclaimed (James 5:1-6):
"Come now, you rich, weep and wail over your impending miseries. Your wealth has rotted away, your clothes have become moth-eaten,your gold and silver have corroded,and that corrosion will be a testimony against you;it will devour your flesh like a fire. You have stored up treasure for the last days. Behold, the wages you withheld from the workers who harvested your fields are crying aloud;and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.You have lived on earth in luxury and pleasure; you have fattened your hearts for the day of slaughter.You have condemned; you have murdered the righteous one; he offers you no resistance."
To me, this last passage sounds a LOT like a description of a lot of people who worked on Wall Street and other places and made a lot of money (and then lost it all) off of innocent investors with risky behavior.
What's interesting to me is that people who are in the habit of interpreting scripture literally and cherry picking verses never seem to talk much about these types of passages. That is because it seems to me to be a scathing indictment of how churches treat people, how individual Christians treat people, and the last passage seems to be a scathing indictment of the type of "Capitalism" that we saw from Wall Street.
A lot of Christians have bought wholly into big ruthless Capitalism and rapacious consumer consumption. They can see no other way to do business, and if you talk badly about it you are known as being "anti-Capitalism".
They seem to believe that it is somehow an entitlement of living in this country. A lot of them even believe that it is a "Blessing of God" for our exceptionalism.
As I've been seeing this (and other passages of scripture that just seem to jump out at me) over the past month, I wonder if we're doing this right, or if we have the right attitude?
Are we, as the body of Christ doing enough? I know that there are a lot of churches and individual Christians who do a lot of good work on behalf of the poor. That should always be celebrated.
But, this seems to be talking more about an attitudinal thing, at least to me it does. It seems to be talking about integrating this attitude into your WHOLE LIFE.
I've talked before about how there is not different "boxes" for the economy - it's all one economy that ties together. I think the same can be said for our life in our faith - it's all one life. There is no "church box" or "work box" or "home box" or "politics box" - it should all be in the same box.
I know that I really don't have any place to talk about this, and the fact of the matter is that I'm no better at this than any of my fellow Christians, so I'm not smugly talking about it - but it has been hitting me very hard as we've been somewhat coldly talking about who is going to get health care, and who is not. I know Church going Christians who say, "well, I pay for my health care, why should I have to worry about anyone else's health care"?
It might just be my imagination, but James seems to have something to say about making distinctions like that.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Just a thought about the Town Halls
Went to mass tonight.
This was included in one of the readings (Ephesians 4:30 - 5:2):
All bitterness, fury, anger, shouting, and reviling
must be removed from you, along with all malice.
And be kind to one another, compassionate,
forgiving one another as God has forgiven you in Christ.
I immediately thought of the Town Hall meetings, and the yelling and the screaming. The intimidation. Even the veiled (and sometimes not so veiled) threats of violence.
Of course they will tell you that they are just "exercising their constitutional rights." They certainly don't have any consideration for the constitutional rights of those who don't hold their positions, and their only reason for being there is to disrupt the meeting. That upsets me quite a bit, but I understand, and have for some time that civil political discourse in this country has become a pathetic joke.
Hearing Saint Paul's words in Ephesians, I'm thinking of something not on a political level.
Now, if you polled most of those people doing the yelling and screaming - are you a Christian?, or do you attend a Christian church? what do you think the answer would be?
My guess is that most of the attendees are "professing" Christians. After all, isn't the mantra "We are a Christian Nation"?
So how can they reconcile their ugly, screeching behavior at a Town Hall Meeting with Saint Paul's writing here? It says ALL bitterness, ALL fury, ALL anger, ALL shouting, etc.
I'm one of those who has the crazy notion that, to the best of your ability and with God's help, this should be part of how you live your life and deal with others 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
It seems to me that if you go there with the INTENTION of doing this, that makes it all the worse.
It doesn't say to remove those things only when you feel like it, or when you are doing something like this that has to do with "non-church" stuff. It says to remove ALL.
If you are one who professes themselves to be a Christian, your WHOLE life should indicate it.
Shouldn't it?
This was included in one of the readings (Ephesians 4:30 - 5:2):
All bitterness, fury, anger, shouting, and reviling
must be removed from you, along with all malice.
And be kind to one another, compassionate,
forgiving one another as God has forgiven you in Christ.
I immediately thought of the Town Hall meetings, and the yelling and the screaming. The intimidation. Even the veiled (and sometimes not so veiled) threats of violence.
Of course they will tell you that they are just "exercising their constitutional rights." They certainly don't have any consideration for the constitutional rights of those who don't hold their positions, and their only reason for being there is to disrupt the meeting. That upsets me quite a bit, but I understand, and have for some time that civil political discourse in this country has become a pathetic joke.
Hearing Saint Paul's words in Ephesians, I'm thinking of something not on a political level.
Now, if you polled most of those people doing the yelling and screaming - are you a Christian?, or do you attend a Christian church? what do you think the answer would be?
My guess is that most of the attendees are "professing" Christians. After all, isn't the mantra "We are a Christian Nation"?
So how can they reconcile their ugly, screeching behavior at a Town Hall Meeting with Saint Paul's writing here? It says ALL bitterness, ALL fury, ALL anger, ALL shouting, etc.
I'm one of those who has the crazy notion that, to the best of your ability and with God's help, this should be part of how you live your life and deal with others 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
It seems to me that if you go there with the INTENTION of doing this, that makes it all the worse.
It doesn't say to remove those things only when you feel like it, or when you are doing something like this that has to do with "non-church" stuff. It says to remove ALL.
If you are one who professes themselves to be a Christian, your WHOLE life should indicate it.
Shouldn't it?
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Peace in the Post Christian Era
A few years ago, I bought this book (Peace in the Post Christian Era by Thomas Merton) at a used book sale. I think I got it for a buck. I have only recently gotten around to reading it.
The first several pages of the book explain how the book came to be. It was censored by his order (the Trappists), but, in lieu of "publishing" it, he sent mimeographed copies to a lot of his friends, and other influential people.
The book is about the Christian response to Nuclear War. Written in 1962, there would have been a real, palpable fear of nuclear war, and the real possibility that nuclear war might actually happen, and happen soon (Merton alludes several times in the book to the war happening possibly within 5 years)
We can look back on it now as more of an academic, historical exercise, and not have to worry as much about the stark terror of a nuclear war that could literally wipe out every man, woman and child on earth.
That is not to say that there are still not nuclear dangers, and dangers of other kinds in our world.
One interesting comment on the back of the book comes from Father John Dear:
"Substitute war on terrorism: for "war on communism," and his insights continue to challenge our culture of war and ourselves"
What I wanted to do was put some of the comments from the book, without comment from me (I invite those who read this to take these quotes and possibly apply them to recent events - what if anything do they say to YOU? What if anything do they mean to YOU?). Every Christian has to decide for themselves whether these actually still apply to the United States of America and her condition in 2009:
"Christians therefore have the obligation to treat every other man as Christ himself, respecting his neighbor's life as if it were the life of Christ, his rights as if they were the rights of Christ. Even if the other shows himself to be unjust, wicked and odious to us, we cannot take upon ourselves a final and definitive judgment in his case. We still have an obligation to be patient, and tho seek his higher spiritual interests"
The Christian as Peacemaker (Chapter 4)
"The exceptional violence is now the norm of our thinking, while charity has become exotic"
The Legacy of Machiavelli (Chapter 6)
"Christianity, in a word, is everywhere yielding to the hegemony of naked power"
Religious Problems of the Cold War (Chapter 8)
"If we adopt a policy of hatred, of liquidation of those who oppose us, of unrestrained use of total war, of a spirit of fear and panic, of exaggerated propaganda, of unconditional surrender, of pure nationalism, we have already been overcome by the evil"
Working for Peace (Chapter 10)
"Not only non-Christians but even Christians themselves tend to dismiss the Gospel ethic on non-violence and love as "sentimental". As a matter of fact, the mere suggestion that Christ counseled nonviolent resistance to evil is enough to invite scathing ridicule."
Beyond East and West (Chapter 11)
"It must be admitted therefore that if the gospel of peace is no longer convincing on the lips of Christians, it may well be because they have ceased to give a living example of peace, unity and love."
Christian Perspectives in World Crisis (Chapter 15)
"But the fact remains that a warring and warlike Christendom has never been able to preach the Gospel of charity and peace with full conviction, or full success."
Christian Perspectives in World Crisis (Chapter 15)
"We have to become aware of the poisonous effect of the mass media that keep violence, cruelty and sadism constantly present to the minds of unformed and irresponsible people"
The Christian Choice (Chapter 17)
That's probably enough for one night. There are more great quotes in the book I want to share, some of them quite lengthy. You can either get the book, or check back in a few days. I might put some more quotes on here, but I'm tired of typing now.
The first several pages of the book explain how the book came to be. It was censored by his order (the Trappists), but, in lieu of "publishing" it, he sent mimeographed copies to a lot of his friends, and other influential people.
The book is about the Christian response to Nuclear War. Written in 1962, there would have been a real, palpable fear of nuclear war, and the real possibility that nuclear war might actually happen, and happen soon (Merton alludes several times in the book to the war happening possibly within 5 years)
We can look back on it now as more of an academic, historical exercise, and not have to worry as much about the stark terror of a nuclear war that could literally wipe out every man, woman and child on earth.
That is not to say that there are still not nuclear dangers, and dangers of other kinds in our world.
One interesting comment on the back of the book comes from Father John Dear:
"Substitute war on terrorism: for "war on communism," and his insights continue to challenge our culture of war and ourselves"
What I wanted to do was put some of the comments from the book, without comment from me (I invite those who read this to take these quotes and possibly apply them to recent events - what if anything do they say to YOU? What if anything do they mean to YOU?). Every Christian has to decide for themselves whether these actually still apply to the United States of America and her condition in 2009:
"Christians therefore have the obligation to treat every other man as Christ himself, respecting his neighbor's life as if it were the life of Christ, his rights as if they were the rights of Christ. Even if the other shows himself to be unjust, wicked and odious to us, we cannot take upon ourselves a final and definitive judgment in his case. We still have an obligation to be patient, and tho seek his higher spiritual interests"
The Christian as Peacemaker (Chapter 4)
"The exceptional violence is now the norm of our thinking, while charity has become exotic"
The Legacy of Machiavelli (Chapter 6)
"Christianity, in a word, is everywhere yielding to the hegemony of naked power"
Religious Problems of the Cold War (Chapter 8)
"If we adopt a policy of hatred, of liquidation of those who oppose us, of unrestrained use of total war, of a spirit of fear and panic, of exaggerated propaganda, of unconditional surrender, of pure nationalism, we have already been overcome by the evil"
Working for Peace (Chapter 10)
"Not only non-Christians but even Christians themselves tend to dismiss the Gospel ethic on non-violence and love as "sentimental". As a matter of fact, the mere suggestion that Christ counseled nonviolent resistance to evil is enough to invite scathing ridicule."
Beyond East and West (Chapter 11)
"It must be admitted therefore that if the gospel of peace is no longer convincing on the lips of Christians, it may well be because they have ceased to give a living example of peace, unity and love."
Christian Perspectives in World Crisis (Chapter 15)
"But the fact remains that a warring and warlike Christendom has never been able to preach the Gospel of charity and peace with full conviction, or full success."
Christian Perspectives in World Crisis (Chapter 15)
"We have to become aware of the poisonous effect of the mass media that keep violence, cruelty and sadism constantly present to the minds of unformed and irresponsible people"
The Christian Choice (Chapter 17)
That's probably enough for one night. There are more great quotes in the book I want to share, some of them quite lengthy. You can either get the book, or check back in a few days. I might put some more quotes on here, but I'm tired of typing now.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
A LOT of killing
Over 50 people, are now dead in a matter of a few days, in some spectacularly gruesome mass killings at the hands of several different gunmen.
This does not count the murders that happen in every city, on every day of the week, nor does it count those who are deciding to take their own lives on a daily basis.
This article from the Washington Post is titled Some Link Economy with Spate of Killings:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040703979.html
From the article:
"The factor underlying the violence, some experts think, is the dismal state of the nation's economy. Criminologists theorize that the epidemic of layoffs, the meltdown of storied American corporations and the uncertainty of recovery have stoked fear, anxiety and desperation across society and unnerved its most vulnerable and dangerous."
I absolutely do believe that economic conditions could be one causative factor of the recent mass killings, but I just can't bring myself to believe that they are THE causative factor.
When trying to correlate the killing to the economic situation, you have to wonder, did the same kind of thing happen in the Great Depression when 25% of the population was unemployed (as compared to 8.5 or 9% now), and many other dismal statistics towered over the current statistics?
I did not do any in depth digging, but a general check of Depression crime statistics reveals that the crime rate was relatively low in the depression, among all socioeconomic levels, and among all ethnic groups.
It should be said up front that in analyzing these violent acts and their possible causes that I do not ever want to forget the victims, and the pain and suffering that has been visited randomly on their families.
So, what does it all mean?
It means that for whatever reason, in this day and age, people are deciding to kill, and sometimes kill spectacularly. Buy WHY? What is the difference now, as compared to then?
In what I'm about to say, I am not idealizing that time, or "the olden days". I am not one to pine for the good old days, but I do believe there are some fundamental differences now as opposed to then, and some of the changes haven't generally been for the better.
For instance, I believe that generally, families are not as tightly knit as they once were. Then, you would not want to shame your family, or give your family a bad name. Your family also, for the most part would take care of you.
I also believe that for a lot of people, they do not have a sense of place, or a sense of community. Often the themes in these types of shootings are those of a loner, or someone who was "picked on" or made an outcast by the people he lived around. Even those who don't intend to ever go on a rampage may feel isolated, or lonely. As a society, we have isolated ourselves. A lot of people don't "do" church anymore, and a lot of people aren't involved with their communities, nor do they know their neighbors.
I think Mother Teresa had it right when she said "The most terrible poverty is loneliness and the feeling of being unloved."
I certainly think the 24/7 news media, with some of it being very specific opinion related content contributes to a climate of fear, anxiety and agitation. Adding to this, is a general glorification of violence, and saturation of violence which desensitizes us from violence towards other people.
Lastly, the guns aren't responsible for the killing, but they certainly enable a quicker piling up of the bodies. Easy, unlimited access to powerful guns and lethal ammunition certainly does not help the situation.
It was reported that the Binghamton New York shooter fired 98 shots in a minute. That is an incredible amount of firepower for an ordinary citizen to have.
So, what is the answer? I must confess that I really don't know. Certainly, there will be knee jerk reactions - stiffer gun laws will be debated, etc.
I do not think it will change or get any better though, even as the economy improves. I seem to recall that fairly regular mass killings happen in good economic times and bad.
I think it's us. If it didn't happen in any great frequency before, that should tell us something shouldn't it? Or, at least give us something to think about?
In the final analysis, you can't make people go to church, or get involved in community. You can't make family members who are cold and unloving to one another love one another. You can certainly encourage, but you can't make people turn off the 24/7 media that divides and polarizes us as a people.
I think that is the most frustrating part. We are accustomed to thinking that we can snap our fingers and make the problem go away (or throw money at it). But, I don't think this problem will be solved in that way.
And, then, a week from now, or two weeks from now, or tomorrow another one of these killings happen, and we are left to try to again figure it out with fresh feelings of pain and sorrow.
I wish I had some pithy words to close it out. Or some kind of deep, meaningful thing to say that could make it all better.
I don't have that. Every time I think of it all, I just get weary. I even think, what is the point of even writing this right now?
Again, I defer to Mother Teresa.
This is the mantra we should think about when thinking about our neighbors and how we can help each other out. Or helping or identifying that kid who might be in trouble and headed down this road. Or trying to instill a feeling of hope among our friends and neighbors:
"In this life we cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love."
This does not count the murders that happen in every city, on every day of the week, nor does it count those who are deciding to take their own lives on a daily basis.
This article from the Washington Post is titled Some Link Economy with Spate of Killings:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/07/AR2009040703979.html
From the article:
"The factor underlying the violence, some experts think, is the dismal state of the nation's economy. Criminologists theorize that the epidemic of layoffs, the meltdown of storied American corporations and the uncertainty of recovery have stoked fear, anxiety and desperation across society and unnerved its most vulnerable and dangerous."
I absolutely do believe that economic conditions could be one causative factor of the recent mass killings, but I just can't bring myself to believe that they are THE causative factor.
When trying to correlate the killing to the economic situation, you have to wonder, did the same kind of thing happen in the Great Depression when 25% of the population was unemployed (as compared to 8.5 or 9% now), and many other dismal statistics towered over the current statistics?
I did not do any in depth digging, but a general check of Depression crime statistics reveals that the crime rate was relatively low in the depression, among all socioeconomic levels, and among all ethnic groups.
It should be said up front that in analyzing these violent acts and their possible causes that I do not ever want to forget the victims, and the pain and suffering that has been visited randomly on their families.
So, what does it all mean?
It means that for whatever reason, in this day and age, people are deciding to kill, and sometimes kill spectacularly. Buy WHY? What is the difference now, as compared to then?
In what I'm about to say, I am not idealizing that time, or "the olden days". I am not one to pine for the good old days, but I do believe there are some fundamental differences now as opposed to then, and some of the changes haven't generally been for the better.
For instance, I believe that generally, families are not as tightly knit as they once were. Then, you would not want to shame your family, or give your family a bad name. Your family also, for the most part would take care of you.
I also believe that for a lot of people, they do not have a sense of place, or a sense of community. Often the themes in these types of shootings are those of a loner, or someone who was "picked on" or made an outcast by the people he lived around. Even those who don't intend to ever go on a rampage may feel isolated, or lonely. As a society, we have isolated ourselves. A lot of people don't "do" church anymore, and a lot of people aren't involved with their communities, nor do they know their neighbors.
I think Mother Teresa had it right when she said "The most terrible poverty is loneliness and the feeling of being unloved."
I certainly think the 24/7 news media, with some of it being very specific opinion related content contributes to a climate of fear, anxiety and agitation. Adding to this, is a general glorification of violence, and saturation of violence which desensitizes us from violence towards other people.
Lastly, the guns aren't responsible for the killing, but they certainly enable a quicker piling up of the bodies. Easy, unlimited access to powerful guns and lethal ammunition certainly does not help the situation.
It was reported that the Binghamton New York shooter fired 98 shots in a minute. That is an incredible amount of firepower for an ordinary citizen to have.
So, what is the answer? I must confess that I really don't know. Certainly, there will be knee jerk reactions - stiffer gun laws will be debated, etc.
I do not think it will change or get any better though, even as the economy improves. I seem to recall that fairly regular mass killings happen in good economic times and bad.
I think it's us. If it didn't happen in any great frequency before, that should tell us something shouldn't it? Or, at least give us something to think about?
In the final analysis, you can't make people go to church, or get involved in community. You can't make family members who are cold and unloving to one another love one another. You can certainly encourage, but you can't make people turn off the 24/7 media that divides and polarizes us as a people.
I think that is the most frustrating part. We are accustomed to thinking that we can snap our fingers and make the problem go away (or throw money at it). But, I don't think this problem will be solved in that way.
And, then, a week from now, or two weeks from now, or tomorrow another one of these killings happen, and we are left to try to again figure it out with fresh feelings of pain and sorrow.
I wish I had some pithy words to close it out. Or some kind of deep, meaningful thing to say that could make it all better.
I don't have that. Every time I think of it all, I just get weary. I even think, what is the point of even writing this right now?
Again, I defer to Mother Teresa.
This is the mantra we should think about when thinking about our neighbors and how we can help each other out. Or helping or identifying that kid who might be in trouble and headed down this road. Or trying to instill a feeling of hope among our friends and neighbors:
"In this life we cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love."
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Information. Or lack thereof....
I came across this piece by Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post yesterday called Turn Off, Tune Out, Drop In. Interestingly enough, the piece echoes a lot of the themes I wrote about in my last blog (TV).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033103318.html?wpisrc=newsletter
In the piece she says:
"The unknowableness of current circumstances, combined with a lack of trust in our institutions, may partly be to blame for our apparent info-insatiability. People sense that they need to know more in order to understand an increasingly complex world."
I think William Greider, in his book the Soul of Capitalism puts it just as well, when he says:
"One recognizes a deepening dependence on the mysterious new machines and on the complicated organizations of modern economic life, which are operated by distant systems of decision making, themselves opaque and mechanical."
He goes on to say that:
"One paradox of the information age is that, while we are able to find out instantly so many more things than the ancestors could ever know, the anchor of self-knowledge-who we are and where we fit in, what we count for in this new scheme-seems to be weaker."
I have said for awhile that we live in a "Just in Time" world. When all the systems are operating well and in the background, we never think of them. When they start to falter, we suddenly want to know why, and what we can do about it.
I think that people sense that they need to know more as Ms. Parker says. I think it is similar to our ancestors wanting to know more about farming. Or fishing. Or whatever craft they had chosen.
The difference is, they, for the most part found the information. The ones who did not, did not survive. It was really that simple.
We search for the answers, but, I don't think we're going to find them any time soon. ESPECIALLY in the circus that counts for the media. Unfortunately, I think the big organizations who run the JIT system don't WANT you to have too much information on them. In a lot of cases, I have come to believe that the systems have become so complex, that even the "experts" don't fully understand them.
On one side of the political spectrum, we are told that the future of the earth is a dry, waterless, foodless, husk, teeming with too many people and not enough of anything else. On the other side of the spectrum we are told that the future is that of Orwell, Big Brother, Socialism, perhaps even Communism. Terrorists and bad guys behind every tree and mail box waiting to snuff out your life.
The truth MUST be somewhere in the middle. Contrary to a lot of conservative pundits, that is where most of America resides. Some slightly to the left of the middle, some slightly to the right. We must shepherd our resources, and make our industrial systems more environmentally friendly. We also must remain diligent about our security. We didn't in the years leading up to 9/11 and paid the price. But to live in fear all the time of both specters is not at all healthy.
In the very middle of those media poles, we have what is known as the Mainstream Media (although those on the right would debate this and say the MSM are decidedly pushing leftist agendas). For the most part, the Mainstream Media is looked down upon and in some cases vilified by those on the extreme information poles.
For me, they seem to be more worried about filling 24/7 worth of coverage. Most of this coverage vacillates between sappy, human interest stories, and dire coverage of dire situations. For instance, today, the big story was the First Lady touching the Queen of England - was that appropriate? Was that out of protocol? Who cares? A little bit of it is good. 24/7, not so much.
Nothing about their coverage stimulates me into any kind of deeper thought. I simply go there to find out, for the most part, basic information about world events.
As I've said before, one needs to have a balance. Too much information, and you go crazy - it is literally all you think about. Not enough, and you are ignorant, in a world that needs no more ignorance.
So how do we find the answers?
I think that is different for everyone. For some it will be a reading of the classic literature. Others it will be found in discussion and dialogue. Others will be found in a philosophical mood. For others it may be a combination of the three (and in a previous blog, I wrote about Robert Greenleaf's tasks of a competent leader - to be a historian, a contemporary analyst and a prophet all at the same time).
The answers are NOT going to be found on the churn that is 24/7 news cycles though. THAT much I'm sure of.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033103318.html?wpisrc=newsletter
In the piece she says:
"The unknowableness of current circumstances, combined with a lack of trust in our institutions, may partly be to blame for our apparent info-insatiability. People sense that they need to know more in order to understand an increasingly complex world."
I think William Greider, in his book the Soul of Capitalism puts it just as well, when he says:
"One recognizes a deepening dependence on the mysterious new machines and on the complicated organizations of modern economic life, which are operated by distant systems of decision making, themselves opaque and mechanical."
He goes on to say that:
"One paradox of the information age is that, while we are able to find out instantly so many more things than the ancestors could ever know, the anchor of self-knowledge-who we are and where we fit in, what we count for in this new scheme-seems to be weaker."
I have said for awhile that we live in a "Just in Time" world. When all the systems are operating well and in the background, we never think of them. When they start to falter, we suddenly want to know why, and what we can do about it.
I think that people sense that they need to know more as Ms. Parker says. I think it is similar to our ancestors wanting to know more about farming. Or fishing. Or whatever craft they had chosen.
The difference is, they, for the most part found the information. The ones who did not, did not survive. It was really that simple.
We search for the answers, but, I don't think we're going to find them any time soon. ESPECIALLY in the circus that counts for the media. Unfortunately, I think the big organizations who run the JIT system don't WANT you to have too much information on them. In a lot of cases, I have come to believe that the systems have become so complex, that even the "experts" don't fully understand them.
On one side of the political spectrum, we are told that the future of the earth is a dry, waterless, foodless, husk, teeming with too many people and not enough of anything else. On the other side of the spectrum we are told that the future is that of Orwell, Big Brother, Socialism, perhaps even Communism. Terrorists and bad guys behind every tree and mail box waiting to snuff out your life.
The truth MUST be somewhere in the middle. Contrary to a lot of conservative pundits, that is where most of America resides. Some slightly to the left of the middle, some slightly to the right. We must shepherd our resources, and make our industrial systems more environmentally friendly. We also must remain diligent about our security. We didn't in the years leading up to 9/11 and paid the price. But to live in fear all the time of both specters is not at all healthy.
In the very middle of those media poles, we have what is known as the Mainstream Media (although those on the right would debate this and say the MSM are decidedly pushing leftist agendas). For the most part, the Mainstream Media is looked down upon and in some cases vilified by those on the extreme information poles.
For me, they seem to be more worried about filling 24/7 worth of coverage. Most of this coverage vacillates between sappy, human interest stories, and dire coverage of dire situations. For instance, today, the big story was the First Lady touching the Queen of England - was that appropriate? Was that out of protocol? Who cares? A little bit of it is good. 24/7, not so much.
Nothing about their coverage stimulates me into any kind of deeper thought. I simply go there to find out, for the most part, basic information about world events.
As I've said before, one needs to have a balance. Too much information, and you go crazy - it is literally all you think about. Not enough, and you are ignorant, in a world that needs no more ignorance.
So how do we find the answers?
I think that is different for everyone. For some it will be a reading of the classic literature. Others it will be found in discussion and dialogue. Others will be found in a philosophical mood. For others it may be a combination of the three (and in a previous blog, I wrote about Robert Greenleaf's tasks of a competent leader - to be a historian, a contemporary analyst and a prophet all at the same time).
The answers are NOT going to be found on the churn that is 24/7 news cycles though. THAT much I'm sure of.
Monday, March 30, 2009
TV
"We shall stand or fall by television-of that I am quite sure" - E. B. White, 1939, One Man's Meat, essay Removal
I was discussing Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 with a friend today. I've read the book a few times, and always thought it was a meaningful, entertaining book. I learned something new today though (always a good feeling of a day well lived). I had always been taught that the book was about the evils of censorship.
But, the friend I was discussing it with, sent me this small Wikipedia bit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451
"Bradbury has stated that the novel is not about censorship; he states that Fahrenheit 451 is a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature, which leads to a perception of knowledge as being composed of "factoids", partial information devoid of context, e.g., Napoleon's birth date alone, without an indication of who he was."
I'm not writing this blog right now about the evils of television. I like television as much as the next guy, and watch probably too much for my own good.
I'm writing because that little bit of information gave me a chill, given the proliferation of a new kind of shrill television entertainment.
Back on August 1, 2008, I wrote my own piece about this type of new "media" (http://tuesdayramblings.blogspot.com/2008/08/knoxville.html):
"I believe that the proliferation of shows like Limbaugh, etc prove just how shallow we've become as a people, and despite how much we say we want to debate and understand the issues, we really just want to make all the issues a simple x = y event.
If "x" happens it is because of "y". And so much the better "y" is black, Latino, an immigrant, on welfare, or whatever.
We are in deep trouble as a country. Watching Fox News or listening to Rush Limbaugh will not help us solve our problems which are extremely deep and widely systemic."
That is just as true today as it was back in August 2008. Maybe more so, given the continued deterioration of the economic situation.
I believed then, and believe now, that this is the main purpose of the Hannity's, the Limbaugh's, the Glenn Beck's and the Lou Dobbs (and, to be fair, some on the left as well - to sow fear about their fellow Americans on the right side of the spectrum):
"Fear is their stock and trade, and fear is what they want to sow. Oh, they wrap it up quite righteously saying they only want to "spread the truth". But at the bottom, it's fear they want to spread.
For there is power in making people afraid."
There is amazing power in fear. There are also great ratings, and a LOT of money to be made.
What constantly amazes me is that people will sit at home and watch these shows (mostly middle, working class people), or listen to them on the radio, and actually believe these "talking androids" have something in common with them, or that they think like them, or that they somehow have their interests at heart.
If you make $10 to $20 million dollars a year and wear $1000 dollar suits to work, then, yes, they probably do have your interests at heart.
They seem to always "magically" know what their viewers or listeners are thinking. That is not because they necessarily believe in these issues deeply (or understand them at all).
It is because they have great demographics people, and great production people. It is because they pander like the slickest politician to their audience for, you guessed it, RATINGS.
I still believe what I wrote back in August, with regard to the solution:
"The final solution is to turn them off and ignore them. Read a book. Talk to your wife and kids. Go to the library. Love your neighbor as yourself as Jesus taught us.
Anything but feeding off of those parasites."
How about actually talking to your neighbor, even though he may be diametrically opposed to what you believe in? How about reading a book about ideas that are diametrically opposed to those you believe in.
A few years ago, I read Senator Paul Wellstone's Conscience of a Liberal. At the time I read it, I agreed with almost nothing in the book and several times I wanted to quit reading it, or set it on fire. But over the next few years, the ideas worked on me, and I thought about them a lot. I'm nowhere near as Liberal as Senator Wellstone was, nor do I think I ever will be. But, I got an understanding of some things I didn't have an understanding of before.
To turn the TV off and work on something that is not passive was sound advice then, it is sound advice now, and it will be sound advice tomorrow.
I was discussing Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 with a friend today. I've read the book a few times, and always thought it was a meaningful, entertaining book. I learned something new today though (always a good feeling of a day well lived). I had always been taught that the book was about the evils of censorship.
But, the friend I was discussing it with, sent me this small Wikipedia bit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451
"Bradbury has stated that the novel is not about censorship; he states that Fahrenheit 451 is a story about how television destroys interest in reading literature, which leads to a perception of knowledge as being composed of "factoids", partial information devoid of context, e.g., Napoleon's birth date alone, without an indication of who he was."
I'm not writing this blog right now about the evils of television. I like television as much as the next guy, and watch probably too much for my own good.
I'm writing because that little bit of information gave me a chill, given the proliferation of a new kind of shrill television entertainment.
Back on August 1, 2008, I wrote my own piece about this type of new "media" (http://tuesdayramblings.blogspot.com/2008/08/knoxville.html):
"I believe that the proliferation of shows like Limbaugh, etc prove just how shallow we've become as a people, and despite how much we say we want to debate and understand the issues, we really just want to make all the issues a simple x = y event.
If "x" happens it is because of "y". And so much the better "y" is black, Latino, an immigrant, on welfare, or whatever.
We are in deep trouble as a country. Watching Fox News or listening to Rush Limbaugh will not help us solve our problems which are extremely deep and widely systemic."
That is just as true today as it was back in August 2008. Maybe more so, given the continued deterioration of the economic situation.
I believed then, and believe now, that this is the main purpose of the Hannity's, the Limbaugh's, the Glenn Beck's and the Lou Dobbs (and, to be fair, some on the left as well - to sow fear about their fellow Americans on the right side of the spectrum):
"Fear is their stock and trade, and fear is what they want to sow. Oh, they wrap it up quite righteously saying they only want to "spread the truth". But at the bottom, it's fear they want to spread.
For there is power in making people afraid."
There is amazing power in fear. There are also great ratings, and a LOT of money to be made.
What constantly amazes me is that people will sit at home and watch these shows (mostly middle, working class people), or listen to them on the radio, and actually believe these "talking androids" have something in common with them, or that they think like them, or that they somehow have their interests at heart.
If you make $10 to $20 million dollars a year and wear $1000 dollar suits to work, then, yes, they probably do have your interests at heart.
They seem to always "magically" know what their viewers or listeners are thinking. That is not because they necessarily believe in these issues deeply (or understand them at all).
It is because they have great demographics people, and great production people. It is because they pander like the slickest politician to their audience for, you guessed it, RATINGS.
I still believe what I wrote back in August, with regard to the solution:
"The final solution is to turn them off and ignore them. Read a book. Talk to your wife and kids. Go to the library. Love your neighbor as yourself as Jesus taught us.
Anything but feeding off of those parasites."
How about actually talking to your neighbor, even though he may be diametrically opposed to what you believe in? How about reading a book about ideas that are diametrically opposed to those you believe in.
A few years ago, I read Senator Paul Wellstone's Conscience of a Liberal. At the time I read it, I agreed with almost nothing in the book and several times I wanted to quit reading it, or set it on fire. But over the next few years, the ideas worked on me, and I thought about them a lot. I'm nowhere near as Liberal as Senator Wellstone was, nor do I think I ever will be. But, I got an understanding of some things I didn't have an understanding of before.
To turn the TV off and work on something that is not passive was sound advice then, it is sound advice now, and it will be sound advice tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)