self; means; ends. . . .

"Not being able to govern events, I govern myself."

Michel de Montaigne, essayist (1533-1592)

Interesting thought, that.

The one thing we have a hope of controlling is the one thing we so often neglect, in the vain hope of changing another or of securing a "favorable" outcome through protest, manipulation, shouting, wheedling, argumentation, or sulking. . . .

the "ethics" of lying

In Oceanside, CA, the school district has attempted to scare their students straight by lying to them, telling them that several classmates were killed in an alcohol-related car accident.

I don't know who came up with this - ah - idea, which was embraced by the school board, and carried out by the highway patrol, if you can imagine that. The plan was to get the emotional reaction - shock, grief, loss, etc. - and then clear it all up in an assembly later in the day.

Here's what guidance counselor Lori Tauber was quoted as saying: ""They were traumatized, but we wanted them to be traumatized. That's how they get the message."

Well, they got an emotional reaction, thanks to the lie. Perhaps you can imagine the reaction thereafter, however, when the students found out that it was a hoax?

No one likes to be manipulated. Even in the pursuit of a "greater good."

I think the "adults" mixed up their ends and means, and they weren't even forced to do so. There's an ethical dilemma when the S.S. asks whether you're helping to hide Jews - and you struggle with whether or not it's ok to lie in that instance. That's the Kantian extreme of not lying - no matter WHAT - which so many people reject. This wasn't even close. This is lying for expediency, for effect, to "make a point." This is lying as an acceptable tool in argumentation - so long as it "works".

How will the school officials react when the students lie - and cheat on their next exam, say - for expediency? For effect? To make a point? Surely a good grade - even a passing grade - is worth a little lie. . . in the eyes of a high school student who has just learned that all the school officials, the PTA, and even the State police will lie if the stakes are supposedly high enough. I imagine that this graduating class could also come up with any number of other "good ends" to which lying would ease the path, now that they've seen how this works.

Way to go.

Class dismissed.

marriage or liberty

Is it fuzzy thinking, or is there really no substantive difference between homosexual "marriage" and polygamous "marriage" when it comes to what our society will allow as marriage?

In a recent post - Til Death - Georgetown Professor Patrick Deneen points out the questionable foundation of the recent California Supreme Court's In re Marriage Cases decision which presumes to establish a "right" to homosexual marriage. The basis for their decision is individual liberty and personal autonomy.

. . . the constitutionally based right to marry . . . must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate . . . . These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish - the the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life - an officially recognized and protected family . . . [opinion at p. 6]

Deneen aptly notes, however, that marriage is really more based on the voluntary abrogation of individual liberty and autonomy, in self-sacrifice.*

When we base a "right" of marriage on liberty - and a so-called liberty to choose whatever I like - on what basis do we prohibit any choice, so long as it is freely made? Why not polygamy? Why not child marriage? Yes, child marriage brings up the additional element of competency to choose but with the increasing panoply of rights and freedoms being given children, is it not just a matter of time before they - too - will be seen as at liberty to choose as they will?

Having chosen in "liberty", it is not a great distance to unchoose in "liberty."

Maybe the bigger question is the proper basis for marriage. Is it based in liberty? Or is based on a voluntary servitude - a sacrifice - for the good of the other and the community?

Having been persuaded to discuss the question of homosexual marriage in terms of liberty, I perceive we have greater "liberties" looming. Just waiting in the wings. . . .

Maybe somewhere in Texas, for example.
____________________________________
*He also makes a really interesting point about a Hegelian recognition as legitimacy instead of individual justification, but I will leave that as an aside. . . . Another aside I'd like to point out is the California Court's apparent assumption that marriage - and "right" to marry - is constitutionally based.

OK then.

work like an ant - reprise

I've written about this before: work like an ant.

One thing at a time, one little bit at a time, over and over again, over time, and it's amazing what you can accomplish.

I keep forgetting that, and trying to do everything all at once. I want to write the 'perfect' article, the perfect song, book, poem. . . . I want to knit the sweater at one go, in one sitting. I want the house all organized, right now, and I won't even bother starting because I know I can't get it done before the king comes home at 3 or 4 and chances are things are gong to look a whole lot worse before they start looking better.

I even put off washing clothes, because I know there are 3 sweaters to handwash, let's say, and I might only have time - really - to get one done.

The amazing thing? All this 'putting it off' doesn't help me focus on getting just one thing done, it somehow enables me to find myself - 4 hours later - with nothing done. Just a whole lot of stress over what still needs to be done, and guilty annoyance that I have somehow been tricked into wasting a whole lot of time doing God-knows nothing of much import.

So. Today: one sweater is handwashed and drying on top of the dryer, into which one load of laundry has been deposited. Two handbags have been emptied and put back into the handbag rotation pile next to the sweaters. One magazine I haven't read for almost a month has been filed in the garbage can. And this posting will be filed, sans picture, with no further ado. I have several scarves to put away, and then I have to walk up to the law library, so that I can get a complaint drafted and a release of lien form. I've been carrying those to-do items till they've practically poisoned my outlook.

Then, for some fun! I've also been putting off gardening excursions. Here's the decision to be made for today: green enamel pots, or blue?

A prophet's work is never done.

Man for All Seasons

Last night, we watched A Man for all Seasons. Great movie; I really enjoyed it.

I was particularly taken by words attributed to Sir Thomas More, as he explained to his daughter, Meg, why he could not take the oath required by the Act of Succession, intended to establish Anne Bolyn as Henry VIII's legitimate wife and queen of England.

In the movie, More's daughter has come to the Tower of London to attempt to convince her father to take the oath and save himself. Meg speaking first:

"God more regards the thoughts of the heart than the words of the mouth." Well, so you've always told me.

Yes.

Then say the words of the oath and in your heart think otherwise.

What is an oath then, but words we say to God? Listen, Meg. When a man takes an oath, he's holding his own self in his own hands...

...like water.

And if he opens his fingers then, he needn't hope to find himself again.

Some men aren't capable of this, but I'd be loath to think your father one of them.

This morning's quote of the day settled into my subconcious:

A child's education should begin at least one hundred years before he is born.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., US Supreme Court Justice (1841-1935)

Good idea. And interesting, because of course I dealt with Holmes and some questions of American pragmatism in my dissertation. Nice to know that Holmes appears to have some degree of a sense of proper historical perspective: at least an historical perspective that goes back 100 years.

Looking for a picture to illustrate my lovely post about conscience and truth and being true to oneself a la Sir Thomas More, I came across this Teach With Movies site, which notes that the movie (although a good one to teach with) is based on the inaccurate theme that More sacrificed his life in the cause of individual adherence to his own conscience. 'Not so', these educators claim. In fact, "Sir Thomas More would have thought the view of conscience described in the film to be radical and subversive." Instead, they claim that More "sacrificed his life for the medieval view of conscience, one that was not independent of others, but which derived its legitimacy from his community and the tradition to which he subscribed."

OK then!

More research clearly needed.

Further research showed that More apparently did not quibble about the consciences of others, insofar as he was involved in the death sentences of several Lutheran dissenters. . . .

In addition, unlike the movie, it was apparently not the adhering to a religious view of marriage (and not allowing for divorce) that prompted More to refuse the oath, rather, it was the attack on the primacy of the Pope as head of church. Earlier, More had apparently gone along with King Henry's desire to put aside Catherine of Aragon, but drew the line when the Pope refused to annul the marriage.

I should have known better.

I should have remembered Emanuel Kant, because for all that Kant is difficult to read and notoriously difficult to understand (let alone knowingly apply) one thing I know he did stand for is the inviolacy of individual motivation and thought - in short: conscience.

My mistake was not to situate More within the proper historical time line. Before Kant. And you know what? Holmes' hundred-year historical perspective would not have helped me. Sir Thomas More's life was 1478-1535; Kant was 1724-1804. That's over a 250 year time differential between More and Kant; it's 200 years from Kant to us.

It is almost impossible for us - now - to imagine the adherence to traditional and community-based ideas of legitimacy and authority which would have shaped and guided Sir Thomas More. We may even have reached a time when it is almost impossible for us to imagine the adherence to an inviolate personal conviction ushered in by the thought of Emanuel Kant, and portrayed so attractively and movingly in A Man for all Seasons.

After all, this is the age of the politically-expedient, when the "public" life can be separated out from a so-called "private" life, and lies about sex with interns can be compared to supposed truth or lies about what was known about "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, voting records in Congress, or the use of steroids in professional sports.


Conscience? We live in the age of the expedient. Duty? We measure that these days by what is "legal". I don't know that anyone really expects the truth anymore. Certainly no one expects to suffer for it.

Can you point out just one?

Maybe I'm starting the day on a bit of a pessimistic bent, and have overlooked our modern-day truth warriors. How I hope so!

Meanwhile, I'll cling to the ideal that the movie brought up again: the incomparable value and beauty of truth and the character that is committed to it.

Sigh. . . . I can't help but wonder if this particular depiction of the ideal is tainted by its own falseness to the historical person of Sir Thomas More?

Sometimes maybe I do think a bit too much.

viva minus 22

I'm sure you've missed those count-downs quite as much as I did. So we're starting a new set - the viva countdown! oh joy. . . .

Can you believe this? Twenty-two days from today, I'll be in a conference room somewhere, with [a silenced] Magda at my side, the former head of the department acting as "chair", the internal examiner and the external one. We will do something for two hours, whereupon I will emerge either victorious or crestfallen. Or - possibly - devastated. . . . elated? or maybe something in between.

Thinking about it more carefully now, very likely I'll just be numb.

The good news is that my 'local' will be within spitting distance and I'll just bet that an expertly-poured pint will cure whatever ails me. The other good news is that I should be done early enough to get my favorite seat at the bar. Or - if I'm crying - Willie will let me into the snug (which will still be unclaimed that early) to cry into my pint in private. . . .

It's the little things that help cheer me up at this point. Like contemplating the symmetry of 20 and 2 days left. . . . And wondering where the hell I put my copy of the dissertation as - surely - it's time to read the thing for the first time, from beginning to end, and what if it's really terrible?!

I spent a little time this morning re-visiting the crazy days of the last countdown, the one before the dissertation was due. It all seems so unreal now. Almost as if another person did it. Just as I'm sure the viva preps - and the actual viva voce will also feel very unreal when it's all said and done with.

Meanwhile, though, I have a dissertation to read (and a list of errata to prepare), at least 2 new books to skim (if not actually read), and my main author's main book to re-visit in order to try and get the principles back into the working part of my brain, memory and speech pattern.

My vest is done - or the main pieces are, anyway. All that remains are the edgings for the armholes and the front where it buttons. But I don't like the edging the pattern calls for: it puckers, somehow, and looks wierd. Blocking might help, but that feels a little too much like cheating. You know, sort of like adding a whiz-bang production to cover up the fact that the song you started with is rather mediocre at best. So I've started a border of my own 'unvention' - yes, I've finally broken down and gotten one (two, actually) of Elizabeth Zimmerman's books. . . . - and we're trying out a separate band of cable as the edging. I'll let you know how it turns out.

My biggest regret in all of this is that I'm going to have to find the end of the one sewn-on band in order to try and rip it out. It's so hard to undo things, once they've been sewn together. . . .

body and soul. . . .

Nee, over at Non-essential Equipment, pointed to an article that she thought was "spot on" with respect to certain physical and cultural manifestations of moral sensibilities. I disagreed. To me, the article was little more than the attempt to reduce morality to a [not-completely-known-at-present] physical and/or sociological manifestation; an instinct. Here's what she wrote, and here's the article she referred to by S. Pinker. It's entitled The Moral Instinct.

Interestingly, today I read an article kind of from the "other side", in which a theologian makes the argument that we are more than our minds - that the body has something to do with our thoughts [and prayers] as well. Check it out - it's entitled "Thinking With Our Bodies", written by Mike Metzger.

How is it that I can so completely disagree with the one, and yet agree with the other? Aren't they really just approaching a similar conclusion, but from different perspectives? You know, I just don't think so.

I think it has to do with the question of responsibility - which in the one seems to be either lacking or sought to be restricted - but which in the other seems to acknowledge the potential of a greater richness in how we think, know, and decide, all the while leaving our individual responsibility in place.

I have a hard time with any kind of approach that would reduce morality to an "instinct"*. There is no trouble, however, for me to acknowledge that morality [or other kinds of thought and understanding] is influenced and/or enhanced by the physical and by our bodily experience.

One of my favorite quotes is from C.S. Lewis to the following effect [paraphrasing from memory here]:

So much of what passes for godliness is nothing more than a proper digestion and a good night's sleep.

It does not work the other way around, though, that what passes for a proper digestion and a good night's sleep is nothing more than godliness [or morality]. . . .

But perhaps this merely demonstrates my own bias in favor of the metaphysical, and my disenchantment with the Enlightenment Project, by which man seeks to elevate human reason and understanding to ultimate status.

_______________________________
*C.S. Lewis has another great thought regarding instinct, and the fact that relying upon it does not advance our understanding of the underlying matter: "to say that migratory birds find their way by instinct is only to say that we do not know how migratory birds find their way". . . .

C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (London: Fount Paperbacks, 1999 ed.)p. 21.

dreary = wrong

If your morals make you dreary, depend on it, they are wrong.

Robert Louis Stevenson, novelist, essayist, and poet (1850-1894)

Now there's a thought for you!

Granted, I think it's a dangerous thought for someone trying to talk himself out of doing the right thing. . . . but it's a freeing thought for someone chained to a deadening sense of duty; it's an ennobling thought for someone facing trying times.

Dreary sacrifice or courageous over-the-top gift?

Dreary attendance or breathless assignation?

Dreary shouldering of a burden or joyful embrace and carrying off of a prize?

We get to choose. Somehow. And yes, yes, yes: I recognize that I am dealing here more with motive rather than a so-called moral "content." Morality is not the same thing as rules.

another day. . . .

It is as I suspected.

Today is another day. A better day than the one that ended yesterday, but maybe that's just because the day is still mostly ahead of me, and I still see hope and promise in it. Whereas yesterday was a bit of a trial, and - finite ridiculous person that I am - I am not able to see the benefit of trials and other beset-ments. . . .

At the same time, I am dimly aware that it is these very besetting difficulties endured, that has made me who I am. How is it that we are most shaped by difficulties, rather than by whimsies and delights? But perhaps there is someone who can make the case for character-shaping delights?

No?

I thought not.

Hedonists seem always hedonistic as a remainder - namely because it doesn't really "matter" so you might as well enjoy yourself - rather than as a goal. The "teacher" of Ecclesiastes did pursue pleasure at one point in his quest to find meaning, but found none there. Of course, he found none - really - anywhere else, either, in human pursuits anyway. . . .

WARNING: I suspect theological content lurking ahead. . . . a premonition, perhaps, from the Ecclesiastes reference that sprung - unbidden - to mind. But maybe not. We'll have to see, eh?

Now. Where was I? Right: better day. Or another day, anyway.

I'm coming back around to "good"/"bad" orientations in a philosophical and theological sense. Isn't it quite amazing to consider the judgment involved in saying whether a day is either "good" or "bad"?! I, who have neither made nor contributed to making [or receiving] any day at all, presuming to judge in advance? Or even after the fact!

Quite astonishing.

This is not to say, however, that the exercise of "judgment" is "bad". I have little time for people who mouth the "Who am I to judge?" platitude, when talking about lying, cheating, stealing, killing, even plain old simple bad manners - etc.

I'm just saying that it might a good idea to consider my framework as I judge, and to recognize my limitations. I am fully capable of judging - and condemning - rudeness, violence, cruelty, manipulation, all sorts of things, under the appropriate circumstances. But there are perhaps times when that judgment is better suspended, like perhaps when I don't what I think I want right now, or even when I don't get to go to the islands as usual [poor pitiful me], or - more seriously - when suffering; sickness; violence; rejection. Or maybe it's better for me to say that - rather than suspend judgement - I should be open to seeing also what good can come out of even the "bad".

I am NOT in any way here arguing [as apparently Paul's audience did in - ah - the book of Romans, I think it was] that we should go out and do evil so that good will result!

Suffering and the problem of evil is the philosophical fault-line where it seems all thought systems break down. . . .

Consider this: the tree that caused all the trouble in the garden of Eden was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Interesting, eh? "Knowing" evil - at this point - I can't imagine not knowing it. . . . And therein is perhaps one way of understanding the "death" promised to any who ate from that tree: namely the death of the not-knowing.


Well! That'll tie my thoughts up in knots for a while! Better get moving, I think. I have a weathervane to order - and finials. Here's the weathervane we've chosen - the banner. I like it!

It's a whimsy.

Not character-shaping.

But perhaps an indication of how that character has been shaped?

[to be continued. . . .one day. . . .maybe. . . .]
P.S. I have nothing against pleasure. In fact, I like it a lot! Further, I think that how we deal with pleasure is one of the "church's" biggest fault-lines where they break down. Chocolat is one of my favorite movies. Not because it's anti-intellectual (as the reviewer seems to think is necessary, in order to enjoy sensual experience) but because it does not deny the wonderful pleasures of food, drink, taste, laughter, music, love, dance. . . . I begin to think that religious "worship" is very puny indeed because they don't "get it" - but that leads to another whole big discussion, fraught with the danger of (you guessed it) empty hedonism. Full circle. We're pretty much right back where we started.

But the danger of hedonism is way too much for me to take on before noon.

not reading PostSecret - part two

A few days ago I wrote about why I'd stopped reading PostSecret, concluding that it's grown past its initial positive impact, and is in danger of moving into scandalous voyeurism, if not also normalizing shameful behavior.

PostSecret Frank ("Yes, that Frank." as he assured me) weighed in on the matter in comments:

Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

Funny, but I really didn't expect to hear from him. It never occurred to me that he'd be interested in reading why I don't read PostSecret anymore. The jaded bit of me thinks:

All publicity is good publicity.

and:

Of course he'd be interested, if only as a blueprint to attract more readers! Knowing what not to do is almost as good as knowing what to do. . . .

But no. I think Frank really is interested, because I think he started this project with a good heart, and for a good purpose. It's taken on a life of its own, though. I wonder if he'd noticed? Perhaps he was beginning to feel a bit uncomfortable with where things were heading?

I can't help but wonder if it'll make a difference. But no, I still won't be reading it anymore. I don't think there's a way to retrieve this, once the feeding frenzy of public guilt assuagement has commenced.

Lee Anne makes the insightful point that, "by sharing [public confession], you're dispersing the burden of responsibility/guilt."

WARNING: explicit theological content follows. Proceed at your own risk.

It seems to me that we might get some insight into this phenomenon by looking at the role of confession in Christianity. The Catholics, of course, involve another human being in the process: the priest. But the contents of the confessional are held in strictest confidence. (we've all seen examples of that, if no where else, in Law & Order and CSI, where the priest knows whodunit, but can't say because of the priest/penitent rules of confidentiality. . . .)

Alternatively, there's the "group confession" that takes place in the formal order of service, where everybody recites their individual and collective guilt of grievous offenses - but note: no details are given.

So, from the Christian side, confession is dealt with corporately (no details disclosed) and/or privately (where details are given, but then never referred to again). The cleansing agent is Divine forgiveness: the "do-over" and fresh start.

We see a different dynamic in the thought of Nietzsche, of course, as well as Sigmund Freud. There, ultimately it is the feeling of guilt itself that is attacked, rather than the erasure of guilt by the transcendent Creator. Where there is no guilt, there is no need of forgiveness. That requires, however, that we undo what we have held to be wrong, or bad. One way of doing that is to rehearse the disclosure of "bad" actions without attaching a corresponding condemnation for the act. Instead, we applaud the disclosure itself as "brave". Eventually, it appears the hope is that the underlying "bad" act will cease in our minds to be "bad."

There are a lot of variations on this theme, but this is enough for my present purposes.

For myself, I think I'd rather work on forgiveness of my bad acts, rather than working on dismantling my ethical convictions so that I won't notice my bad acts - or ultimately find in them an opportunity for pursuing cyber-celebrity by disclosing them in the most entertaining or artistic fashion, hopeful of being selected for publication in PostSecret. . . .

And now note this important DISCLAIMER: this is no way implies that all people submitting "secrets" to PostSecret are "bad" people, or that they're attempting to dismantle their ethical systems, or that they should rather go to a Catholic church and take advantage of the confessionals there (or an Anglican one, and confess "corporately"), or that Freud is a fraud, or that I don't like Frank ("yes, that Frank.").

It is an analysis of what seems to me to be the changing face of PostSecret, and thoughts on questions of guilt and how to be rid of it.

I'm glad you found my comments "thoughtful", Frank. I found them rather disturbing, myself.

best wishes,
prophet.

the rise of the mediocre

I've been enjoying a bit of a back and forth with Lee Anne over at Adorable Device of Destruction (where does she come up with this stuff?! grin) about what happens to a military that no longer admires the society it is sworn to protect.

She refers to an excellent article by Robert D. Kaplan, On Forgetting the Obvious" in The American Interest, and says:

Kaplan explores the divisions between a small, elite warrior class and the American public. He views this separation as symptomatic of the diminishing importance of faith and nationalism in American society as well as an unwillingness to admit that war is a fact of life.

What came to my mind was C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man in which he explores the consequences of "debunking" the kinds of values that have traditionally undergirded our society - and, I would add, especially our "warrior caste". (who else, these days, do you hear talking about love, duty, honour, country? AND paying the price for those values, I mean. . . .)

The biggest reservation I have, though, about any kind of an "elite" group is the tendency for the 'rest of us' to slide/skate into mediocrity. Have you noticed that, with increased specialization, there is an increase in the big mass of us that has no clue what is going on?

With more and more specialists, we get more and more ignorance of those not specialists.

As tempting as it is to leave such weighty matters to the "specialists", I begin to think that we can't afford not to think about these things ourselves. We already have personal trainers to handle our flabby bodies, lawyers to take care of our disputes, police officers to "safeguard" our property at home, doctors to manage our health, accountants our wealth, dieticians, personal life trainers, shoppers, child care providers, lawn care "specialists", housekeepers, pooperscoopers, dogwalkers, color analysts, feng shui-ists, spiritualists, tutors, astrologers - need I go on?!

I came across Thoreau's Walden recently - in connection with building one's own house - and was struck by what he said about "divisions of labor" and thinking:

But alas! we do like cowbirds and cuckoos, which lay their eggs in nests which other birds have built, and cheer no traveller with their chattering and unmusical notes. Shall we forever resign the pleasure of construction to the carpenter? What does architecture amount to in the experience of the mass of men?

I never in all my walks came across a man engaged in so simple and natural an occupation as building his house. We belong to the community. It is not the tailor alone who is the ninth part of a man; it is as much the preacher, and the merchant, and the farmer. Where is this division of labor to end? and what object does it finally serve?

No doubt another may also think for me; but it is not therefore desirable that he should do so to the exclusion of my thinking for myself.

another word of advice. . .

My mother was on a cruise not too long ago while I was in the throes of final dissertation madness. [No, I didn't resent it. . . . not much. Ok, maybe a little. . . .]

Anyway, on that cruise, she happened to meet an Oxford don - as she insisted on calling him - a lovely, dapper man from Oxford, who sent me this advice about finishing my dissertation:

It's not as hard as you think.

I can't tell you the comfort I derived from those words.

I don't know this man, but I salute him. And I give fair warning: If I ever meet you, I will kiss you!

patience and genius

Michelangelo is reported to have said: Genius is eternal patience.

The story of his sculpture of David as a young lad is remarkable. It was done using a piece of marble that had been discarded by another sculptor as (as I recall) flawed. It had already been cut into, though, and thus compromised. It's been years now since I've read the story, but I recollect that the huge piece of marble lay outside, abandoned to the elements, for years, before Michelangelo was finally allowed to take charge of it. Where others saw ruin and failure after a brief - and now-ended - beginning, Michelangelo didn't give up. I understand that it was the very flaw in the stone that prompted part of the positioning of Michelangelo's David, and which is part of the "genius" of it.

Genius is eternal patience.

Sounds like another glimpse of the lesson of the ants.

. . . . and Churchill's "Never give up."

. . . . and this morning's reading in Matthew about asking, seeking and knocking - and continuing to ask, seek and knock, because those who ask get answers; those who seek, find; those who knock, have the door opened to them.

The difficulty is the bit in between. The lag-time between asking and getting, seeking and finding, knock-knocking and the 'Who's there?' opening. But that's the whole point, isn't it? If you won't endure the lag-time, you won't get to the genius bit.

I'm lagging a bit in the lag-time part.

But soldiering on, best as I can. Trusting.

[sigh. That's the life of faith, now, isn't it? OK, then. I feel better.]

five - countdown resumed

"Really, now you ask me," said Alice, very much confused, "I don't think ..." "Then you shouldn't talk," said the Hatter.

Good one.

Reminds me of something I read (and wrote about here) that

It's a mistake to think that writing is about putting words on paper. Writing is about thinking.

So I've been showing a lot of evidence of thinking lately, insofar as putting words on paper is concerned. . . . Meaning: there's more and more words on paper. Even though I've been also cutting a lot of words I had formerly put on paper. After thinking about it.

Not doing too much talking, though. There are not too many people ready to engage on the issue of morality as a system of rules, or as a matter of identity, or is it, instead, an issue of character a la in a virtue ethic system? And is Kant's morality of duty and obligation really as bad a thing as it sounds these days? (and my answer there would be "no" - after many, many years of a knee-jerk "Get him away from me! reaction).

Basically, Kant is pretty tough to get a handle on. If you think he's about a simple dry "duty" to be gutted out, you've probably misunderstood him. There's a whole lot more to him than that.

But that's the other problem with Kant: he's so complicated, no one really does understand him - so what's the use? You can have the best solution in the world, but if it's incomprehensible, it's not doing anybody any good.

But enough of that.

I read an interesting post at 60MinuteArtist's place yesterday, catchy title: "Improve Your Tonal Control". (Sorry, Six-oh. . . . grin.)

What got me thinking is how his thoughts on tone applies to so much of life beyond questions of art. We can focus so much on colour that we lose all sense of the light and dark. And one of the first things I learned playing with colours is that if you put too many of them together, they turn into a horrid sort of gloomy putrid brownish gray.

Value judgments are needed. White/black decisions. Shadows noted: because not all is white and black. There's a whole lot of gray out there, too. Different shades of gray. Some almost black; some almost white. Some pink! (but you might want to get a handle first on the value issues because a little colour goes a long way. . . .)

Our lives take on the putrid brown tone of too much colour (and not enough tonal control) when we don't make those kinds of value judgments. My paper was taking on that dreadful colour because I'd tried to put too much in, without discrimination.

It can be a little scary to discriminate, though. To realize that in the saying - or chosing - of this, I must say "no" to that. That life is about choosing - and I must choose well, because the colour, form, and definition of my life is at stake.

That "You can have it all" IS A LIE.

It's an invitation to turn your life putrid brown.

(Thanks Six-oh, for the art lesson!)

recalculating countdown. . . . standby

You know how I love details - but I'll spare you the thought process of realizing I have a COUPLE EXTRA DAYS here! So it's not actually minus five today. . . . . more's the pity. It's more like minus 7 - unless you count the handoff day as a day, in which case it's minus eight. And do you count today as one of the days?

Why am I like this?!

Anyway - I'm not going to worry about it now. It's the recalculating day, and perhaps I'll have worked out the math by tomorrow, if I get another 6 hours sleep in between now and then.

I know where this picture is from, although I didn't take it. I know this because I have one similiar to it, but without the bird. And this was handier than scrolling through my pictures of Paris - because that's where this was from - and the Paris pictures would take too long to go through because I'd be drooling over them. And maybe crying. Good crying. . . .

Oh, remember when, indeed. . . .

I was there for a conference; the king joined me after a week or so. We spent two weeks in student lodgings in a walled city chateau. Le Foyer We lived in the clocktower - clock right above our bedroom window. Bath down the hall. Wine and baguettes every night overlooking the courtyard. The menu made a big impression on us - it's still a staple part of our diet!

Walks through the Jardin du Luxembourg every day. . . . boules. . . . the little boys and their toy sailboats on the lake. . . . the flowers. . . .

OK - stop it!

Back to work.

sigh.

Two things before I start today: one, I told the king about the prophet. . . . two, I'm thinking through freedom versus obligation.

It's so funny how these things play out in my life, so that I can actually SEE what it is that I mean! Einstein is supposed to have said that "coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous".

So I told the king last night that I'd been writing here. He took it well, I think, perhaps taken aback by the 'secret' aspect of not having told him this. He also - as suspected - brought up the problematic of writing non-work stuff when I have so much work stuff to do. This is a major difference between us. He's a get-it-done-first-then-relax sort of person; I'm an enjoy-it-while-you-can sort of one. Also a I-can't-work-all-the-time sort, and as the dissertation would take up every waking hour, there has been a grave necessity to allow for some pleasurable distractions along the way. Of which I count him my major pleasure - and distraction - but there's other stuff as well. My garden. The occasional knitting or sewing. God - I've given up so much already. . . . I haven't played music in 2 years. I haven't sung. I haven't started a new quilt. I haven't sewn a dress since my wedding dress. I've felt guilty reading anything but law or philsophy.

But the thing is - life is built on freedom. For me, anyway.

It's not unlimited freedom - if you don't work, it won't get done! Yet there is also freedom in the working. I don't work well under the weight of duty, or the"ought". It robs me of the freedom to work joyously. And this is why I think I have needed also to write just for fun. Saying what I like, with no foundational requirements, no format requirements, and no judging looming over me second-guessing what I perhaps should have been doing, instead. It's like saying that anything short of a masterpiece isn't worth working on as an artist, let's say. So forget those sketches; those little cartoons. Don't take that walk or stop in that cafe for a hot whiskey. Keep your eyes on your work.

Big sigh.

This is a big piece for me. This IS my work! I'm still learning how to call the shots in my own life. It's not about what the king says - or even thinks - this really is about my own motivation. What I think, and why. NOT in an it's-all-about-me mode, but in the how-I-live-life mode! And is it free? Is it authentic? Or is it in response to what I perceive others want, without them even asking? Which was always my default.

The good thing is that this has nothing to do with how others respond, or whether others allow me this kind of freedom. I have it. The question is, will I live in it? The king has really helped me here. He expects he married an autonomous grown-up. SURPRISE! grin. . . .

But here's how this fits: I've been looking at assertions of "human rights" as arguments in disputed moral issues. I've always been a bit leery of human rights as 'sources' for entitlements because they don't deal with who provides all these things, to whom, and who gets the bill. So perhaps you have the right to control the autonomy of your body, for example, in connection with terminating pregnancy - but if we term it AS a right, does that not imply that someone will have the obligation to provide the means by which to do so?

In other words, what good is a "right" to exercise control over one's body if there is no viable means provided of doing so?

As a lawyer, I don't like to hear talk of rights unless there's talk of corresponding means - the enabling legislation that puts a shape on the other side of rights: who provides them, to whom, how, and at what cost to whom.

As a person, however, I don't particularly like being importuned on the obligation side. I prefer the free and easy gift, without thought of the underlying side of duty. I don't like to do things because it's my duty - I want to do them because it's my delight.

I love this quote from Onora O'Neill:

I was once publicly admonished for asking who holds the obligations that correspond to an alleged right to health (not merely to a right to health care!) on the grounds that health is too important to human beings not to be the object of a right.

God is still anonymous, eh? Maybe that's how we can work in the idea of prayer.

fourteen recap

OK. Found a photo.

Update: books returned. check. Plus the nice libarary lady let me check out the one on Judge Posner again, even though I had reached my renewal limit.

Gown shopping: check. Found gown. Purchased, along with 2 other dresses on sale for $39 each - if you can imagine!? I couldn't. . . . The king likes it. I'm trying to figure out what kind of undergear is appropriate insofar as the back is kind of bare and I don't want panty lines but. . . man! I'm not sure how to handle this. This dress doesn't seem to be compatible with underwear-wear.

College library run to get page numbers on Ricoeur article: check. Plus found two more articles & copied them.

"One more fun thing" - nada. Didn't stop for Wintergreen Altoids. My teeth won't take much more. But now I'm yawnin' and I thought I was going to finish the 'hope and meaning' section tonight. Right. Maybe if I'd gotten Wintergreens, which perk me up - but no. . . . Tonight I got treated to a treatment of how Kant differs from Hegel and how - in order properly to appreciate the "philosophy of hope" one must proceed in order from Kant's first critique (of pure reason), to his second critique (practical reason), before coming to his "Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone", because otherwise "we shold have been tempted to oppose to the Hegelian concept of absolute knowledge an empty concpet of belief or of hope." ["Hope & the Structure of Philosophical Systems" 215].

Yep. He really talks like that.

The scarey thing? I actually think I understand him now. Ricoeur likes Kant because Kant acknowledges that there are limits. Limits to what we can know about where we've come from (creation) and limits about where we're heading (eschatology - now there's a word for you! Means 'study of final things' - best as I can make it out.) Hegel has a concept that we can actually know everything - which he puts in a category he calls "absolute knowledge".

Anyway - I won't bore you with how we know what we know - but it was kind of cool to read Ricoeur talking about what he thought about Hegel and Kant. And the broad brush stroke is that Ricoeur buys Kant's 'philosophy of limits' - that we can't know everything - and so he doesn't want to get pulled into the Hegelian game that says we can, by trying to set up an empty hope chest to try and carry the weight.

And I like what he says about hope:

Hope is not a theme that comes after other themes, an idea that closes the system, but an impulse that opens the system, that breaks the closure of the system; it is a way of reopening what was unduly closed.

This comes in after we have reached our limit, and breaks a way free to see new possibilities. In religious symbolism, this is where resurrection comes in; and salvation.

Oh yeah! I can just see me advancing that as a legal argument in our local circuit court. . . .

sigh

OK. It's midnight. A coupla hours sleep and write up all this I've ingested today. . . . please God to have made sense of it for me while I sleep! (why does this have to be so complicated?!

[ok. . . . and I SAW that typo. . . . but now I can't find it. And my eyes are closing. And if you have any sympathy for me at all, you'll tell me where it is. Ah - sure - I'll find it tomorrow.] [subsequent note: nope. . . . I'm letting ALL the typos stand, just to remember how out of it I was!]

minus 17

Sunday.

Football.

Chips.

Bean dip.

Indigestion from dealing with this guy Robert Audi who argues that "Civic Virtue" requires that people who have religious commitments and convictions not speak of them in public. ALSO that there may be times when the aforesaid "Civic Virtue" could possibly apply in private to put a muzzle on religious thought and language, insofar as "civility is a virtue applicable far beyond the public square." Thus, even though he says that “our homes are supposed to be our castles”, he envisions situations where we can’t say what we like *in our own homes* because of his idea of civility.

I am not making this up.

He would put the same muzzle on religious institutions: churches, hospitals, and schools. They should continue doing what they’re doing to help the secular folk - God forbid they should stop - but they should stop talking about God while they do it. They might offend someone. They might get into an argument. It’s not ‘right’ to tie efforts to “relieve famine abroad” for example, to one’s conviction about God’s caring for the poor, or edict that we - who have so much - should SHARE.

When Mobile Oil gives to PBS you can be sure we hear all about how great Mobile Oil is; why should it be any different when Church X or Hospital Y give? And if they wish to give the credit to the God they profess to serve, is that not their prerogative? Why is it only the “religious” who are to be muzzled? Oil companies, business gurus, starlets and weight loss companies can say whatever they like. Free love and abortion-“rights” activists can talk all they like, but those who favor sexual monogamy with one’s spouse and believe a protectable life begins at conception must be silent if it has anything to do with their religious belief.

Oh: and we don’t need to talk any more about marriage for homosexuals: those that oppose it because it is ‘outside of God’s plan’ do so on religious grounds that they can’t translate into secular speak, so they need to go home and not talk about it there, either, because to do otherwise would be "uncivil".

Now there’s a way to prevent violent disagreements! Shut down one side.

The funny thing is that he doesn’t seem to think that this is in any way unreasonable. The even funnier thing is that at one point he uses a religious argument to make his point! Check this out:

If, as Jesus taught, to look at another lustfully is already to sin in one’s own heart, perhaps we can also do wrong in our hearts by harboring certain kinds of dispositions toward conversion of others, such as a tendency toward a kind of manipulative conversion that we would not like someone else to use on us.

(oh: that was in his argument against proselytizing and how rude that is. I mean, how horrible is it for a parent to hope that her child might "see the light" one day, and stop using drugs, sleeping around, and get a job and a life - and some meaning to live! Right. Mustn't have that. Mustn't give the impression that there's anything wrong with destructive promiscuity, eating disorders, drug addiction, lying and irresponsibility. Mustn't harbor the hope that maybe insight to a religious [oops! sorry!] faith might put them on another path. . . . But I digress. Back now to my "logical" argument)

Besides the above quote violating his own argument that he shouldn’t use religious argument in public, he mixes up his metaphors, confuses questions of sin with intent, and attempts to equate any unspoken intent with sin. I also noticed his own “manipulative [attempt] at conversion” by means of an indirect reference to the golden rule, which he must figure will indirectly help manipulate Christians to believe his message that they ought to keep their religious beliefs silent.

And why?

He doesn’t feel any corresponding need to keep his belief silent, now, does he?!

I find this absolutely amazing. I would not be one to advocate public preaching or haranguing. But I also would be one to take the free exercise of religion - and free exercise of speech - very seriously. For myself, as well as for others.

This is part of what I’m writing on today, on day minus 17: The silencing of the religious voice in the public square. Granted, use of religious reasoning is probably not going to be effective with those who are ‘losing their religion’ (as the song goes). But that’s no reason to gag the religious before the fact! They have the right - as does everyone else - to say what they feel, think, or believe, within narrowly drawn exceptions involving immanent incitings to riot, ‘fighting words’, and pornography.

On what basis would we think to treat the religious differently than the non-religious?

This just makes me angry.

But I uphold his right to say it.

Even though I think it’s STUPID!

Back now to my regularly scheduled activities: which, right now, is the attempt to write up a treatment of this nonsense in which my exasperation at the STUPIDITY of it doesn’t show. Hence, this rant.

I feel better now.

[how about a little REM - Losing My Religion - while we can still talk about it]

whadja expect?

Inexplicably, Jesus' question comes to mind:

What did you expect?

He asked it about John the Baptist and - more importantly - he asked it of people who went out into the desert to see him.

"What did you go out into the desert to see?"

I ask it this morning about those who come - or don't come - to see me.

Funny. I get lonely. I want people to come and talk to me here. They don't normally. But that's ok too. I confess, though, that I think about what might draw people here. . . . Funny stuff. Provocative stuff. The Buzzzzzz. . . . . Being "in". Knowing the lingo and what you're supposed to do - or say.

Or not say.

What you can confess to feeling, and what is just too outre to even mention, let alone own up to.

I think I get it wrong on just about every count.

This morning, I checked out the biblical reference that had come to mind above - it's in Matthew, 11th chapter, verse 7 (and following). The interesting thing to me, was that I hadn't remembered that Jesus asked people who had gone into the desert to see this guy. It's different, isn't it, when you get a guy like John (kind of a wierdo, by all accounts, at least with respect to clothing and dietary habits) coming out of the desert and showing up at the local mall. But that's not what happened. They went to him, in his solitude; his 'desert' - or eremos in the Greek. A "lonely, desolate, uninhabited place" - when used of a place; "deserted by others, deprived of friends, kindred and acquaintences" - when used of a person.

I'm sorry I'm not more entertaining. . . .


I am eremos.

Perhaps it is a necessary condition for propheting.

seriously

Magda appears to be trying to get me to put this off and not submit until April. I think it might have something to do with her schedule, insofar as she is now aiming me at other people to get feedback from. (but she hasn't said that).

My new Ricoeur book (Reflections on the Just) arrived and I've already found 3 cool things in it:

1. There's a difference in attitude in the political and legal systems of 'Code' law countries (i.e., Germany & France) who rejected Montesquieu and went instead with Rousseau. . . . They proceed instead from the presumption of a "general, indivisible will" - presumably a common will - instead of starting from the position of an adversarial argument in which the so-called will is first worked out. . . .

2. We are shifting "error" to concepts of "risk" - and making the relevant inquiry one of insurance rather than responsibility.

3. At the same time, we seem to be shifting 'uninsured risks' [that result in harm] to the criminal realm. Ricoeur says: "The risk in making 'everything crimininal' is that politics, once submitted to this kind of intimidation, will be handed over to a rampant process of victimization." (251)

Oh - and one more thing - 4. he points out the amazingly refreshing reminder that trying to 'resolve things after the fact' is to overlook that "knowledge that has [now] become certain could only have been one option among others at the time." (255)

How I wish that all these special study groups and inquiry panels would remember that one! I get so tired of the Monday morning quarterbacking that tells us all what we should have done, now that we see the results of what was actually done. It reminds me of my Nana, who used to yell at the ball carrier:

Why are you running up the middle?! There's NO ONE on the sides!

Followed shortly by:

WHY are you running down the SIDES when there's NO ONE IN THE MIDDLE?!!!!

ach. . . . we just can't get it right, can we? We keep forgetting that our action never takes place in a vacuum. Not only do we not know all the facts (usually), but we also don't know how other people will respond or even if - maybe - something as stupid as an open window or relative humidity might play a role until after we've taken action.

Hannah Arendt talks about this in The Human Condition:

"It is in the nature of beginning that something new is started which cannot be expected from whatever may have happened before." This ‘unexpectedness’ is only one of the “three-fold frustration[s] of action – [namely] the unpredictability of its outcome, the irreversibility of the process, and the anonymity of its authors . . . calamities of action [which] all arise from the human condition of plurality.” (220)

There now. I'm feeling a bit steadier, even IF I suspect my tutor has doubts about me and my ability to finish this. The more relevant question is will I be governed by her thoughts? Or by my own plans and intentions?

Right.

Back to work. . . .

WARNING - explicit religious content

I feel it only fair to warn you at the outset that this post will contain explicit religious content and/or reasoning. "Will contain", because I haven't written it yet - but I PLAN for it to so contain, so do we have to wait until the end to see if it actually does or whether I am able to express the same message without the use of the religious? hmmmm. . . could I? [make the point without reference to the religious, that is] And if I could, would I remove the warning I started out with?

Never mind! OK - launching right in: C.S. Lewis makes a really cool point in The Screwtape Letters that - for both God and Satan - one's circumstances are largely viewed as "raw material." (and I am sorry - I find I can not immediately give you the quote as I can't find it quickly and don't want to take the time to search for it. . . . Sorry! Not very academic of me, I know. One day, when this dissertation is done, I intend to assemble an index for The Screwtape Letters. I can't tell you how often I spend a hour or two, scanning the thing, looking for a remembered example or story!) Raw material, that is, either to make one more at home in one - or its other - of the two possible eternal dwelling places.

Apologies here - if required - to those who do not believe that there is a post-physical reality in store for us. I did warn you. . . .

And here we might also conduct a brief excursion into questions of the nature of the duality of the two possible destinations. . . . Is it divided by good versus bad? Preoccupation with self versus care for others? A vision of reality as human-centred versus transcendent - wait for it - God-centred?

As interesting as that is, however, what struck me this morning was (1) the need to warn in advance if you intend to use this type of 'religious' reasoning and (2) the fact that it is only in the 'religious' that one would find this kind of thought (namely: that circumstances aren't just circumstances - and the relevant inquiry being what the circumstance is and how can I change it/overcome it - BUT that circumstances HAVE PURPOSE in and of themselves. Perhaps it is a purpose of which I am unaware, but it is a purpose nonetheless. AND that that purpose is to better fit me either for one destination - or the other. Here, I would also add that 'free will' has something to do with which one of those destinations might come into play. . . .)

If you believe this, does this not make a really big difference in how you would then respond to the circumstances in your life? As well as the circumstances you see that appear in others' lives? Your children's? Parents'? The neighbors', rich man's, poor man's and sick man's circumstances? (yes. I realize that proper academic style would have required me to insert at least one feminine in this paragraph, but I really didn't want to deal with it, nor to decide whether the feminine would be assigned to the rich, poor, or sick adjective. That is an adjective, isn't it?)

Back to circumstances. Is this perhaps just a fatalistic way of viewing all the 'bad things' in the world and getting out of any reason to have to deal with them? Yes, possibly. It doesn't mean that I don't do anything to help those under hard circumstances. It's just that it's the working out of circumstances that is of interest in a life, rather than the circumstance itself.

The other thing is that the life without challenging circumstances is often not much of a life. . . . (oh - how cautiously I say this!!) We know this by the books we read. And those of you who are writers know all about conflict. No conflict? No story. No character. Here, think of Harry Potter growing up with no He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, parents still blissfully alive, no ugly Muggle relations that persecute you, going to all the right schools, having all the right brand-name brooms, plenty of whatever-they-called-their-coins in Gringott's bank (I think it's called), varsity starter on the Quidditch team - and yeah! - you got your basic Paris Hilton meltdown potential! (there - got a 'feminine' in - although the feminists might quibble with my example).

How else, though, would one express this idea, without an 'over-arching' sense of purpose, outside of ourselves?

And NO. . . . I'm not advocating going out to look for trouble or hardship. Here, I'll rely on a Biblical quote (there having been more than enough advance warning of explict religious content by now - if you've read this far, you deserve all you get! grin. . . .) actually, two Biblical quotes:

Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own. Mat 6:34

and

Dear friends,do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering, as though something strange were happening to you. 1 Peter 4:12

The prohibition of speaking in the religious vernacular (thank you very much, John Rawls!) seems to me to be like prohibiting the discussion of things like diet and nutrition, on account of not wanting to make people feel uncomfortable if they happen to be hungry and in want - or perhaps (conversely) overweight but not wanting to acknowlege it - but in any event, each of us might have a different take on the matter, depending upon who we are and out current circumstances. But maybe we shouldn't talk about that either, because it's sounding more and more like maybe somebody else is in charge. . . .