"There are persons I know whose spiritual eros or energy is not nourished or directed by any church or organized religion, but whose integrity, commitment to justice, and concern for the needs of their fellow human beings all bespeak a depth appropriately described as spiritual. Ignatian humanism….argues for a God at work in the lives of people even when they give up on religion or the notion of God." (Introduction XVIII)
Modras, Ronald. Ignatian Humanism: A Dynamic Spirituality for the 21st Century. Chicago: Loyola Press, 2004.
Just because I am not able to see or directly acknowledge God's presence in my life right now doesn't mean God can't still be there. If anything, those that love me and would want me to find God can rest assured that by being honest about where I am now, I can only be increasing the potential and the probability that God's grace will find me. Here's what I believe (And I don't necessarily have evidence for what I believe. I may contradict what I have said earlier. That's okay. I just need to honestly state where I am and accept that for what it is before I can move on): There is more to a human than the body, there is more to the natural world than evolution. The world is filled with mystery, and that mystery is an expression of a realm beyond the physical, beyond the natural. This spiritual element is in everything. Through my connection to the spirit, my relationship to the world is to be that of love. To love is to live a good life.
That is very vague and simplistic, but it is all I can agree on. But even in expressing the extent of my beliefs, I feel that I have shown myself the ridiculousness of religious language, that I am unnecessarily creating the holy, that which is set apart, and taking my desire to love the world out of my hands and saying that I am doing it for something or someone else. I am turning it into a duty instead of an act of my free will. I do not want to do anything because it is a duty. Duty (that which must be obeyed) seems to me to be the main point of religion (institutional religion, at least. But I think it's there in unorganized religion as well). I see it drilled in to the kids heads at my service site for Micah House (a Baptist bible study...what did I get myself into?): obedience is a virtue, listen to what we're saying, do what we want you to do. The songs they have the kids sing appear to me as brainwashing techniques now. I am frustrated. But I digress.
I don't know if I can live in a world without a God, but I'm ready to find out. Maybe I'll have an epiphany or even a theophany. You can pray for me if you like- it wouldn't offend me at all. I just need to get on with living and not worry about what my actions should or should not be motivated by. So for now, I am acting on my own volition because that is what I know. If I grow to acknowledge a higher power guiding me, fine. But I won't go around pretending that I'm experiencing what I'm not anymore.
Wednesday, September 28
Things I don't know, but hope to figure out
I don't know why I am in college. It certainly isn't to get a degree so I can get a job. That is what college's manifest function has (d)evolved into: training people for a specialized job. Universities used to be places young, intelligent people gathered together to share ideas and learn for the sake of learning. It is now a place to purchase the required knowledge in order to make more money than you otherwise could.
So it sounds to me like there isn't a reason for me to be in college. I am not interested in making money, and that is what college is geared towards. And if it isn't, why is it so damn expensive? The only way to anticipate paying for such an extravagant education is by planning on fully immersing myself in the capitalist system upon graduation (something I'm not too keen on).
By now, I'm a month into my freshman year of college. Damn. The semester has already been paid for. I'll finish it out and maybe try to learn something while I'm here. Next big question:
How do I survive outside the system? Survival is a big motivator. And a hard one to accomplish at first, outside the system. I've been removed from any awareness of the natural instincts humans had for survival before civilization, not to mention being removed from the formerly bountiful environment in which such instincts could easily be played out (gathering wild fruit, grain, and nuts, hunting). It would be a very large burden to undertake feeding myself in our present environment, being outside the system, alone. So I need a community I can work with that can act creatively and more efficiently to meet our needs. Food not Bombs is a wonderful example of such a community, one I might want to get involved in. As far as shelter, there have been whispers across the internets of a possible commune in the works (settling on a city in which to choose an abandoned building to squat may pose a difficulty). Clothing? Well, I've already got a lot of that, from growing up capitalist. I'm sure being nudist would cut down on unnecessary clothes. Plus, if my current necessary clothing wears out, there's dumpster diving (There are actual plans in the works for a freegan expedition with some newly-made college buddies, by the way. One of the biggest problems I have is not acting out what I talk about. That needs to change. Now.)
That last parenthetical statement leads into another question: what does direct action mean for me? Let me first clarify what I mean by direct action. I formerly would have conjured up images of riots at the WTO convention in Seattle as being the archetype of direct action. That certainly is an example of direct action (however, on the extreme side), but there is so much more contained within the phrase direct action. Simply cooking a meal for yourself instead of eating out is direct action. Doing simpe car repairs yourself instead of taking it into the shop is direct action. Growing a garden that will supply a portion of the food you actually eat daily would be some wonderful direct action. Anything you need or want to happen that you accomplish directly instead of paying for or asking for or voting for is direct action. I want to do as many things by direct action as possible. That's pretty fundamental to enacting personal anarchy. But its areas like the example I gave at the beginning that give me trouble. Is that kind of direct action for me? And by that, I'm really asking why I believe in nonviolence. I have always been attracted to notions of peace, but they may have only been rooted in a general aversion to facing conflict. But the path that I am beginning to take is directly against the grain of the culture that surrounds me. In reality, I am putting myself in opposition to forces that do not like to be opposed and will try to force me back in line. Of course, my response to such oppression as it would arise, autonomous being that I am, would be to resist. Would the means of that resistance be whatever is necessary (as Malcolm X would have it) or would it be nonviolent, actively seeking a situation in which both sides win. The problem is, I don't really want the other side to win (and by other side, I mean any authoritarian institution or corporation). I want the other side to break down, that it might stop the oppression of humans and the earth. Yet I still have always felt that violence leads to more violence. That if a government would be overthrown violently, a more violent government would simply take its place. I also hold life as being of immense value (and human life, of infinite value, the christian in me says). On an even higher plane, it becomes a question of whether to live by principle (aka objective truth) or by moral relativism. That is a question not as easily answered as it used to be. I have always been convinced that there is objective truth, but I have never really had evidence of it. By extension, this has led me to seriously consider the existence of God, and I must say that, at times, I'd have to qualify myself as an agnostic. I do believe and have evidence for a spiritual plane, a spiritual element to life. How that manifests itself is not something I claim to have specific and definite knowledge of.
So right now, that paragraph is not able to reach a conclusion. It most likely just needs a decision on my part, a decision I can't, or won't, give right now.
In thinking about the possibilities for my life, I've realized that I don't remember my dreams. I don't remember if I had real dreams. I remember considering different occupations as a child- lego designer, contractor, teacher, librarian. But those were dreams contained within the system. I don't think I've ever let my imagination soar to its potential, and I've never had a vision of where I'd truly like to go with my life. That is a chronic problem for those of the liberal bent. We're great at criticizing what is here now, but we're terrible at imagining and energizing towards a better future. I definitely need to work on that. I need to dream.
So it sounds to me like there isn't a reason for me to be in college. I am not interested in making money, and that is what college is geared towards. And if it isn't, why is it so damn expensive? The only way to anticipate paying for such an extravagant education is by planning on fully immersing myself in the capitalist system upon graduation (something I'm not too keen on).
By now, I'm a month into my freshman year of college. Damn. The semester has already been paid for. I'll finish it out and maybe try to learn something while I'm here. Next big question:
How do I survive outside the system? Survival is a big motivator. And a hard one to accomplish at first, outside the system. I've been removed from any awareness of the natural instincts humans had for survival before civilization, not to mention being removed from the formerly bountiful environment in which such instincts could easily be played out (gathering wild fruit, grain, and nuts, hunting). It would be a very large burden to undertake feeding myself in our present environment, being outside the system, alone. So I need a community I can work with that can act creatively and more efficiently to meet our needs. Food not Bombs is a wonderful example of such a community, one I might want to get involved in. As far as shelter, there have been whispers across the internets of a possible commune in the works (settling on a city in which to choose an abandoned building to squat may pose a difficulty). Clothing? Well, I've already got a lot of that, from growing up capitalist. I'm sure being nudist would cut down on unnecessary clothes. Plus, if my current necessary clothing wears out, there's dumpster diving (There are actual plans in the works for a freegan expedition with some newly-made college buddies, by the way. One of the biggest problems I have is not acting out what I talk about. That needs to change. Now.)
That last parenthetical statement leads into another question: what does direct action mean for me? Let me first clarify what I mean by direct action. I formerly would have conjured up images of riots at the WTO convention in Seattle as being the archetype of direct action. That certainly is an example of direct action (however, on the extreme side), but there is so much more contained within the phrase direct action. Simply cooking a meal for yourself instead of eating out is direct action. Doing simpe car repairs yourself instead of taking it into the shop is direct action. Growing a garden that will supply a portion of the food you actually eat daily would be some wonderful direct action. Anything you need or want to happen that you accomplish directly instead of paying for or asking for or voting for is direct action. I want to do as many things by direct action as possible. That's pretty fundamental to enacting personal anarchy. But its areas like the example I gave at the beginning that give me trouble. Is that kind of direct action for me? And by that, I'm really asking why I believe in nonviolence. I have always been attracted to notions of peace, but they may have only been rooted in a general aversion to facing conflict. But the path that I am beginning to take is directly against the grain of the culture that surrounds me. In reality, I am putting myself in opposition to forces that do not like to be opposed and will try to force me back in line. Of course, my response to such oppression as it would arise, autonomous being that I am, would be to resist. Would the means of that resistance be whatever is necessary (as Malcolm X would have it) or would it be nonviolent, actively seeking a situation in which both sides win. The problem is, I don't really want the other side to win (and by other side, I mean any authoritarian institution or corporation). I want the other side to break down, that it might stop the oppression of humans and the earth. Yet I still have always felt that violence leads to more violence. That if a government would be overthrown violently, a more violent government would simply take its place. I also hold life as being of immense value (and human life, of infinite value, the christian in me says). On an even higher plane, it becomes a question of whether to live by principle (aka objective truth) or by moral relativism. That is a question not as easily answered as it used to be. I have always been convinced that there is objective truth, but I have never really had evidence of it. By extension, this has led me to seriously consider the existence of God, and I must say that, at times, I'd have to qualify myself as an agnostic. I do believe and have evidence for a spiritual plane, a spiritual element to life. How that manifests itself is not something I claim to have specific and definite knowledge of.
So right now, that paragraph is not able to reach a conclusion. It most likely just needs a decision on my part, a decision I can't, or won't, give right now.
In thinking about the possibilities for my life, I've realized that I don't remember my dreams. I don't remember if I had real dreams. I remember considering different occupations as a child- lego designer, contractor, teacher, librarian. But those were dreams contained within the system. I don't think I've ever let my imagination soar to its potential, and I've never had a vision of where I'd truly like to go with my life. That is a chronic problem for those of the liberal bent. We're great at criticizing what is here now, but we're terrible at imagining and energizing towards a better future. I definitely need to work on that. I need to dream.
Friday, September 23
Ishmael
Gotta love life-changing books. I have read a couple already. And I look forward to more.
I can't say that anything that I've read has really changed my life, but some books have life-changing ideas, if only I were able to act them out.
Trying to fit the image of the smart, teacher's pet type student for most of my childhood, I always claimed reading as a favorite activity of mine. In reality however, I read a book for pleasure here and there- often I'd find a book I'd like and read it over and over again (I'm remember The Sword of Shannara right now), but other than that, I haven't read consistantly on my own since I outgrew Goosebumps in third grade. Well, I plan to change all that. I've kind of set up my own little curriculum of books to read along the same theme. What started me off was actually two books suggested by my foreman at my former place of employment. In the course of my two months working with him, he learned of my desire to study philosophy and to "save the world." In response, he suggested a book that would help me see why I shouldn't study philosophy and a book to show me why I shouldn't try to save the world. The latter point came up with a discussion about why I'm vegetarian. As I gave my reasons, I realized that I really wasn't sure anymore. I hadn't thought about it seriously for a while. But basically, if there's a reason to be vegetarian out there, it's probably part of my personal philosophy. The particular reason he contested was the one where if we took all the food we grow just to feed the large numbers of factory-farmed animals and gave it to the starving of the world, this would end world hunger. The problem he had with this seeming no-brainer was this: if we (the first world) feed the starving people in africa, they will have enough life in them to produce a lot more kids, who would then be starving. More food than before would need to be allocated for an even larger population of hungry people. The people will always be starving, but we are keeping them alive just enough to allow them to create more starving people. So I suppose his solution, as heartless as it sounds, is to let them starve. I had trouble swallowing this when he gave this rebuttal. I have always thought of human life as worthy of the highest dignity and most protection. Why is that? This is where Ishmael comes in.
I'm angry. I'm angry at our culture. And I'm angry at myself. We as a society are destroying the world. We are systematically limiting diversity (and moving towards Sameness, as another book, The Giver, would call it) because it is most economically efficient to do so. As humans, we believe that we are the height of creation, the height of evolution. Now if you even think about that second part for a little bit, you'll see our error. Evolution is an ongoing process. There is no end to it. But we want there to be an end to it, because we believe that we are the end, that the world belongs to us, and that we can use the world however we want. The world does not belong to us. We are a part of the world. This is not to deny our intelligence and corresponding ability to take care of the world. Humans did not always act like this. It has only been a fraction of our time in existence on this planet that we have caused this much damage. Our problems began as soon as we moved from a society that lived off the fruit of the land without working to produce it (hunter/gatherers) (which sounds a lot like the Garden of Eden to me) to farmers and shepherds who own the land, own the food, and fight everyone and everything to keep it that way (and to keep getting more and more land and more and more food). The motive for this, of course was the security of a surplus, so that when the land did not provide enough one year, humans could still survive (because human life is of ultimate value, of course). In effect, we wanted to take control of the forces of life and death (namely food) away from nature (and God). We wanted to be our own gods and ensure our own immortality. But instead, we have ensured our own (and the rest of the world's) destruction. The second creation story in the bible makes so much more sense when seen from this perspective.
So this is the problem (or a very simplified version). I don't have an answer. That's why I'm still reading (as opposed to doing something about it). And I may not find an answer that really satisfies me. We can't go backward. We have to go forward. But not in this way. We can't continue what we are doing. We have to start something completely new. That requires creativity. And generally, I think more minds working on a problem can come up with more creative solutions. So if I piqued your interest, I recommend reading Daniel Quinn's book(s), and maybe we can begin to stop contributing to the destruction of our very life support system in little ways right away. Anything that denys diversity (if it's not obvious by now, capitalism is in direct opposition to diversity, so not spending as much money is a wonderful start).
I can't say that anything that I've read has really changed my life, but some books have life-changing ideas, if only I were able to act them out.
Trying to fit the image of the smart, teacher's pet type student for most of my childhood, I always claimed reading as a favorite activity of mine. In reality however, I read a book for pleasure here and there- often I'd find a book I'd like and read it over and over again (I'm remember The Sword of Shannara right now), but other than that, I haven't read consistantly on my own since I outgrew Goosebumps in third grade. Well, I plan to change all that. I've kind of set up my own little curriculum of books to read along the same theme. What started me off was actually two books suggested by my foreman at my former place of employment. In the course of my two months working with him, he learned of my desire to study philosophy and to "save the world." In response, he suggested a book that would help me see why I shouldn't study philosophy and a book to show me why I shouldn't try to save the world. The latter point came up with a discussion about why I'm vegetarian. As I gave my reasons, I realized that I really wasn't sure anymore. I hadn't thought about it seriously for a while. But basically, if there's a reason to be vegetarian out there, it's probably part of my personal philosophy. The particular reason he contested was the one where if we took all the food we grow just to feed the large numbers of factory-farmed animals and gave it to the starving of the world, this would end world hunger. The problem he had with this seeming no-brainer was this: if we (the first world) feed the starving people in africa, they will have enough life in them to produce a lot more kids, who would then be starving. More food than before would need to be allocated for an even larger population of hungry people. The people will always be starving, but we are keeping them alive just enough to allow them to create more starving people. So I suppose his solution, as heartless as it sounds, is to let them starve. I had trouble swallowing this when he gave this rebuttal. I have always thought of human life as worthy of the highest dignity and most protection. Why is that? This is where Ishmael comes in.
I'm angry. I'm angry at our culture. And I'm angry at myself. We as a society are destroying the world. We are systematically limiting diversity (and moving towards Sameness, as another book, The Giver, would call it) because it is most economically efficient to do so. As humans, we believe that we are the height of creation, the height of evolution. Now if you even think about that second part for a little bit, you'll see our error. Evolution is an ongoing process. There is no end to it. But we want there to be an end to it, because we believe that we are the end, that the world belongs to us, and that we can use the world however we want. The world does not belong to us. We are a part of the world. This is not to deny our intelligence and corresponding ability to take care of the world. Humans did not always act like this. It has only been a fraction of our time in existence on this planet that we have caused this much damage. Our problems began as soon as we moved from a society that lived off the fruit of the land without working to produce it (hunter/gatherers) (which sounds a lot like the Garden of Eden to me) to farmers and shepherds who own the land, own the food, and fight everyone and everything to keep it that way (and to keep getting more and more land and more and more food). The motive for this, of course was the security of a surplus, so that when the land did not provide enough one year, humans could still survive (because human life is of ultimate value, of course). In effect, we wanted to take control of the forces of life and death (namely food) away from nature (and God). We wanted to be our own gods and ensure our own immortality. But instead, we have ensured our own (and the rest of the world's) destruction. The second creation story in the bible makes so much more sense when seen from this perspective.
So this is the problem (or a very simplified version). I don't have an answer. That's why I'm still reading (as opposed to doing something about it). And I may not find an answer that really satisfies me. We can't go backward. We have to go forward. But not in this way. We can't continue what we are doing. We have to start something completely new. That requires creativity. And generally, I think more minds working on a problem can come up with more creative solutions. So if I piqued your interest, I recommend reading Daniel Quinn's book(s), and maybe we can begin to stop contributing to the destruction of our very life support system in little ways right away. Anything that denys diversity (if it's not obvious by now, capitalism is in direct opposition to diversity, so not spending as much money is a wonderful start).
Monday, September 19
Eight Reasons Why Capitalists Want to Sell You Deodorant
1. Body smells are erotic and sexual. Capitalists don't like that because they are impotent and opposed to all manifestations of sensuality and sexuality. Sexually awakened people are potentially dangerous to capitalists and their rigid, asexual system.
2. Body smells remind us that we are animals. Capitalists don't want us to be reminded of that. Animals are dirty. They eat things off the ground, not out of plastic wrappers. They are openly sexual. They don't wear suits or ties, and they don't get their hair done. They don't show up to work on time.
3. Body smells are unique. Everyone has her own body smell. Capitalists don't like individuality. There are millions of body smells but only a few deodorant smells. Capitalists like that.
4. Some deodorants are harmful. Capitalists like that because they are always looking for new illnesses to cure. Capitalists love to invent new medicines. Medicines make money for them and win them prizes; they also cause new illnesses so capitalists can invent even more new medicines.
5. Deodorants cost you money. Capitalists are especially pleased about that.
6. Deodorants hide the damage that capitalist products cause your body. Eating meat and other chemical-filled foods sold by capitalists makes you smell bad. Wearing pantyhose makes you smell bad. Capitalists don't want you to stop wearing pantyhose or eating meat.
7. Deodorant-users are insecure. Capitalists like insecure people. Insecure people don't start trouble. Insecure people also buy room fresheners, hair conditioners, makeup, and magazines with articles about dieting.
8. Deodorants are unnecessary. Capitalists are very proud of that and they win marketing awards for it.
Taken from my friend, Pat's website. And he got it from here.
2. Body smells remind us that we are animals. Capitalists don't want us to be reminded of that. Animals are dirty. They eat things off the ground, not out of plastic wrappers. They are openly sexual. They don't wear suits or ties, and they don't get their hair done. They don't show up to work on time.
3. Body smells are unique. Everyone has her own body smell. Capitalists don't like individuality. There are millions of body smells but only a few deodorant smells. Capitalists like that.
4. Some deodorants are harmful. Capitalists like that because they are always looking for new illnesses to cure. Capitalists love to invent new medicines. Medicines make money for them and win them prizes; they also cause new illnesses so capitalists can invent even more new medicines.
5. Deodorants cost you money. Capitalists are especially pleased about that.
6. Deodorants hide the damage that capitalist products cause your body. Eating meat and other chemical-filled foods sold by capitalists makes you smell bad. Wearing pantyhose makes you smell bad. Capitalists don't want you to stop wearing pantyhose or eating meat.
7. Deodorant-users are insecure. Capitalists like insecure people. Insecure people don't start trouble. Insecure people also buy room fresheners, hair conditioners, makeup, and magazines with articles about dieting.
8. Deodorants are unnecessary. Capitalists are very proud of that and they win marketing awards for it.
Taken from my friend, Pat's website. And he got it from here.
I'm nineteen!
The date memorializing my spectacular entrance into this world passed us by last friday. I had a great weekend (which, by necessity, means that very little homework got done). Crown Candy (with the consumption of two very large chocolate shakes (and much moaning afterwards)), The Aristocrats, the St. Louis Art Museum (where I got two new buttons for my backpack: "I think, therefore I'm dangerous" and "Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people doing it"), Left Bank Books, Shakespeare in the park, Hartford Coffee Company (with the Hartford Hootenanny providing live music), my first Quaker meeting, and of course, partytime with gifts and cake. Oh, and much bike riding inbetween.
My mom got me the best card. I shall replicate it here (most probably quite illegally):
Cover:
"I have reached an age when, if someone tells me to wear socks, I don't have to." -Albert Einstein
Inside:
Or anything else for that matter. Happy Birthday!
Both my dad and my roommate got me corrective worldview maps (so now the words are still readable!).
For the least consequential birthday I have yet experienced (apparently, now I can drink legally in Canada), it turned out to be a pretty good one.
My mom got me the best card. I shall replicate it here (most probably quite illegally):
Cover:
"I have reached an age when, if someone tells me to wear socks, I don't have to." -Albert Einstein
Inside:
Or anything else for that matter. Happy Birthday!
Both my dad and my roommate got me corrective worldview maps (so now the words are still readable!).
For the least consequential birthday I have yet experienced (apparently, now I can drink legally in Canada), it turned out to be a pretty good one.
Tuesday, September 6
Posters
There was a poster sale today on campus. And while my room is already well decorated, I got two more. First I'll tell you what I already had:
You can see these and a few other pictures on my (finally) updated photoblog.
- a large map positioned "upside" down
- a large picture of Gandhi sitting on the floor, studying some papers, next to his spinning wheel
- a colorful peace sign (a gift from my brother, Mike)
- a poster of a peace crane
- a picture of Martin Luther King, Jr.
- a picture of Albert Einstein
- a framed poem by Pedro Arrupe, SJ about falling in love
- an equal-area projection map currently hanging sideways (with west down), thanks to my friend Nathan
- a caricature of myself
- and finally, a poster with a quote of Gandhi: be the change you wish to see in the world
You can see these and a few other pictures on my (finally) updated photoblog.
Monday, September 5
College life
College life is good. I'm so socially exhausted that it is hard to find the energy to write anything. So don't expect this to be deep at all. I've been cheating on this blog with a personal journal as well, so that's even more taxing on this quasi-introvert. So let's just give a quick overview of what is happening in the life of tom. My dorm is awesome. I love the arrangement. The chi is flowing pretty freely. My roommate, Matt, is wonderful. He's from Massachusetts (blue state). He is a buddhist (in the american sense). He drinks tea throughout the day. He's a very peaceful and happy person, and I am blessed to have found such a roommate the first semester of my freshman year. My floor is good. Micah House will be really good. It's nice to have knowledge of some commonly shared values with everyone who lives on your floor: social justice, peace, community. It's very easy to make friends in this environment. My classes are good. The teachers seem to be good, and the material to be covered seems to be at least somewhat palatable in some cases and extremely so in others. I'm taking Math thinking in the Real World (at least it's not a regular math class), Intro to Sociology, Painting I (oils), Intro to Philosophy: Self and Reality, and Theological Foundations. I need to create some sort of structure for myself to stay on top of all of the work I will have. Eating has never been so easy and difficult at the same time. There is so much food to eat, but it's all so far away, there's so much else to do besides eating, and it costs so much. I'd like to get a smaller meal plan and cook more. I've got a pot, a kitchenette, and the will. And I love being so close to Sara. I have no cell phone anymore and no car. It is wonderful. And now before the school year reaches full speed, I'm still able to do some reading for fun. I'm enjoying my ability and freedom to entertain thoughts without necessarily adhering to them immediately. Maybe when I'm more rested I'll elaborate on that point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
