I received a note from Doretta Osburn today. She is driving along side Gabe Redding as he bikes across America for MS. I'll just share the entirety of the note with you.
Hey Kevin , What's going on? Hope you are having a great week! I am having a blast on this Bike Trip for MS!!! Gabe is doing great. Be sure to check out my photos and his video blog, updated every few days - http://www.facebook.com/l/;www.gabrielredding.com.
We have raised several thousand dollars for MS research, but we are running low on money for fuel for the support car. The MS Society will issue receipts for tax purposes for any amount given for this cause....So you can not only help a wonderful cause in making a world free of Multiple Sclerosis, but help a couple of crazy friends not be stranded somewhere in middle America!! :) I have pasted the link below, if you can - every little bit helps and allows us to use the money we have for this wonderful cause. THANKS SO MUCH. Hope to catch up with you soon. Doretta :)
Because I blogged on it a few months back, it's only appropriate that I make mention of it now. The controversy in the Roman Catholic Church regarding Bishop Williamson and the broader issue of Holocaust denial is in the news again -- although you might have to wade through all of the celebrity-related information.
There's a lot of interesting items in the article -- such as the Byzantine-like maze of medieval sounding orders and subgroups. Ecclesia Dei. Society of St. Pius X. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It's no wonder that Dan Brown novels are so popular. There is such an air of secrecy and intrigue.
Anyway, one paragraph in the story struck me.
The Vatican said at the time that the pope did not know of Williamson's background and Benedict himself then acknowledged, in a letter to bishops, that the Church had to learn to use the Internet properly.
Two items jump out in my mind. 1. The article capitalized "Internet" but not "pope." I don't know what the style manual says about that. Nor am I certain as to why internet should be capitalized at all.
2. The Vatican is just now learning how to use the internet? Really? The Vatican's technology skills are behind most elementary school kids? I'm not sure what that means.
Institutional momentum is a tough thing to transform.
I love you. One declarative statement promises intimacy, offers refuge, and suggests assurance. Perhaps love is the highest of the virtues.
Those three little words enrapture the mind and intoxicate the imagination. They have been the subject of our grandest poetry, ballads, and film. From the sappiest pop song to the opulence of the Taj Mahal, people seek infinite expression for the love they feel.
Yet, expectations of love build walls of hostility when we confuse love with other emotions and activities. Love morphs into possessiveness when the lover attempts to own the beloved. Love mutates into jealousy when commingled with fear of loss. Inordinate love for one's homeland devolves into nationalism. Love gets mistaken for sex when passion moves south.
In the blink of an eye, love ain't what it used to be.
When we say, "I love you," what are we really saying? It communicates several messages that have nothing to do with love.
A husband mistreats his wife. When he attempts to bandage the wound with "I love you," he hopes to magically mend the damage. He is really saying, "Ignore what I've done."
A mother spanks her daughter. Afterward, she tells her, "I did it because I love you." Now the child and the mother associate love with authority, fear, pain, violence, and anger.
A lover ends a relationship. His distraught partner weeps, "Don't go. I love you." She derives her sense of identity from her association with him, and she describes her neediness as love.
A cleric tells his congregation, "God loves you. But if you don't love him back in the worshipful way he demands, he will torture you with never-ending torment." The cleric has substituted threats of retribution for love.
To enter into love it is necessary to see what love isn't.
To achieve clarity on what love is we can ask three interconnected questions. One, who is the "I" that loves? Two, who is the "you" that I love? Three, what is the love that I am experiencing?
We're accustomed to thinking of ourselves as isolated, independent, and individual beings. I exist in my mind, and my mind stops at the borders of my skin. "You" are anything that is perceived to be "not I." Love is usually understood as the warm passion, touching ardor, or avid impulse I feel for you.
In this customary view, as long as you supply me with something that pleases me, I can reach beyond the boarders of my selfness. If you don't give me something to love, then I loathe, neglect, or ignore you. "I love you" ends up being "I love me." Quickly, "I love me" turns into "I want you to love me too."
What we tend to call love (and what we confuse for love) takes several forms.
First, it can be the feeling of what I hope to receive from you. I perceive myself to be lacking something, and I believe you can supply it. With this belief, I assume that I love you. For example, I am lonely and you provide me company. Because you fill a void, I may believe that I love you.
Second, love can take the form of mistaken identity. I see a quality in you that I admire -- beauty, intelligence, humor. When I long to acquire or be near the attribute, I confuse my appreciation (or desire) for that trait with a love for you.
Third, self projection obscures love. Unable to recognize you for yourself, my passion for you is little more than an expression of my strong feelings for myself. You are my spouse, child, or deity; therefore I love you. The emphasis is on me, not on you or on love.
Fourth, duty, compulsion, and expectation are not love. Love does not emerge from shared DNA, cultural convention, birthplace, or contractual obligation.
Fifth, religious impulse does not amount to love. Dedication to a deity or devotion to a faith or may arise from fear, desperation, or greed. You may seek a blessing, salvation, or enlightenment from a spiritual source. You may believe you have received a gift from God. In exchange, you name your emotion as love. But would you still feel love if your prayer goes unanswered, if you do not receive payment, or if the gift was taken away?
So, what happens to my love for you when you no longer provide me what I hope you will? Where does my love go when I see that you do not possess the quality that I believed that you did? And how I can love you if I ultimately loathe myself and hope that you will love me? Is love a commodity that can be parlayed into ambition, acquisition, or accolades?
However when we perceive "I" as more than the secluded skin-encased individual full of self interest, and "you" as more than anything that is "not I," "I love you" can surge from within the souls depths with endless sincerity.
Love as love swells from the unmediated fullness of being. Love doesn't love because of the people, pleasure, or principles involved. Love loves because it is love. This explains why Jesus could teach love for neighbors, enemies, and God with equal veracity.
Individual demonstrations of love's fullness express themselves through fearless compassion, courageous generosity, and uncalculated respect. Love does not strategize.
The scriptural assertion, "We love because he first loved," illustrates the selfless nature of love. In loving, we enter into the flow of love. When you love, you love as God. You know the infinite source of love firsthand -- not from receiving, but from giving. The graceful reception of love can deepen and widen the channel for love to stream, but love always originates from the source. In loving, we partake of the divine nature directly and consciously.
How do you know if the love you feel is a selfless revelation surfacing from a spirit of noble intent? Consider this. You tell your beloved, "I love you." Do you expect -- or even demand -- that your beloved replies with a similar declaration? An answer may be forthcoming, and it is certainly welcome in love. However, if a reply is mandated, the original announcement of "I love you" is not love.
Unrequited love cannot grow bitter any more than sugar can because love is sweet by nature. Love remains love whether it is answered or not.
Love needs no object. When you love, you love. The fact that you may feel joy, gratitude, or satisfaction in your loving remains secondary to the love itself. It is a fruit of your love; it is not a prerequisite for loving.
Don't artificially impose a "you" onto love. "I love" is sufficient for love because love springs from deep within. It bubbles from the headwaters of the river of life and doesn't run dry depending on who "you" happens to be. With love, "I" can honestly love "you" without confusing "I love you" for "Please love me."
If so, please note whether or not the proof of your eating the pudding is in the living of your life. Or something like that. What a mixed-up metaphor. Read the article, and you'll get it.
Grace, love, acceptance, etc is only a theory if those who ascribe to it don't practice it.
BTW: Pudding is yummy. What does the scripture say? Taste and see...
I watched a bit of a program over the weekend about Italian artists of the spanning the period of Renaissance and into the Reformation and Counter-Reformation produced by the Annenberg Foundation. (BTW, what a hilarious phrase, "Counter-reformation." But that's another blog post for another day.)
A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away in grad school, I wrote a paper on Giotto. Don't ask me how I remember that or the significance of Giotto. That was in another lifetime.
The show highlighted several painters, their styles, what they represented. One of the interesting stories surrounded Veronese and his painting "The Feast in the House of Levi." It started out as The Last Supper. However, he was called before the Inquisition for including several questionable characters and images in the painting. he was ordered to change the painting. Instead, he changed the name. that satisfied the Inquisitors. Names mean a lot, eh? Same images. Different setting. What has changed? Everything or nothing?
Meanwhile, one of the themes among painters and architects was their view of cosmology. A Harmonious universe in which everything had its place. This is still a prominent cosmological theme in various cultures -- certainly in traditional Chinese culture and cosmology.
Ironically, in many Christian versions of the story the music of the spheres has a sour note. namely, its view of sin, original sin, and what it calls evil. Ah yes...another blog post for yet another day.
In this cosmological view as presented by Italian painters, we see a movement from their perception of the lowest to the highest. Animals to humans to angelic beings to God. The theme is manifested in various pieces, and it always is depicted by an upward movement.
Ok. Not so revolutionary or revelatory in itself.
Here's the interesting and ironic feature. The Italian painters' cosmology entertained the idea that the hierarchy moved from physical to spiritual (as they perceived it). However, their understanding of this cosmology needed a physical representation (incarnation). Spirit finds concrete expression. The "highest" form depend on the "lowest" form.
They are all interconnected, and spirit pervades all forms in its own way. Each is unique, yet none fully represents the allness of spirit. What is thought to be the least is every bit as essential as what is thought to be the most.
For the Renaissance mindset -- and perhaps in societies like caste India -- this order is not to be tampered with. The structured universe is a way to reinforce social strata. You belong here becuase this is where God wants you. So don't try to improve your lot.
However, an alternative approach is: "You and all things are spirit-expressing-itself. Honor all. be kind and compassionate to all. Respect all. Seek to improve the physical condition of all. being kind and mindful to the lowest is being kind and mindful towrd the highest."
I sent out the "Presence This Week" ezine a day early because of the 4th of July holiday. If you live in the US, you probably won't be @ work tomorrow. The lead article was "Today as the Intersection of Yesterday and Tomorrow."
You can subscribe to it and to the Parousia ezine here.
Do we want to live together peacefully? Do we want to end the hostilities that threaten to kill, harm, and destroy individual lives, groups of people, and even the planet? Are we willing to set aside egoic, nationalistic, and racist ambitions for the sake of humanity?
Can we have the perseverance to address intractable problems -- like the uprising in Iran or the genocide in Sudan or the economic crisis -- without getting distracted by the pop culture?
I believe it is possible. I believe that we can awaken and are awakening to the possibilities of peaceful and creative coexistence. After all, regardless of our identities, we are all inhabitants of earth. we share a planet, and the planet shares us.
By now, you've heard about the new Starbucks menu. I went into my local Starbucks this morning, and saw the promo on the pastry case. One of the lines said,
"No artificial transfats."
No artificial transfats? Really. This struck me a little odd. So I asked the manager who is a friend of min. "No artificial trans fats?"
"Yes," he replied.
I asked a follow-up question. "Does that mean there are natural transfats in the food?"
He laughed. "I wonder if that slipped through."
I don't know if it slipped through or not. But I do wonder what is the difference between artificial and natural transfats. If you know, please drop me a line.
Is an advocate for a philosophy, political party, religion, or any other thing is trying to convince you that your direct experience is invalid? Why are they trying to convince you that their experience is more valid than theirs? Are you willing to trust their interpretation of their experience that you are willing to rely on your own perception of your experience?
Maybe more correct to ask: Are you willing to trust your interpretation of their interpretation of their experience than you are willing to trust your direct experience of your self?
The "truth" you receive from them is three levels removed at that point. It is not true/valid at that point. Too many filters. Too much tweaking.
The truest statement I can make is, "I've found this to be true."
"You will find this to be true" is a false promise. It can't deliver.
However, you can invite an equal to engage in similar conditions that evoked your experience. Then you can listen to them express themselves concerning their experience. You may find a lot of similarities. You may not. But even in that dialogue, you will find an experiential truth in the intersubjective process.
Dialogue, conversation, and even advice among equals is helpful. But conversion and attempts to invalidate you in favor of a handed-down reality is no reality. Their experience is not yours. Conversation can help clarify. Conversion brings confusion.
What an interesting phrase. The Netherlands. Like the Netherworld. The Other World. The Outer Lands. It's a matter of perspective.
The Netherlands aren't so nether if you are in them or from them.
Like the "Middle East." Middle in comparison to what? East relative to Europe, but West relative to India, China, or Japan. Why is Asia referred to as "the Far East" but California is never called "the Far West"?
Of course, we talk about Eastern culture and Western. Eastern philosophy and Western religion. And more people are becoming attuned to the Northern world and the Southern. Yet, all of that is simply agreed upon terminology. There is nothing inherently east, west, north, or south. We orient ourselves based on our perception of magnetism? On where the sun rises and sets? Yet, the sun rises and sets in the same place only twice each year -- at best. And even then, it is a matter of perception. The sun doesn't rise or set. the earth moves; it revolves, rotates, and travels through the galaxy, and propels through the universe. It has never been in the same place twice.
You can only be where you are. A museum might show us where we were, but our experience of that museum will tell us where we are. Nether or Not.
Situation in Iran illustrates the illusion of a supposed theocracy. God does not need weapons to keep people in order. God does not need violence to force people into compliance. God does not beat and shoot people who voice their opinions. Military dictatorships do those things. God does not.
A theocracy is simply a cloak -- a masked attempt to control others in the name of God. It subjects the people by claiming that the leaders' opinions are God's opinions.
It says that you are evil, we are good. We know what is best. If you dissent, you are evil and should be repressed, imprisoned, tortured, or killed. It says, you are with us or with our enemies who happen to be God's enemies. It justifies human rights abuses in the name of a supreme deity.
This is a farce. God does not need your violence. If you want to be repressive, controlling, or domineering, just say so. Have the integrity and courage not to drag God into your fear mongering and lust for power.
Of course, this happens not only with theocratic governments but in pseudo-theocratic governments, private institutions, and families.
Whoever wants to be the greatest, let him become a servant.
~~~~~ Blog post inspired from this NYT article by Nazila Fathi and Michael Slackman
Posts
