Inspired by the goddess of loving mystery, in whom three is one and four, and by whom fire is water is life for earth. I offer this poem to the lady of creativity, asking that (by the principles of trinity) it also conjure the strength of the smith and the healing of the physician. Her nature is multiple meanings, and looking into the water at a reflection always shows another view of reality if we ask for eyes to see.
I feel that there will be more to this poem, which is why I call it Part 1, but this is all I have right now. Some words have multiple meanings.
I don't know how to let him go.
My heart was built to hold.
My facings, spirit, nature, pace —
a clasp, a sponge, a bowl
I do know how to fight my space,
To forge a boundary line,
When threats upon my home, my peace,
My Self, blur and bind.
Bound! Someone can be here, and not.
My sword is useless now.
Footprints, ghosts taunt, remain.
Unhold — I don't know how.
Monday, May 16, 2016
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Brokered Emotions
In general, most people don't like to think of relationships in terms of transaction, at least not relationships that are supposed to be loving and intimate, like family or close friends. Most of us know instinctively that affection and love do not derive their meaning from a "you do this for me, and I'll do that for you" mindset. However, the emotionally healthy among us also know that overall, there should be a balance in a healthy, power-equal relationship (such as a romantic partnership or a friendship between adults). Not that we are keeping score, but roughly, each person should be putting about the same level of energy into the relationship as they are getting out of it. The commodities being "traded" in a relationship vary—emotional support, physical services, intellectual discussions, quality time, and so on. Everyone is looking for a slightly different set of ingredients from their relationships, and needs to make some trades in order to find what they are looking for. A good relationship doesn't reduce to transaction, not at all (!!), but balance is an important element. Relationships involve transaction, there's no need to pretend this isn't true.
It is generally good advice that in a relationship that is supposed to be power-equal, if the balance goes too far towards one person's favor for too long, this is not a healthy relationship, and boundaries should be put in place. However, I have been realizing lately that even if a relationship has a balance that is roughly equal, there can still be something subtly but deeply wrong. I am envisioning a style of relationships that I will call "emotionally brokered relationships."
To come up with this term, I used a metaphor from the financial industry. I was inspired while reading Gordon White's book, The Chaos Protocols, in which he describes solutions for dealing with the reality of today's economy (the book is not really about relationships... my mind just jumped to that topic). In the first chapter White proffers a brief history of how the global economy got into the mess it's in today. In general, the main problem is that the economy is no longer operating on trading real "wealth" (physical goods and services based on human personal interactions), but is instead an elaborate system of relativity. As currency moves further and further away from the concept of actual wealth and direct transactions, more and more inequalities and dysfunctions are created. For example, a couple decades ago, the mortgage system made a shift from using straightforward mortgages to security-backed mortgages. A straightforward mortgage is simply a loan that the bank gives you to buy a home. A security is a piece of paper that gambles on the assumption that you will pay the mortgage back (with interest), ensuring future profit. They are basically IOUs on IOUs. The banks can then mess around with these IOU's and gain incredible wealth, basically out of thin air. The incentives behind providing loans then became less about offering a service to individuals who needed it, and more about hedging bets and maximizing profit in an abstract inter-bank market. As White put it, "Banking moved from being relationship-based (which enabled real investment in a real economy) to being transactional; bankers changed from being investors to brokers." In this system, even a mortgage that is technically "fair" for both the lender and the buyer, isn't truly an authentic transaction, and behind the scenes it's almost always working in favor of the big bank.
I think a similar difference can be described in how some people conduct relationships. For some, even their intimate relationships are not engaged with for their own sake, but instead are used as a form of social capital to increase personal power. Part of the psyche separates itself from the direct relationship and tries to direct and manage the transactions towards an ulterior goal. There is something quite nefarious about this mode of operating, and difficult to discern. One blatant example of this would be when people brag about how good their relationships are, as a form of ego-boosting, or to sell a book or workshop, or something like that. But there are other subtle ways that people can do this, brokering out the relationship to serve a dark ulterior set of motives. In relationships like these, even if the relational transactions are technically "balanced," they actually aren't, really. The party doing the emotional brokering is actually operating from a place of deep selfishness, and will always be looking for little ways to cut corners on the relational transactions, or grasping for subtle psychic superiority. Evil people conduct all of their relationships this way, and use every opportunity to take as much as they can, only giving back when it will lead to personal advantage, calculating every move to ensure personal psychic profit.
I said this mode of relationship is nefarious, but I am now thinking of situations where it doesn't necessarily have to be. Perhaps it is sometimes even necessary for health. When people have their guards down, and relate to each other directly, and build that balance of inputs and outputs together, there is an authenticity that leads to joy and mutual satisfaction. However, the unlucky among us quickly learn that this unguarded style is not wise to use with every person. Some people are dangerous. It can be a sign of maturity when one learns that relational transactions must be "brokered" to some extent, to ensure that you don't get taken advantage of. Part of your psyche needs to separate from the transaction, and observe it objectively, to make sure it's actually fair and going well. If that starts not being the case, that part, "the broker," steps in and takes measures to protect you. The ulterior motive here is self-preservation, which isn't necessarily evil. Indeed, it should be a given. The difference between this nicer way of brokering I'm thinking of, and evil, is that the motives are still relationship based. The players want to have a healthy relationship for its own sake, and they want fairness. They just need to make sure it's safe before they let their guards down. As opposed to the evil person I mentioned earlier, who only wants relationships if they serve the ego.
Problem can arise when a person uses the brokered mode for so long, they become incapable of switching into a direct, authentic transactional mode. Brokering is not a satisfying way to conduct close relationships, because it necessarily precludes intimacy, which brings true joy. At some point, when both sides know they can trust each other with their hearts, the relationship "broker" must be abandoned, and the two parties must face each other directly, nakedly, and authentically, and they must build something together. If one or both parties are unwilling to do this, then true love will never grow. Even if such a relationship has every indication of being a balanced one, it is not really healthy.
It's tricky to know when it's safe to "fire your emotional broker" in a relationship. Myself, I have been hurt so much, that I find myself needing lots of proof from another that they are trustworthy. I will enter relationships not fully engaged, but "trading relationship commodities" in as fair a manner as I know how, and watching to see if the other operates fairly as well. If s/he doesn't, I bolster my walls and might even go as far as removing them from my life. I think this is healthy, even if it's not as fun as falling in love every other week. I have a lot to offer; this makes me a desirable target for people who would like to take a lot. I have only a few friendships in my life where I'm operating from an unguarded position. I do wonder if I'll ever be able to let go again and relax with my full self exposed in a romantic relationship... and I wonder how hard a fight my "emotional broker" will put up, when it's time to step down. I feel like it would take awhile, given my experiences with men so far. I need to know that the other likes every last weird piece of me and would never judge me, would never exploit my weaknesses, would take a bullet for me, would help me, would listen wholeheartedly to me, and would keep my best interests at heart always. And I long to offer all of the above to someone else as well. Not just because that's only fair, but because that's what true love is. And true love is its own reward.
 |
| Image by winnifredxoxo on Flickr.com Creative Commons Attribution license. |
It is generally good advice that in a relationship that is supposed to be power-equal, if the balance goes too far towards one person's favor for too long, this is not a healthy relationship, and boundaries should be put in place. However, I have been realizing lately that even if a relationship has a balance that is roughly equal, there can still be something subtly but deeply wrong. I am envisioning a style of relationships that I will call "emotionally brokered relationships."
To come up with this term, I used a metaphor from the financial industry. I was inspired while reading Gordon White's book, The Chaos Protocols, in which he describes solutions for dealing with the reality of today's economy (the book is not really about relationships... my mind just jumped to that topic). In the first chapter White proffers a brief history of how the global economy got into the mess it's in today. In general, the main problem is that the economy is no longer operating on trading real "wealth" (physical goods and services based on human personal interactions), but is instead an elaborate system of relativity. As currency moves further and further away from the concept of actual wealth and direct transactions, more and more inequalities and dysfunctions are created. For example, a couple decades ago, the mortgage system made a shift from using straightforward mortgages to security-backed mortgages. A straightforward mortgage is simply a loan that the bank gives you to buy a home. A security is a piece of paper that gambles on the assumption that you will pay the mortgage back (with interest), ensuring future profit. They are basically IOUs on IOUs. The banks can then mess around with these IOU's and gain incredible wealth, basically out of thin air. The incentives behind providing loans then became less about offering a service to individuals who needed it, and more about hedging bets and maximizing profit in an abstract inter-bank market. As White put it, "Banking moved from being relationship-based (which enabled real investment in a real economy) to being transactional; bankers changed from being investors to brokers." In this system, even a mortgage that is technically "fair" for both the lender and the buyer, isn't truly an authentic transaction, and behind the scenes it's almost always working in favor of the big bank.
I think a similar difference can be described in how some people conduct relationships. For some, even their intimate relationships are not engaged with for their own sake, but instead are used as a form of social capital to increase personal power. Part of the psyche separates itself from the direct relationship and tries to direct and manage the transactions towards an ulterior goal. There is something quite nefarious about this mode of operating, and difficult to discern. One blatant example of this would be when people brag about how good their relationships are, as a form of ego-boosting, or to sell a book or workshop, or something like that. But there are other subtle ways that people can do this, brokering out the relationship to serve a dark ulterior set of motives. In relationships like these, even if the relational transactions are technically "balanced," they actually aren't, really. The party doing the emotional brokering is actually operating from a place of deep selfishness, and will always be looking for little ways to cut corners on the relational transactions, or grasping for subtle psychic superiority. Evil people conduct all of their relationships this way, and use every opportunity to take as much as they can, only giving back when it will lead to personal advantage, calculating every move to ensure personal psychic profit.
I said this mode of relationship is nefarious, but I am now thinking of situations where it doesn't necessarily have to be. Perhaps it is sometimes even necessary for health. When people have their guards down, and relate to each other directly, and build that balance of inputs and outputs together, there is an authenticity that leads to joy and mutual satisfaction. However, the unlucky among us quickly learn that this unguarded style is not wise to use with every person. Some people are dangerous. It can be a sign of maturity when one learns that relational transactions must be "brokered" to some extent, to ensure that you don't get taken advantage of. Part of your psyche needs to separate from the transaction, and observe it objectively, to make sure it's actually fair and going well. If that starts not being the case, that part, "the broker," steps in and takes measures to protect you. The ulterior motive here is self-preservation, which isn't necessarily evil. Indeed, it should be a given. The difference between this nicer way of brokering I'm thinking of, and evil, is that the motives are still relationship based. The players want to have a healthy relationship for its own sake, and they want fairness. They just need to make sure it's safe before they let their guards down. As opposed to the evil person I mentioned earlier, who only wants relationships if they serve the ego.
Problem can arise when a person uses the brokered mode for so long, they become incapable of switching into a direct, authentic transactional mode. Brokering is not a satisfying way to conduct close relationships, because it necessarily precludes intimacy, which brings true joy. At some point, when both sides know they can trust each other with their hearts, the relationship "broker" must be abandoned, and the two parties must face each other directly, nakedly, and authentically, and they must build something together. If one or both parties are unwilling to do this, then true love will never grow. Even if such a relationship has every indication of being a balanced one, it is not really healthy.
It's tricky to know when it's safe to "fire your emotional broker" in a relationship. Myself, I have been hurt so much, that I find myself needing lots of proof from another that they are trustworthy. I will enter relationships not fully engaged, but "trading relationship commodities" in as fair a manner as I know how, and watching to see if the other operates fairly as well. If s/he doesn't, I bolster my walls and might even go as far as removing them from my life. I think this is healthy, even if it's not as fun as falling in love every other week. I have a lot to offer; this makes me a desirable target for people who would like to take a lot. I have only a few friendships in my life where I'm operating from an unguarded position. I do wonder if I'll ever be able to let go again and relax with my full self exposed in a romantic relationship... and I wonder how hard a fight my "emotional broker" will put up, when it's time to step down. I feel like it would take awhile, given my experiences with men so far. I need to know that the other likes every last weird piece of me and would never judge me, would never exploit my weaknesses, would take a bullet for me, would help me, would listen wholeheartedly to me, and would keep my best interests at heart always. And I long to offer all of the above to someone else as well. Not just because that's only fair, but because that's what true love is. And true love is its own reward.
Saturday, April 16, 2016
Musings on cognitive processes and unconscious programming
The other morning as I was driving to work I needed to make a phone call. I had stayed up too late the night before, so I was feeling tired. And I was a bit worried about the content of the phone call. And I was driving. So my mind wasn't at its sharpest.
After a few rings I heard a beep and a recorded message, "Please state your name, and Google Voice will connect you," then another beep.
Like a dummy, instead of stating my name, I started talking as if I was recording a voicemail. "Hi, it's me, I wanted to talk with you about..." But after only two seconds, there was another beep, and I realized the recording had stopped. Then I realized what I had done. Instead of recording my name, which the instructions had clearly told me to do, I had started trying to record a voicemail with a message.
What happened there? Well, my conscious mind was distracted, and my ability to connect with my "executive function" was hindered due to physical tiredness. So the unconscious, or semi-conscious mind took over. Somewhere along the way, due to repeated exposure to the stimulus of a recorded voice and a beep, I have been programmed to associate this stimulus with the response of recording a voicemail. The sudden change of expectation, to record my name instead, did not register fully onto my conscious mind, due to it being in a weakened and distracted state. Thus, what was pre-programmed took over like auto-pilot.
Malcolm Gladwell wrote an excellent book a long time ago called "Blink," that explored some of these ideas. I highly recommend it.
This reminds me of the concept of "Freudian slips." Occasionally during speaking we will accidentally say the wrong word, but it will betray what we are "really" thinking, or at least what we are unconsciously thinking. For example, a presenter accidentally introducing Prince William as the "Douche of Cambridge," then quickly correcting it to "Duke of Cambridge," COULD, according to Freudian theory, be construed as the presenter secretly thinking the Prince is a pretty shitty person, and accidentally betraying his true feelings. (Of course, it's an easy mistake to make, considering the presenter was introducing "The Duke and Duchess..." That one word uses a hard -k-, and the other a soft -ch- sound, makes it easy to flip them around, completely innocently. But it's still a funny example, whether it was a betrayal of real feeling or not.)
So, what does something like this reveal about a person? Which level of consciousness should be considered the "real" person? The incident that happened to me this morning was fairly innocuous; it just betrays that I have left a lot of voicemails in my lifetime (and, OK, all the privilege that implies...) But what about when someone's guard is down for whatever reason and the things that come out on autopilot are racist, misogynist, ablist, violent, or some other kind of undesirable trait? What does this mean? Is the person "really" a terrible person at heart, or are these things simply artifacts of poor programming? Sometimes these values and traits are imprinted on us by our culture, even against our wishes. With education and effort, we learn to identify ourselves with nobler values, but sometimes the old ways creep through when we are unguarded. Can someone be held responsible for the contents of their unconscious mind, or is it only the conscious level that counts, (at least as far as moral responsibility)?
After a few rings I heard a beep and a recorded message, "Please state your name, and Google Voice will connect you," then another beep.
Like a dummy, instead of stating my name, I started talking as if I was recording a voicemail. "Hi, it's me, I wanted to talk with you about..." But after only two seconds, there was another beep, and I realized the recording had stopped. Then I realized what I had done. Instead of recording my name, which the instructions had clearly told me to do, I had started trying to record a voicemail with a message.
What happened there? Well, my conscious mind was distracted, and my ability to connect with my "executive function" was hindered due to physical tiredness. So the unconscious, or semi-conscious mind took over. Somewhere along the way, due to repeated exposure to the stimulus of a recorded voice and a beep, I have been programmed to associate this stimulus with the response of recording a voicemail. The sudden change of expectation, to record my name instead, did not register fully onto my conscious mind, due to it being in a weakened and distracted state. Thus, what was pre-programmed took over like auto-pilot.Malcolm Gladwell wrote an excellent book a long time ago called "Blink," that explored some of these ideas. I highly recommend it.
This reminds me of the concept of "Freudian slips." Occasionally during speaking we will accidentally say the wrong word, but it will betray what we are "really" thinking, or at least what we are unconsciously thinking. For example, a presenter accidentally introducing Prince William as the "Douche of Cambridge," then quickly correcting it to "Duke of Cambridge," COULD, according to Freudian theory, be construed as the presenter secretly thinking the Prince is a pretty shitty person, and accidentally betraying his true feelings. (Of course, it's an easy mistake to make, considering the presenter was introducing "The Duke and Duchess..." That one word uses a hard -k-, and the other a soft -ch- sound, makes it easy to flip them around, completely innocently. But it's still a funny example, whether it was a betrayal of real feeling or not.)
So, what does something like this reveal about a person? Which level of consciousness should be considered the "real" person? The incident that happened to me this morning was fairly innocuous; it just betrays that I have left a lot of voicemails in my lifetime (and, OK, all the privilege that implies...) But what about when someone's guard is down for whatever reason and the things that come out on autopilot are racist, misogynist, ablist, violent, or some other kind of undesirable trait? What does this mean? Is the person "really" a terrible person at heart, or are these things simply artifacts of poor programming? Sometimes these values and traits are imprinted on us by our culture, even against our wishes. With education and effort, we learn to identify ourselves with nobler values, but sometimes the old ways creep through when we are unguarded. Can someone be held responsible for the contents of their unconscious mind, or is it only the conscious level that counts, (at least as far as moral responsibility)?
Tuesday, March 22, 2016
Pagans and Jesus Christ
I recently ran across an article by a Pagan leader named Sam Webster called, "Why You Can't Worship Jesus Christ and Be Pagan." (Yes, it's from 2013. I've never been one who's on the cutting edge of anything, so... whatever. I just go with things as they come to me.) The ideas in this article fascinated me, and I want to try my hand at unpacking them. (Webster expounded on his article in an interview, on this podcast: http://disinfo.com/2014/06/datc-044-cant-worship-jesus-christ-pagan-sam-webster/)
As a disclosure, I'm not Pagan, nor do I any longer feel safe identifying as a Christian, so my opinions are going to be more philosophical than personal. I'm interested in exploring these concepts, not prescribing boundaries.
The essence of the article is that because Christianity has consistently sought to exterminate Paganism throughout history, either by conversion or by execution, the spirit of Christianity is incompatible with Paganism. Many good points are made, and I can totally see where he's coming from. What I'm interested in, though, are the cracks and crevices in his arguments; the nuances on the edges of his monolithic declarations (which, to be honest, came across as thumpy in places).
First, let's just acknowledge that Webster presents a very narrow view of Church history and severely oversimplifies its complicated relationship with political power. Let's also acknowledge that he ignores the HUGE subject of how religious syncretism has affected Christianity, in both directions, in and out. For having seminary and history degrees, he really should know this stuff; that he ignored these things is baffling.
The main thing I want to focus on, though, is the ramifications for his arguments of his obvious conception of gods and goddesses as literal entities. (As opposed, perhaps, to a kind of Jungian psychological approach, where deities are really archetypes — elements of the human psyche, endogenous creatures that take life in our collective imaginations.) That there are literal, exogenous spirits who can imbue physical bodies (besides being a fun and/or scary thing to turn over in my mind) is really what makes this article challenging to unpack. I don't know where I stand on that issue. Are there actually intelligent spiritual entities, separate from ourselves, whom humans label as god/desses, or are these actually psychological projections, or is it some mix of the two, or is it something else altogether? I do not know.
But let's assume there are literal spirits, in order to address this article. Because we need to know the nature of these spirits he believes in. Are spirits (or, more specifically, is the spirit of Jesus Christ) eternal? Because if so, that would mean that Jesus existed before the rise of Christianity. (Which makes you wonder where Webster believes Jesus was before that, and what he was doing.) Can the fundamental nature of spirits change over time? So could, say, Venus, one day decide she's bored with being seductive, and instead focus more on, oh, traveling or something? Or is Venus immutably seductive, because goddesses/gods don't change? Likewise, if Jesus is a god whose nature is to eradicate culture and destroy dissenters (as Webster claims), was Jesus always this way? Will he always be this way? Or was he maybe more peaceful at one time (say, during the time when Christians were being persecuted by, ahem, people who worshiped multiple deities), and later evolved to be more wrathful? Unpacking the theology of what Webster means when he talks about the spirit of Jesus really affects the validity of his arguments.
If I had to, today, decide how I wanted to understand what goddess/god spirits are, I would probably choose a conception similar to Plato's Forms. Spirits are concepts, often universal concepts such as harmony, division, communication, and so on, that imbue the physical world. So anything beautiful is, at least partially, imbued with the goddess Venus. Anything angry or warlike is calling on Mars. And so on. Thus, spirits cannot change, because they are concepts. You can't change the concept of "roundness" or "green," even if you find different words for it or different nuances of it.
And it's important to recognize that the names for these concepts DO change. Not only due to different languages, and linguistic shifts over time, but also, more subtly, due to the co-opting by various cultural elements of certain concepts.
For example, let's take the concept of the struggle for economic freedom for all of humanity. A worthy goal. This concept or spirit (as I'm currently deciding to conceive of the word "spirit") clothes itself in different forms throughout time and place depending on the context. The spirit of universal economic freedom (for the sake of expediency, let's call this spirit Santa Claus, OK?) uses whatever tools it can find to accomplish its goals. In one context, the most expedient tool Santa Claus can use is capitalism, while in another context, communism serves the job much better. It's a crude example, but you can hopefully see my point, that the spirit behind very, very different movements can still be the same.
The Santa Claus impulse, to provide economically for all of humanity, drives very different people and marches under very different, sometimes even opposing, banners at times, based on the culture that surrounds it. Now, let's say Santa Claus merged with Capitalism for awhile, because Capitalism was able to provide a lot of wealth for a wide range of people, and that made Santa Claus happy. But over time Capitalism became corrupted by greedy people who refused to heed to the problems that were developing in the system, and instead collected more and more of the wealth for themselves. Is Capitalism still imbued with Santa Claus? I would say no. At some point Santa Claus had to depart from the banner of Capitalism and find a different vehicle to accomplish his goals, most likely even fighting against the very thing he once indwelled.
So where I'm going with this, is back to the question of Jesus Christ. If there is a spirit of Jesus Christ, is he, as Webster claims, a malefic spirit at heart, who deceives people with promises of peace and light, while actually only wanting to assimilate them, or destroy them if they refuse to be assimilated? Or is it possible that Jesus is actually something else, and another spirit has co-opted the banner of Christianity, essentially driving the spirit of Jesus away from the very thing he once indwelled?
The latter is actually an argument that some Christians make, from a surprising diversity of viewpoints. On one side, you have far right fundamentalists (the kind who merge their faith with their American nationalism,) such as Chuck Missler, who say that when Christianity merged with the Roman Empire, it ceased being Christ-like, and drove "the true church" underground. The Catholic and Orthodox branches of Christianity are actually just the Satanic Roman Empire continuing in slightly different forms, who will eventually usher in the antichrist and the end of the age. From another angle, you have liberal Christian theologians such as Rob Bell and Don Golden stating that the spirit of Christ is incompatible with any form of colonization or empire-building. Despite what some Christians do in his name, Jesus is always about providing life, joy, and freedom to people, whether these people acknowledge him or not, whether they believe certain doctrines or not.
So which is it? Will the real Jesus please stand up? Is Jesus a colonizer or a liberator? Yes, a large segment of today's Christianity, and a large segment of the historical church, takes a very authoritarian, colonizing approach. But maybe the real spirit of Jesus has left the building, so to speak. Maybe Satan or someone else (whoever the hell has been in charge of raising the various world empires throughout history, all of whom have colonized and destroyed the cultures of others, it's not just Christianity that has done that) has taken control. Or maybe it really has been Jesus all along. So... will invoking Jesus invite a self-erasure? Or will you find that invoking Jesus does the opposite? How can you know? And if Jesus is a deceptive deity, will you even be able to know before it's too late and he has assimilated you? (Hypothetically speaking, here. I don't personally invoke gods.)
There are so many directions I can go with this, but this post is long enough. From the little I know of Paganism, most of them are strongly anti-authoritarian and won't let some guy tell them whom they can and can't worship, based on his own opinions of what that god is. Based on the comments on the article and the podcast, it looks like a good chunk of the Pagan community has decided they have the right to define Jesus for themselves, and to reject or accept their personal ideas of who Jesus is, as they see fit. So who knows how influential this article actually was. At least it gave me some food for thought, for which I'm grateful.
Anyway, I close my ramblings with a song I wrote several years ago, which seems apt for this topic.
Name
As a disclosure, I'm not Pagan, nor do I any longer feel safe identifying as a Christian, so my opinions are going to be more philosophical than personal. I'm interested in exploring these concepts, not prescribing boundaries.
The essence of the article is that because Christianity has consistently sought to exterminate Paganism throughout history, either by conversion or by execution, the spirit of Christianity is incompatible with Paganism. Many good points are made, and I can totally see where he's coming from. What I'm interested in, though, are the cracks and crevices in his arguments; the nuances on the edges of his monolithic declarations (which, to be honest, came across as thumpy in places).
First, let's just acknowledge that Webster presents a very narrow view of Church history and severely oversimplifies its complicated relationship with political power. Let's also acknowledge that he ignores the HUGE subject of how religious syncretism has affected Christianity, in both directions, in and out. For having seminary and history degrees, he really should know this stuff; that he ignored these things is baffling.
The main thing I want to focus on, though, is the ramifications for his arguments of his obvious conception of gods and goddesses as literal entities. (As opposed, perhaps, to a kind of Jungian psychological approach, where deities are really archetypes — elements of the human psyche, endogenous creatures that take life in our collective imaginations.) That there are literal, exogenous spirits who can imbue physical bodies (besides being a fun and/or scary thing to turn over in my mind) is really what makes this article challenging to unpack. I don't know where I stand on that issue. Are there actually intelligent spiritual entities, separate from ourselves, whom humans label as god/desses, or are these actually psychological projections, or is it some mix of the two, or is it something else altogether? I do not know.
But let's assume there are literal spirits, in order to address this article. Because we need to know the nature of these spirits he believes in. Are spirits (or, more specifically, is the spirit of Jesus Christ) eternal? Because if so, that would mean that Jesus existed before the rise of Christianity. (Which makes you wonder where Webster believes Jesus was before that, and what he was doing.) Can the fundamental nature of spirits change over time? So could, say, Venus, one day decide she's bored with being seductive, and instead focus more on, oh, traveling or something? Or is Venus immutably seductive, because goddesses/gods don't change? Likewise, if Jesus is a god whose nature is to eradicate culture and destroy dissenters (as Webster claims), was Jesus always this way? Will he always be this way? Or was he maybe more peaceful at one time (say, during the time when Christians were being persecuted by, ahem, people who worshiped multiple deities), and later evolved to be more wrathful? Unpacking the theology of what Webster means when he talks about the spirit of Jesus really affects the validity of his arguments.
If I had to, today, decide how I wanted to understand what goddess/god spirits are, I would probably choose a conception similar to Plato's Forms. Spirits are concepts, often universal concepts such as harmony, division, communication, and so on, that imbue the physical world. So anything beautiful is, at least partially, imbued with the goddess Venus. Anything angry or warlike is calling on Mars. And so on. Thus, spirits cannot change, because they are concepts. You can't change the concept of "roundness" or "green," even if you find different words for it or different nuances of it.
And it's important to recognize that the names for these concepts DO change. Not only due to different languages, and linguistic shifts over time, but also, more subtly, due to the co-opting by various cultural elements of certain concepts.
For example, let's take the concept of the struggle for economic freedom for all of humanity. A worthy goal. This concept or spirit (as I'm currently deciding to conceive of the word "spirit") clothes itself in different forms throughout time and place depending on the context. The spirit of universal economic freedom (for the sake of expediency, let's call this spirit Santa Claus, OK?) uses whatever tools it can find to accomplish its goals. In one context, the most expedient tool Santa Claus can use is capitalism, while in another context, communism serves the job much better. It's a crude example, but you can hopefully see my point, that the spirit behind very, very different movements can still be the same.
The Santa Claus impulse, to provide economically for all of humanity, drives very different people and marches under very different, sometimes even opposing, banners at times, based on the culture that surrounds it. Now, let's say Santa Claus merged with Capitalism for awhile, because Capitalism was able to provide a lot of wealth for a wide range of people, and that made Santa Claus happy. But over time Capitalism became corrupted by greedy people who refused to heed to the problems that were developing in the system, and instead collected more and more of the wealth for themselves. Is Capitalism still imbued with Santa Claus? I would say no. At some point Santa Claus had to depart from the banner of Capitalism and find a different vehicle to accomplish his goals, most likely even fighting against the very thing he once indwelled.
So where I'm going with this, is back to the question of Jesus Christ. If there is a spirit of Jesus Christ, is he, as Webster claims, a malefic spirit at heart, who deceives people with promises of peace and light, while actually only wanting to assimilate them, or destroy them if they refuse to be assimilated? Or is it possible that Jesus is actually something else, and another spirit has co-opted the banner of Christianity, essentially driving the spirit of Jesus away from the very thing he once indwelled?
The latter is actually an argument that some Christians make, from a surprising diversity of viewpoints. On one side, you have far right fundamentalists (the kind who merge their faith with their American nationalism,) such as Chuck Missler, who say that when Christianity merged with the Roman Empire, it ceased being Christ-like, and drove "the true church" underground. The Catholic and Orthodox branches of Christianity are actually just the Satanic Roman Empire continuing in slightly different forms, who will eventually usher in the antichrist and the end of the age. From another angle, you have liberal Christian theologians such as Rob Bell and Don Golden stating that the spirit of Christ is incompatible with any form of colonization or empire-building. Despite what some Christians do in his name, Jesus is always about providing life, joy, and freedom to people, whether these people acknowledge him or not, whether they believe certain doctrines or not.
So which is it? Will the real Jesus please stand up? Is Jesus a colonizer or a liberator? Yes, a large segment of today's Christianity, and a large segment of the historical church, takes a very authoritarian, colonizing approach. But maybe the real spirit of Jesus has left the building, so to speak. Maybe Satan or someone else (whoever the hell has been in charge of raising the various world empires throughout history, all of whom have colonized and destroyed the cultures of others, it's not just Christianity that has done that) has taken control. Or maybe it really has been Jesus all along. So... will invoking Jesus invite a self-erasure? Or will you find that invoking Jesus does the opposite? How can you know? And if Jesus is a deceptive deity, will you even be able to know before it's too late and he has assimilated you? (Hypothetically speaking, here. I don't personally invoke gods.)
There are so many directions I can go with this, but this post is long enough. From the little I know of Paganism, most of them are strongly anti-authoritarian and won't let some guy tell them whom they can and can't worship, based on his own opinions of what that god is. Based on the comments on the article and the podcast, it looks like a good chunk of the Pagan community has decided they have the right to define Jesus for themselves, and to reject or accept their personal ideas of who Jesus is, as they see fit. So who knows how influential this article actually was. At least it gave me some food for thought, for which I'm grateful.
Anyway, I close my ramblings with a song I wrote several years ago, which seems apt for this topic.
Name
Thursday, January 8, 2015
the devil's greatest achievement
I want to start a series of posts loosely organized around the quite-simple (ha) theme of "how the questions of evil affect my epistemology," but I don't have time to get all my thoughts out right this moment. For now, an introductory teaser:
The greatest achievement the devil ever made was convincing people he doesn't exist.
So said someone famous.
I, however, think the devil would be smarter than that. People who aren't agitated for a cause are pretty useless for anything the devil would want to do.
Much better to convince people that fighting him will be effective using technique XYZ, which doesn't actually do anything at all. The fear/tribalism response is one of the most powerful instincts humans have, and can be rallied for all kinds of purposes. Make people spin their wheels, believing they are fighting evil, when actually they aren't. Or, even better, convince them to do evil things, ironically believing they are fighting evil.
THAT, friends, would be the devil's greatest achievement.
The greatest achievement the devil ever made was convincing people he doesn't exist.
So said someone famous.
I, however, think the devil would be smarter than that. People who aren't agitated for a cause are pretty useless for anything the devil would want to do.
Much better to convince people that fighting him will be effective using technique XYZ, which doesn't actually do anything at all. The fear/tribalism response is one of the most powerful instincts humans have, and can be rallied for all kinds of purposes. Make people spin their wheels, believing they are fighting evil, when actually they aren't. Or, even better, convince them to do evil things, ironically believing they are fighting evil.
THAT, friends, would be the devil's greatest achievement.
Friday, December 5, 2014
"Saving Christmas," the movie (guest post)
My friend, Peter Brahm, posted this on his FaceBook wall, and I think it's great. With his permission, I'm copying it here. He doesn't have a website , but maybe he should start one! He IS working on writing a book, I hear, so follow his FaceBook page if you're interested in reading that when it's ready.
This is a real poster for a real movie that was really made and really just came out in real theaters.
First off, you have to love how Kirk Cameron, the writer and star of the movie, has his name in letters just a little smaller than the title, while the message of the movie, "put Christ back in Christmas," is in teenie weenie little letters you can barely notice.
Or how about the fact that the title appears to be "Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas," as though he wants all the credit for "saving" a holiday which he and a bunch of his lunatic followers believes is being oppressed into nonexistence, when in actuality it's growing so big that people are even starting to celebrate it the month before?
Or how about the idea that this movie supposedly rails against the commercialization of Christmas, but this is a movie that people will have to pay to see? Hypocritical much, Cameron?
The very message of this movie is repulsive. There is no war on Christmas, period. Acknowledging other people's holidays during December is not waging war on Christmas or Christians or anything like that, it's called being inclusive.
Nutjobs like Cameron, who oppress everyone different from them and then cry about "persecution" any time that they get some reality check about how there's people who aren't Christians who also deserve to be respected, are poisoning society. They spread self-righteous hatred under the veil that they're really doing it out of love for those that they treat like sh*t. They lie about being "oppressed," in spite of making up the religious majority of the nation, whilst demonizing the people they claim they are being oppressed by. They're in the media, they're in the press, and they're even in office, too. And they're the ones who are giving religion a bad name. They're the ones causing much of the criticisms about religion these days.
Movies like "God's Not Dead," "Heaven is for Real," "A Matter of Faith," "Persecuted," and... THIS cosmic abomination are detrimental to society and religion itself, and if you claim to be a Christian, then trust me, supporting this movie and encouraging its level of dogmatic insanity is only going to lead to your religion fading into irrelevance in the near future.
This is a real poster for a real movie that was really made and really just came out in real theaters.
First off, you have to love how Kirk Cameron, the writer and star of the movie, has his name in letters just a little smaller than the title, while the message of the movie, "put Christ back in Christmas," is in teenie weenie little letters you can barely notice.
Or how about the fact that the title appears to be "Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas," as though he wants all the credit for "saving" a holiday which he and a bunch of his lunatic followers believes is being oppressed into nonexistence, when in actuality it's growing so big that people are even starting to celebrate it the month before?
Or how about the idea that this movie supposedly rails against the commercialization of Christmas, but this is a movie that people will have to pay to see? Hypocritical much, Cameron?
The very message of this movie is repulsive. There is no war on Christmas, period. Acknowledging other people's holidays during December is not waging war on Christmas or Christians or anything like that, it's called being inclusive.
Nutjobs like Cameron, who oppress everyone different from them and then cry about "persecution" any time that they get some reality check about how there's people who aren't Christians who also deserve to be respected, are poisoning society. They spread self-righteous hatred under the veil that they're really doing it out of love for those that they treat like sh*t. They lie about being "oppressed," in spite of making up the religious majority of the nation, whilst demonizing the people they claim they are being oppressed by. They're in the media, they're in the press, and they're even in office, too. And they're the ones who are giving religion a bad name. They're the ones causing much of the criticisms about religion these days.
Movies like "God's Not Dead," "Heaven is for Real," "A Matter of Faith," "Persecuted," and... THIS cosmic abomination are detrimental to society and religion itself, and if you claim to be a Christian, then trust me, supporting this movie and encouraging its level of dogmatic insanity is only going to lead to your religion fading into irrelevance in the near future.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Dear Jane Teresa,
I had an insight recently that I think you might be interested in.
I was driving along in my car on a long trip last week, listening to your podcast, and I started thinking about all the dream interpretation and alchemy I did several years ago, when I was going through the process of a divorce, questioning my religion, raising small babies, moving, and a host of other extremely stressful situations. I had remembered lots of dreams during that time period, and I had tried to do an alchemy at least every couple of weeks. Now I wondered, in hindsight, while driving down the highway, if the dream alchemy had really helped, actually. It seemed to me like my healing took a long time. And in fact, I still haven't accomplished some of the goals that I was hoping to achieve through alchemy. Was that all a waste of time? Or did it actually make a difference? "Ah well, who knows," I thought.
When I arrived at my destination, I stopped at a café and to my surprise, I randomly happened to bump into an old friend. We hadn't seen each other in years, but I knew that he had gone through a similar period of extreme stress, around roughly the same time I had gone through mine. As we were talking, catching up, I noticed that when he brought up the names of certain people, or mentioned certain places or situations, how bitter his language became. He was still angry, and I sensed that his current life is hampered by his anger. It was so obvious to me, but as he was speaking I got the feeling that he wasn't even aware of how angry he was.
I noticed that by comparison, I was doing well, emotionally speaking. I am no longer angry at the people involved. I'm not nearly as bitter as I used to be. I feel like I have made considerable progress in making peace with (much of) my past. (Though I'm sure there is more work to be done!) I am able to look at what happened to me, and not be triggered by panic or rage. I'm more relaxed, and definitely happier than I ever have been.
When I noticed the difference between myself and my friend, it felt like there was my answer. I had engaged with my unconscious, as one (of several) interventions to improve my inner condition, during that time period of extreme stress, and now I can see that my hard work really did help. I may not have achieved everything I wanted, but perhaps the very act of trying at all was enough for the unconscious to continue its drive for maturity and wholeness and peace, at a faster rate than it could have otherwise.
Now, of course, my friend's situation was not exactly like mine, his personality is not mine, I used other interventions besides only dream alchemy, and so forth, so I can't really make any kind of scientific comparison. These are just my subjective impressions. But the uncanny timing and surprise nature of the visit caused me, at least, to pay attention. It felt like an affirmation to the question I had asked myself earlier in the day. Yes, I am better off for having paid attention to my dreams and having tried to intervene. Yes, I did make progress in 4 years that other people might have needed 8 years for (or who knows how long). Yes, the unconscious should be listened to.
Since you had helped me with a couple of my dreams, I thought I would share this testimonial with you. Thank you so much for the show, for your research and development into the topic of dreams, and your dedication to share it with the world.
Sincerely,
Sleeping Realities
I had an insight recently that I think you might be interested in.
I was driving along in my car on a long trip last week, listening to your podcast, and I started thinking about all the dream interpretation and alchemy I did several years ago, when I was going through the process of a divorce, questioning my religion, raising small babies, moving, and a host of other extremely stressful situations. I had remembered lots of dreams during that time period, and I had tried to do an alchemy at least every couple of weeks. Now I wondered, in hindsight, while driving down the highway, if the dream alchemy had really helped, actually. It seemed to me like my healing took a long time. And in fact, I still haven't accomplished some of the goals that I was hoping to achieve through alchemy. Was that all a waste of time? Or did it actually make a difference? "Ah well, who knows," I thought.
When I arrived at my destination, I stopped at a café and to my surprise, I randomly happened to bump into an old friend. We hadn't seen each other in years, but I knew that he had gone through a similar period of extreme stress, around roughly the same time I had gone through mine. As we were talking, catching up, I noticed that when he brought up the names of certain people, or mentioned certain places or situations, how bitter his language became. He was still angry, and I sensed that his current life is hampered by his anger. It was so obvious to me, but as he was speaking I got the feeling that he wasn't even aware of how angry he was.
I noticed that by comparison, I was doing well, emotionally speaking. I am no longer angry at the people involved. I'm not nearly as bitter as I used to be. I feel like I have made considerable progress in making peace with (much of) my past. (Though I'm sure there is more work to be done!) I am able to look at what happened to me, and not be triggered by panic or rage. I'm more relaxed, and definitely happier than I ever have been.
When I noticed the difference between myself and my friend, it felt like there was my answer. I had engaged with my unconscious, as one (of several) interventions to improve my inner condition, during that time period of extreme stress, and now I can see that my hard work really did help. I may not have achieved everything I wanted, but perhaps the very act of trying at all was enough for the unconscious to continue its drive for maturity and wholeness and peace, at a faster rate than it could have otherwise.
Now, of course, my friend's situation was not exactly like mine, his personality is not mine, I used other interventions besides only dream alchemy, and so forth, so I can't really make any kind of scientific comparison. These are just my subjective impressions. But the uncanny timing and surprise nature of the visit caused me, at least, to pay attention. It felt like an affirmation to the question I had asked myself earlier in the day. Yes, I am better off for having paid attention to my dreams and having tried to intervene. Yes, I did make progress in 4 years that other people might have needed 8 years for (or who knows how long). Yes, the unconscious should be listened to.
Since you had helped me with a couple of my dreams, I thought I would share this testimonial with you. Thank you so much for the show, for your research and development into the topic of dreams, and your dedication to share it with the world.
Sincerely,
Sleeping Realities
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)