Living with major changes is never easy, and the older I get, the more of a challenge it is to have established practices upset or schedules altered.
The past month, along with the world in upheaval now that Trump is trying to run the White House, has seen the shocking death of a friend, 55, who hid her terminal cancer from everyone. She emailed us in early January and by the end of the month was gone. We had relied on her for advice, legal and otherwise.
Soon thereafter, our long-time family physician announced his retirement, effective almost at once. More turmoil. The YMCA near me, where I have been exercising and meeting friends, is being torn down and replaced, in two years, by something grandiose, taking away from hundreds of locals a familiar "second home." How can I adjust to all this change?
One constant in this cycle of turmoil and change are the daily email meditations from Richard Rohr, the recent ones reminding me of the importance of contemplation. After years of reading and practicing this, it is still a challenge, but the advice of Rohr, along with that of Thomas Merton, Thomas Keating and other spiritual masters, helps me understand the importance of gazing at something I like, paying such rapt attention to the reality of the present that I can stop analyzing and judging; I can stop thinking.
To take in an entire scene or object (a tree, for example), whether attractive or not, without labeling it good or bad, is a pure and positive act that stops time, as it were, for fifteen minutes or so as I breathe deeply and relax my body as well as my mind.
For me, this silent period of calm contemplation is prayerful, but it doesn't ask for anything or require established beliefs. It implies gratitude for the chance to step back from our thinking selves and just look at what is real in front of us, but the free flow of consciousness need not include intentional gratitude.
If I don't take time to do this--and it is not as easy as it sounds--I will be jerked around by distracting information, noise, fears and worries, caught up in the turbulence of the world around me, ready to shout, "Stop, world! I want to get off!"
As for the political madness and mayhem, my other remedy is to turn to satire (Andy Borowitz and others) and comedy to gain some detachment from the anger I tend to feel, as I remind myself of the growing resistance movements that are afoot. The world, then, begins to look less bleak.
Showing posts with label Andy Borowitz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andy Borowitz. Show all posts
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Our Dark Side
"Man is not truly one, but truly two," Dr. Jekyll in Stevenson's famous novella discovers. I am re-reading this in preparation for a course this week I am teaching on Scottish writers, and I am intrigued by the dark side of the personality that this story explored just at the time, or a bit before, Freud's theories of the id and ego were published.
If part of us is indeed wild, uncivilized and violent like Hyde, potentially evil, we are saved from becoming savages (in this primitive summation of both the story and the psychology) by the better angels of our natures, or by what Freud called the Ego; others would call it the rational mind or the conscience.
Even before reading Maureen Dowd's column in the today's NYTimes, I see a connection between all this and the current political scene, with Romney and Santorum, most prominently, saying things they might regret, as if the Ego of the GOP establishment has lost control over their candidates.
Romney's gaffes show a lack of careful thinking; he embarrasses himself and his campaign by referring to his own wealth in a way that a more thoughtful man, like Obama, hardly ever does; in fact, I can't recall hearing any uproar over any gaffe Obama has made. He thinks before he speaks, even in spontaneous, unscripted interviews.
This does not prevent his many virulent critics, of course, from unleashing their attacks, calling him a Muslim, a socialist, an elitist "with a Kenyan anti-colonial worldview" (Gingrich), even a Nazi, all the while the President himself (as E. J. Dionne aptly observes in Commonweal) lives the life of the ideal family man who got ahead by hard work and education. His critics insist, however, on denying him this identity and portray him as an alien, somehow different.
Santorum calls Obama a snob perhaps because the President speaks in complete, coherent sentences, unlike his predecessor, or because he supports public education, which Santorum does not. Santorum doesn't believe in a real separation of church and state and declared after reading JFK's famous statement on the topic that "it makes me want to throw up." I suppose the Sanctimonious One would rather live in the 17th century or earlier. He seems ill-informed about many things, including the past, and expects Catholic voters to support him!
It is the same Santorum who said that universities are "indoctrination mills." You can't take such a man seriously as a balanced, sane candidate for any office, much less the presidency. His dark, aggressive side, which seems to appeal to the Tea Party people, has taken over, and maybe the only response is to laugh at the madness that passes as public discourse in recent weeks.
Comedy, indeed, is what Andy Borowitz makes of Santorum's dicta (Feb. 28 borowitzreport.com). It's no wonder that so many younger people get their news from Comedy Central and Jon Stewart. Yet the ignorance of so many of these Tea Party politicians is serious, even tragic; it reflects not only a lack of thought but a stubborn refusal to consider the facts of history. And we know what Santayana said about those who are ignorant of history. And we know what Plato said about ignorance: it is the greatest evil.
If part of us is indeed wild, uncivilized and violent like Hyde, potentially evil, we are saved from becoming savages (in this primitive summation of both the story and the psychology) by the better angels of our natures, or by what Freud called the Ego; others would call it the rational mind or the conscience.
Even before reading Maureen Dowd's column in the today's NYTimes, I see a connection between all this and the current political scene, with Romney and Santorum, most prominently, saying things they might regret, as if the Ego of the GOP establishment has lost control over their candidates.
Romney's gaffes show a lack of careful thinking; he embarrasses himself and his campaign by referring to his own wealth in a way that a more thoughtful man, like Obama, hardly ever does; in fact, I can't recall hearing any uproar over any gaffe Obama has made. He thinks before he speaks, even in spontaneous, unscripted interviews.
This does not prevent his many virulent critics, of course, from unleashing their attacks, calling him a Muslim, a socialist, an elitist "with a Kenyan anti-colonial worldview" (Gingrich), even a Nazi, all the while the President himself (as E. J. Dionne aptly observes in Commonweal) lives the life of the ideal family man who got ahead by hard work and education. His critics insist, however, on denying him this identity and portray him as an alien, somehow different.
Santorum calls Obama a snob perhaps because the President speaks in complete, coherent sentences, unlike his predecessor, or because he supports public education, which Santorum does not. Santorum doesn't believe in a real separation of church and state and declared after reading JFK's famous statement on the topic that "it makes me want to throw up." I suppose the Sanctimonious One would rather live in the 17th century or earlier. He seems ill-informed about many things, including the past, and expects Catholic voters to support him!
It is the same Santorum who said that universities are "indoctrination mills." You can't take such a man seriously as a balanced, sane candidate for any office, much less the presidency. His dark, aggressive side, which seems to appeal to the Tea Party people, has taken over, and maybe the only response is to laugh at the madness that passes as public discourse in recent weeks.
Comedy, indeed, is what Andy Borowitz makes of Santorum's dicta (Feb. 28 borowitzreport.com). It's no wonder that so many younger people get their news from Comedy Central and Jon Stewart. Yet the ignorance of so many of these Tea Party politicians is serious, even tragic; it reflects not only a lack of thought but a stubborn refusal to consider the facts of history. And we know what Santayana said about those who are ignorant of history. And we know what Plato said about ignorance: it is the greatest evil.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Why do we love to hate?
Andy Borowitz, in his frequent borowitzreport.com, sends out faux news bulletins that are often fine (and funny) examples of satire, in contrast to much of the cynical humor that passes for satire in the media. I recommend him to anyone unfamiliar with his work.
In his post for Oct. 8, Borowitz announces a "poll" showing that the possibility of a race between a black man and a Mormon for president in 2012 poses a dilemma for that part of the voting public who hate both groups. Their only source of relief: no woman is in the race, or so it seems at this still early date.
We may smile or laugh at such a bit of "news," but the truth is that hatred, which usually goes by some other name, comes naturally to many people. Perhaps that's why the Christian principle of "love thy neighbor" is often impossible for many to follow.
Early on, we learn to put others down in an effort to mask our own insecurities and feel (however briefly) more powerful. There is always some group--those different from us--who can be condescendingly accepted or rather--because more fun--castigated as inferior, unworthy, etc. In short, we love to hate, and history is replete with examples of one group hating others enough to kill them.
I recall the chilling short story by Shirley Jackson, "The Lottery," which seems to suggest that traditions in general are to blame, though the story is open to many and varied interpretations. Her fable takes place in a small, all-American town where the annual custom is for the townsfolk to select a lottery "winner" to be stoned to death by everyone else. The elders warn that breaking this ancient custom is wrong, but the younger generations do not protest; they carry on this horrifying ritual, perhaps because they need an outlet for their fears.
I see fear as the greatest threat to everyday happiness and civilization. Fear (of the stranger) can quickly turn to anger, which turns to hate and often to violence: this is the pattern found in racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of hatred, each of which gives the hater a reason for living. The white supremacist has learned that hatred can be a kind of energy, a source of fufillment.
At least such racists tend to be open about their feelings, unlike so many in the voting population today, who are full of a resentment that they cloak in patriotic or Christian garb. They end up hating in the name of religion or ideology and as such end up repeating some of the worst lessons, which they never learned, from the past.
The study of hatred shows how much harder loving is than hating. Hating others, as any schoolboy bully knows, requires little effort. Teaching one another how to respect, accept, and love one another more fully is what education and religion should be about.
In his post for Oct. 8, Borowitz announces a "poll" showing that the possibility of a race between a black man and a Mormon for president in 2012 poses a dilemma for that part of the voting public who hate both groups. Their only source of relief: no woman is in the race, or so it seems at this still early date.
We may smile or laugh at such a bit of "news," but the truth is that hatred, which usually goes by some other name, comes naturally to many people. Perhaps that's why the Christian principle of "love thy neighbor" is often impossible for many to follow.
Early on, we learn to put others down in an effort to mask our own insecurities and feel (however briefly) more powerful. There is always some group--those different from us--who can be condescendingly accepted or rather--because more fun--castigated as inferior, unworthy, etc. In short, we love to hate, and history is replete with examples of one group hating others enough to kill them.
I recall the chilling short story by Shirley Jackson, "The Lottery," which seems to suggest that traditions in general are to blame, though the story is open to many and varied interpretations. Her fable takes place in a small, all-American town where the annual custom is for the townsfolk to select a lottery "winner" to be stoned to death by everyone else. The elders warn that breaking this ancient custom is wrong, but the younger generations do not protest; they carry on this horrifying ritual, perhaps because they need an outlet for their fears.
I see fear as the greatest threat to everyday happiness and civilization. Fear (of the stranger) can quickly turn to anger, which turns to hate and often to violence: this is the pattern found in racism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of hatred, each of which gives the hater a reason for living. The white supremacist has learned that hatred can be a kind of energy, a source of fufillment.
At least such racists tend to be open about their feelings, unlike so many in the voting population today, who are full of a resentment that they cloak in patriotic or Christian garb. They end up hating in the name of religion or ideology and as such end up repeating some of the worst lessons, which they never learned, from the past.
The study of hatred shows how much harder loving is than hating. Hating others, as any schoolboy bully knows, requires little effort. Teaching one another how to respect, accept, and love one another more fully is what education and religion should be about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)