ohionightsmusings - Tumblr blog

[ohionightsmusings]

Love the neighbor, every neighbor, today.

You are a part of a habitat.  You are interconnected; rooted with other roots of being unseen.  You are not isolated, cut off; not a thing-in-and-of-itself.  

You and I are friends.  We are here within this community of beings without relation to our consent as to existence.  We are just here and none of us chose this.  

What we understand to be difference is variance on a unity.  Race, class, religion, political identity, sex, gender: these are differences within a unity of humanity.  That which is alive but not human: the difference of species, animals, plants, bacteria; these are also composed of the same material as we.  Difference is a play of variances on that which is the same.  To speak of diversity and unity is to already assume the possibility for real connection and understanding.

Your neighbor, even your enemy, is not as separate from you as you imagine.  The brain, in some kind of survival of the fittest weakness, assumes that the person who is “different” than me is dangerous and an enemy.  But that person, within this interconnected habitat, is essentially you: made of the same physical  and “soulful” components that you are.  

You can love the neighbor today.  The saying goes that you shall love your neighbor as yourself.  What is the connotation there?  You are the neighbor as well.  To love your neighbor is to love yourself and to love yourself is to love the neighbor.

Today.  You shall love the neighbor, every neighbor, today.  

[ohionightsmusings]

My love affair and identification with music was so profound as an early adolescent that I decided that I must listen to the bands I loved in any and every kind of situation.  I wanted music when I was studying, playing basketball, sleeping, hanging with friends, and every other possible activity.  The sound would be like air; as necessary as food or drink.  

Over time I have found that certain artists are wonderful for writing.  There are many excellent “post-rock” bands that do instrumental rock n roll that flow from the peaceful to the explosive.  I want that whole wave of difference to come over me during the creative process.  This playlist represents that full range of sound and feeling.  Use it while you walk, run, meditate, or do whatever artistic endeavours that you embark upon.  

[ohionightsmusings]

So good to remember this song and lyrics that Dylan wrote when he was 22(??!!). Which side is God on? This side: Love the neighbor, every neighbor, today. And that's it.

"So now as I’m leavin’ I’m weary as Hell The confusion I’m feelin’ Ain’t no tongue can tell The words fill my head And fall to the floor If God’s on our side He’ll stop the next war"

[ohionightsmusings]

Contemplation and Distraction

“Contemplative intuition has nothing to do with temperament.  Though it sometimes happens that a man of quiet temperament becomes a contemplative, it may also happen that the very passivity of his character keeps him from suffering the inner struggle and the crisis through which one generally comes to a deeper spiritual awakakening.” - Thomas Merton

Very good reminder that a quiet temperament, and temperament at all, is not what being a contemplative is at all.  When I was younger I assumed it was physically impossible for me to quiet my mind enough to meditate.  It’s sad that meditation/contemplation is something that we tend to associate with passivity.  It takes deep passion and commitment, and even rage, to take on the challenge of contemplation.  That may be truer for those of us who grew up in recent times than ever before.  Not sure if that is true though.  Maybe it’s always equally challenging no matter the culture or era.

[ohionightsmusings]

Praise the Lord from the earth, You sea monsters and all depths; Fire and hail, snow and mist Storm wind that fulfill His word: You mountains and all you hills, You fruit trees and all you cedars: You wild animals and all you tame animals, You creeping things and you winged fowl.

[ohionightsmusings]

The justification of statistics is that deeds and events are rare occurrences in everyday life and in history.  Yet the meaningfulness of everyday relationships is disclosed not in everyday life but in rare deeds, just as the signficance of a historical period shows itself only in the few events that illuminate it.  The application of the law of large numbers and long periods to politics or history signifies nothing less than the wilful obliteration of their very subject matter, and it is a hopeless enterprise to search for meaning in politics or significance in history when everything that is not everyday behavior or automatic trends has been ruled out as immaterial.

Hannah Arendt from “The Human Condition”

[ohionightsmusings]

Necessity, Violence, and Pacifism

“What all Greek philosophers, no matter how opposed to polis life, took for granted is that freedom is exclusively located in the political realm, that necessity is primarily a prepolitical phenomenon, characteristic of the private household organization, and that force and violence are justified in this sphere because they are the only means to master necessity - for instance, by ruling over slaves - and to become free.  Because all human beings are subject to necessity, they are entitled to violence towards others; violence is the prepolitical act of liberating oneself from the necessity of life for the freedom of world.” - Hannah Arendt from “The Human Condition”

Greek philosophers assumed that freedom is only in the political realm where all are equal and speech is powerful.  Necessity is pre-political and associated with the private household where all are not equal (slaves, patriarchy, etc).  Force and violence are justified in the home because they are related to necessity.  Violence is pre-political and associated with necessity.  How does this relate to Christ and pacifist movements?  I suppose that pacifism is only possible when one accepts the fact they may die or suffer from their loving actions.  Necessity and violence.  Is there a true correlation?  Only if one accepts that human beings are absolutely bound to survival of the fittest nature.  And we know that is not the truth.  Human beings give up their lives for others (and even take their own lives in suicide).  We are not bound to necessity in that way.  However, we are, of course, radically shaped and driven by the survival instinct.  It’s not an unconditional necessity though.  Complex subject here.  Jesus gives the call to love the neighbor regardless of survival and necessity.

[ohionightsmusings]

Final paragraph from Hannah Arendt's incredible "The Origins of Totalitarianism":

But there remains also the truth that every end in history necessarily contains a new beginning; this beginning is the promise, the only “message” which the end can ever produce.  Beginning, before it becomes a historical event, is the supreme capacity of man; politically, it is identical with man’s freedom.  “That a beginning be made man was created” said Augustine.  This beginning is guaranteed by each new birth; it is indeed every man.

[ohionightsmusings]

Thomas Merton and the Divine Question

Please don't be distracted by the problematic/catastrophic gender-specific language related to the divine and enjoy this meditative thought: 

"He answers Himself in us and this answer is divine life, divine creativity, making all things new.  We ourselves become His echo and His answer.  It is as if in creating us God asked a question, and in awaking us to contemplation He answered the question, so that the contemplative is at the same time, question and answer.”

-Thomas Merton

[ohionightsmusings]

Trump talking about "Judeo-Christian values" is truly shameful. The man who rejects the immigrant, oppresses the poor, and sexually assaults women wants us to say "Merry Christmas". He also is woefully ignorant of theology to be speaking about this subject which he has no understanding of. Christ calls you to love the neighbor, not do some formality of saying a religious phrase.

[ohionightsmusings]

While considering my responsibility towards my neighbor I am reminded of Cain and Abel. Cain kills Abel out of jealousy and God later approaches him. Cain is asked where his brother is. His response, much like our own cynical individualism today, is with the statement "Am I my brother's keeper?" The implied answer is YES. You are your neighbor's keeper. Love your neighbor, every neighbor, today.

[ohionightsmusings]

Thought was secondary to speech, but speech and action were considered to be coeval and coequal, of the same rank and the same kind; and this originally meant not only that most political action, in so far as it remains outside the sphere of violence, is indeed transacted in words, but more fundamentally that finding the right words at the right moment, quite apart from the information or communication they may convey, is action.  Only sheer violence is mute, and for this reason violence alone can never be great.

Hannah Arendt from “The Human Condition”

[ohionightsmusings]

A little write up I did for the new Wolf Parade single and it’s relation to Donald Trump and Leonard Cohen.

[ohionightsmusings]

The Human Condition (notes)

THE HUMAN CONDITION

by Hannah Arendt 

PROLOGUE (notes)

"Should the emancipation and secularization of the modern age, which began with a turning-away, not necessarily from God, but from a god who was the Father of men in heaven, end with an even more fateful repudiation of an Earth who was the Mother of all living creatures under the sky?"

Right away Arendt is going after the Enlightenment and it’s rejection of the loving, immanent God in exchange for the calculated, necessary being that helped form the basis of scientific advancement.  The problem is not the science, but the lack of ethics in connection to sceience and technology.  The new humanism becomes a dehumanization of humanity that could ultimately lead to absolute and total annihilation of people and other life on earth.    

"This future man, whom the scientists tell us they will produce in no more than a hundred years, seems to be possessed by a rebellion against human existence as it has been given, a free gift from nowhere (secularly speaking), which he wishes to exchange, as it were, for something he has made himself.  There is no reason to doubt our abilities to accomplish such an exchange, just as there is no reason to doubt our present ability to destroy all organic life on earth.  The question is only whether we wish to use our new scientific and technical knowledge in this direction, and this question cannot be decided by scientific means; it is a political question of the first order and therefore can hardly be left to the decision of professional scientists or professional politicians."

Arendt seems to use “politics” as a term for basic human connection and ethics.  Politics is human acting in relation to each other.  I actually very much like this definition of politics.  In this sense Jesus and Paul become political activists in the call to love the neighbor.  Arendt is questioning the political, and therefore, ethical implications of a purely “objective” science that can potentionally be devastating towards real people in the world.  Where are the ethical boundaries upon science and technology?

"If it should turn out to be true that knowledge (in the modern sense of know-how) and thought have parted company for good, then we would indeed become the helpless slaves, not so much of our machines as of our know-how, thoughtless creatures at the mercy of every gadget which is technically possible, no matter how murderous it is."

“Know-how” is a Heideggerean term for knowledge in relation to practical application.  Know-how is not thought; it’s simply the knowledge in relation to a tool.  Heideggar famously refers to know-how in terms of learning how to use a hammer (the ability to use the hammer to hammer a nail).  Thought is beyond know-how.  Arendt is concerned that all pursuits of knowledge in the modern world focus on know-how, in terms of technology, as opposed to thought, which would be related to politics/ethics.

"However, even apart from these last and yet uncertain consequences, the situation created by the sciences is of great political significance.  Wherever the relevance of speech is at stake, matters become political by definition, for speech is what makes man a political being."  

I haven’t thought about this before but I suppose it would be true.  I know that Derrida worked with Arendt’s thought and this would seem to be something he would be interested in.  Arendt is going to go deeper in regards to this with her exploration of how mathematical symbols have gotten to the point of being beyond speech.

"If we would follow the advice, so frequently urged upon us, to adjust our cultural attitudes to the present statuts of scientific achievement, we would in all earnest adopt a way of life in which speech is no longer meaningful.  For the sciences today have been forced to adopt a “language” of mathematical symbols which, though it was originally meant only as an abbreviation for spoken statements, now contains statements that in no way can be translated back into speech."  

Fascinating.  Not sure what all the implications of this are.  But she is going to go on to say that some scientists have been irresponsible in their pursuit of technological advancement.

"The reason why it may be wise to distrust the political judgment of scientists qua scientists is not primarily their lack of “character” - that they did not refuse to develop atomic weapons - or their naivete - that they did not understand that once these weapons were developed they would be the last to be consulted about their use - but precisely the fact that they move in a world where speech has lost its power.  And whatever men do or know or experience can make sense only to the extent that it can be spoken about.  There may be truths beyond speech, and they may be of great relevant to man in the singular, that is, to man in so far as he is not a political being, whatever else he may be.  Men in the plural, that is, men in so far as they live and move and act in this world, can experience meaningfulness only because they can talk with and make sense to each other and to themselves."

Here she condemns lack of character and ignorance in the development of technology (in this case the atomic bomb).  How many other technologies could we add to this?  She still has not spoken about “objectivity” in terms of “free markets” in economics or in criminal justice and law.  These deceptions of objectivity lead to a cover up for all manners of political/ethical injustice in the world.  How can we speak about science, technology, government, law, and economics in terms of justice and love?  How can we bring all of this together?  Wouldn’t this be the goal of a society?  If the final question becomes “How does this help me love the neighbor today?” then all of our pursuits in terms of science, technology, government, law, and economics would shift.  And if that is not the final goal of society than what are we really attempting in our communities across this world?

"This is the advent of automation, which in a few decades probably will empty the factories and liberate mankind from its oldest and most natural burden, the burden of laboring and the bondage to necessity.  Here, too, a fundamental aspect of the human condition is at stake, but the rebellion against it, the wish to be liberated from labor’s “toil and trouble,” is not modern but as old as recorded history.  Freedom from labor itself is not new; it once belonged among the most firmly established priviliges of the few."  

Right away I think of Kierkegaard and his emphasis on the intrinsic need for both the necessary and the possible.  Arendt is concerned about humanity attempting to lose certain aspects of itself that have always been true: the connection to the earth, the need to labor, and the reality of speech, and the political responsibility towards the other. In this case science and technology pursue the end of labor through automation.  But is this truly desirable?  Is the goal of a person to not labor?  Where does this idea come from?  At the same time the 20th century saw mass movements endorsing communism, socialism, and Marxism which all honor the working class.  She wisely points out that this escape from labor has always been connected with the most priviliged and powerful in a society.  I would add that these people, kings and tsars and dictators, have been the examples of the worst in our world in all of human history.  Why would we want to imitate them?  Arendt doesn’t understand why modern humanity hates being human so much.

"The modern age has carried with it a theoretical glorification of labor and has resulted in a factual transformation of the whole of society into a laboring society. The fulfilment of the wish, therefore, like the fulfilment of wishes in fairy tales, comes at a moment when it can only be self-defeating. It is a society of laborers which is about to be liberated from the fetters of labor, and this society does no longer know of those other higher and more meaningful activities for the sake of which this freedom would deserve to be won. Within this society, which is egalitarian because this is labor’s way of making men live together, there is no class left, no aristocracy of either a political or spiritual nature from which a restoration of the other capacities of man could start anew. Even presidents, kings, and prime ministers think of their offices in terms of a job necessary for the life of society, and among the intellectuals, only solitary individuals are left who consider what they are doing in terms of work and not in terms of making a living. What we are confronted with is the prospect of a society of laborers without labor, that is, without the only activity left to them. Surely, nothing could be worse."  

 Arendt later distinguishes between three things: labor, work, and action.  Labor has to do with necessary-ness associated with survival as a human being.  Work has to do with unnatural “worldly” work that we create artificially.  Action has to do with political action that is related to community as opposed to a single human being living in isolation.  She is concerned about the modern world where there is labor without labor (work?) that is divorced from action (political/ethical responsibility towards the other).  This leads to a spiritual destitution that creates political climates ripe for totalitarian governments.  This is an obvious next step once individuals are divorced from their political responsibilities towards each other.  Power (responsibility) is given up to a dictator.  

"What I propose, therefore, is very simple: it is nothing more than to think what we are doing."

And here Arendt asks the same question that I have been thinking about in relation to politics in recent years:  What are we doing and why?  The book will be exploring that question going forward.  And I am stoked to engage with her on this all-important subject!

[ohionightsmusings]

Economy of Love

I spent some time with the first few verses of 1 Corinthians and was inspired once again with Paul’s economy of love within the communities that he was establishing.  This universal call to every individual to love the neighbor is 100% in line with all of the life and teachings of Jesus.  I see this now as Paul’s fundamental goal within all of his work: to establish communities that were rooted in love as opposed to class, competition, nationality, or religious privilege.  These are communities of grace.

And now I will show you a way that is beyond comparison.  If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but I do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.  

A way:  1) properly 1a) a way 1a1) a travelled way, road 1b) a travellers way, journey, travelling 2) metaph. 2a) a course of conduct 2b) a way (i.e. manner) of thinking, feeling, deciding.

Paul has been speaking in terms of this body that is united in the pursuit of the mutual benefit of all.  This is true community that is not ruled by competition or any form of classism.  In this case he has been talking about different abilities that individuals bring to a group.  He is making sure that his readers understand that everyone has genuine, unique value.  One person, or ability, should not be valued above another.  However, he says that it is good to seek these giftings out.  The purpose of the gift is not for the individual, however, but for the community.  The gift is given to be given.  

To understand the context of this gifting within a community is to begin with a way, or journey, that is the most excellent.  This journey is love.  

Love (agape):  1) brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence.

Love (my definition):  The open, active seeking of the good of the other.

Speach without the motive of love is just noise; not only noise, but obnoxious noise.  Paul brings everything back to the foundation of love.  There can be no other ethical, good motive besides the seeking of the good of the neighbor.  This is the very opposite of competition that forms the basis for capitalistic society.  This is the best way; the most excellent journey.  

And if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

Prophecy in the context of the Jewish story is the speaking of truth to power.  Prophecy is to speak for the voice-less.  The prophets spoke the heart of God to the oppressor as they sought out this community that Paul also is working towards.  Here we have prophecy, knowledge of mysteries (apparently mystical in nature), general knowledge, and faith that can remove mountains.  Prophecy, mystical knowledge, general knowledge, and radical commitment (faith/pistis) are all certainly powerful but none of them necessarily include love.  The prophet can speak out of pure contempt (i.e., Jonah).  Mystical knowledge can be purely esoteric and selfish (i.e., Simon the Magician in the book of Acts).  General knowlege can be used to exploit the poor, deceive others, and be put to work in the world in an infinite number of evil ways (i.e., pretty much all the kings of Israel).  Faith, radical commitment, has led humans to achieve the impossible evil in ways that astound all of us.  Without love as the absolute foundation for knowledge and action these “good” things can be corrupted to the point of absolute horror (the atomic bomb, Holocaust, ecological disaster, exploitation of workers, accumulation of wealth, etc). 

Paul stands in the line of people like Soren Kierkegaard and James Baldwin who see ethics, and therefore love, as inherent to every human experience.  There is no aspect of life that falls out of the subjective decision of love.  In other words, there is no aspect of experience that is objectively impartial to (for or against) love.  Every aspect of life, and every choice, is an ethical decision about loving the neighbor.  Modern society since the Enlightenment has done everything in its power to escape the responsibility of love and to free the individual to do ANYTHING they want.  We call this freedom but it is really another form of slavery.  Freud and the psychoanalysts anhilated this objectivity in relation to desire when they showed us that desire itself is subjective and shaped, as opposed to inherent and objective to the individual.  Paul calls the individual to embrace the subjective call to love the neighbor in every part of life.  This is the foundation to his entire purpose; this is his hermeneutic.  

If I give away everything I own, and if I give over my body in order to boast, but do not have love, I receive no benefit.  

Benefit:  1) to assist, to be useful or advantageous, to profit.

In this understanding of economy within a community the only profit that can exist is in the act of loving itself.  In this economy love, an act of giving, is a profit in itself.  All understandings of capitalist economics fall apart in the kind of community that Paul is talking about.  Even the acts of physical and financial sacrifice do not bring profit to the individual who gives without love.  Love is the giving and receiving at the same time.  The economy of this kingdom of God is love itself; given and received in unison.  

[ohionightsmusings]

Have we forgotten how beautiful it is to be on fire for justice?

Cornel West

[ohionightsmusings]

It is in the gathering of knowledge + committed love to others + the wonder of a child that wisdom is realized.