You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Violence’ category.
Every writer I knows has trouble writing.
Joseph Heller
+ + +
Gee, that is a problem. I never have a problem writing. Maybe I am not a writer.
To me writing is like breathing. Like seeing. Like watching the human parade of the morally and spiritually disshoveled with a blithering idiot section (reserved for those with a public presence), each marching out-of-step with one another – and in this I include the upper middle class haughty bourgeiose – the pretenders of affluence, the self-proclaimed “special people” and those of faux status and little humor – the “intellectuals,” the people near the top of the pyramid, the celebrites and the life-long elected – “ahummm” – “public servants” who seem to gain more belly fat with each successive electoral victory – balloning in time to the size of a small banana “republic” or a well-fed water buffalo.
I was born poor. To this day I have not become a man who looks like he swallowed a small Volkswagon or Toledo, Ohio.
I can still see my feet clearly with no interruption at the waist line. Poverty, dyslexia betrayal and untimely loss kept me humble – a near failsafe against a culture of being “special.”
As to writing – life has always seemed to me to be hand to hand combat and an hilarious Marx Brothers adventure. A combination of terror and hysterical laughter. This – more than an adequate mix for a verbal man such as myself.
Long ago someone said to me – “You write like you speak.” Ah, that is the answer to the puzzle.
I am who I have always been. The same eyes looking at variations of the same insanity with rare moments of crystal clear brilliance on our worse and on our best days.
Light and severe dark produce the same product: I write from this – the combat, the terror, the instinct to fight back, the absurd idiocy and the humanity of it all – delivered outside to reside within until its moment arrives.
The crowd and its antics, like God, write of me – I just transcribe. Somewhere in my head and heart the notes have been stored, the images kept fresh.
If I am a writer it is all because of what God gave me. Blame Him. I write from the gifts of pain and suffering, from cunning and courage – and from the endless laugther at the folly of it … from the surrounding of beauty, heartbreak, sacrifice, heroism, pathos, common injustice, freinds, people who loved me and the uncommon victory that emerges now and again.
Shalom.
” … today … nothing in the world is more distasteful to a man than to take the path that leads to himself.”
Herman Hesse
+ + +
Yesterday I saw this fellow Beto O’Rouke on a midday T.V. show called The View. It was actually remarkable because it was so pathetic.
Here was a youngish looking man offering all sorts of self-hating criticisms to three overweight, unattractive women – two of whom are far past their prime. It was a dark and disturbed, inane act of confession. Confession about skin pigment (being White), gender (being Male), affluence (being the Son-in-Law of a man who is a wealthy Texan) and simply being Beto.
It is strange to see self-hatred or self-loathing but there is a fair amount of it among today’s liberals. Indeed, it seems to be a dreadful by-product of present day Leftism with their template of “identity” politics – and especially prevalent among Democrats vieing to become President.
It is, of course, self-loathing … and as such – utterly unhealthy. And, who, by God, would ever imagine that anyone would want someone with so such self-hated to lead a nation?
It appears the liberals have doubled-down on Mr. Obama’s nation-hopping “apology” tour that marked his early presidency. No one, by the way, attaches admiration to a head of state whose instinct is to grovel.
This strange liberal instinct of self-loathing brings to mind Chairman Mao’s Cultural Revolution whereby in the midst of Mao failed economics he unleashed hoards of young brain-washed Marxists to corner individuals and extract from them public “confessions” for their real or imagined “betrayals” of the State. Yes, the subjects were randomly selected for their “hatred of socialism” vintage Mao.
Some of those cornered were too “bourgeois.” Others were deemed to have courted “evil habits” of yesterday.
The Cultural Revolution is said to have resulted in 2 million dead, maybe more. The take-away is this: Mao understood that a fearful populace composed of people who carry self-guilt in order to avoid harsh treatment, imprisonment, exile or death is easier to control.
Yes, it is alarming to see people on the Left evoking such self-loathing as young Mr. O’Rouke willing presented for all to see. It is even more concerning that a political party seems to promote this sort of thing, expect it.
Cultures that separate from faith lead us to such states as self-hated. Those who display this are in no position to lead. A society were such illness is present had best rectify its disposition lest it decay and die a chaotic death.
Shalom.
Ekklesia (Greek word meaning church) … signified the assembly of citizens of the polis (a city or small state in ancient Greece), who meet to make decisions.
Dairmaid MacCulloch, in Christianity: The First Three Thosuand Years
+ + +
The history of Western Civilization aligns faith or church with governing – ekklesia with polis. But we live in a time (a treacherous time) in which that nexus is lost … and that loss makes for a far more errant society and culture – a government more prone to chaos than tranquility, distain and division than gratitude and unity.
This is where we are now in the West and in America.
If you want a source of our problems in government, in law and in public affairs – look no further than the disconnection between church and state and the hostility and sickness that arises when this nexus is ignored, or worse yet – attacked, disparaged and forbidden.
Really, there is not much more to say except – when you listen to public discourse ask yourself one simple question: Does this man or woman speaking convey any sense that he or she knows anything at all about who we are and who we have been for centuries, or for the tenets which have provided our foundation, survival, peace and prosperity?
If you answer in the negative – stop listening – for that speaker deserves none of your time or attention.
Shalom.
Greek religion was a set of stories belonging to the entire community, rather than a set of well-bounded statements about ultimate moral and philosophical values … Within the common Greek culture, then, was an urge to understand and create a systematic structure of sacred knowledge which ordered everyday life.
Diarmaid MacCulloch, in Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years
+ + +
If you want to understand why we are in the mess we are in, why the state of affairs in our nation are troublesome (indeed self-destructive) you need only know that those who would command our attention have no idea of our inheritance – the place Greeks, Romans, and Hebrews played in the development of Christianity and, in turn, Western Civilization.
You see we license all manner of poorly educated public personalities to speak to us without them knowing much at all about who we actually are.
Yes, we listen to people with no claim on our attention but that we listen because they are presented to us on television, in the media, among the intellectual or celebrity or political class, and the “special pleaders” who push one or another foolish idea or idiotic claims.
In short, we have an extreme deficit when it comes to the wise and broadly read, experienced and insightful whose knowledge runs to our origins and the process of human development dating back two thousand years before Christ.
Think I am wrong? Ask youself who among our public figures might be able to explain the connection between Greece, Rome, the Hebrews and the development of Christianity and the laws, institutions of governance in the West or identify the distinctions and similarities between Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christians when it comes to the Divine and our relationship with God or gods.
When is such a fundamental conversation ever been expected of those who seek to lead or “share” with us their opinions and desires for radical change?
Get serious. Those on the public stage subtract from the sum of human knowledge when they speak. This, of course, is taking its toll on us and our long term existence.
Shalom.
… it is difficult for churches, government, and leaders to move beyond ego, the desire for control, and public posturing. Everything divides into oppositions … vested interests pulling against one another. Truth is no longer possible at this level of conversation.
… you can lead people only as far as you yourself have gone …
Richard Rohr, in The Naked Now
+ + +
Richard Rohr writes of two monks of the 11th and 12th century – Hugh of St. Victor monastery in Paris, France, and Richard of the same monastery. He tells us that these monks wrote that humans have been given three different ways of seeing. One way arises from the eyes that produce thoughts. The second way of seeing leads to reason, and to reflection and meditation. The third way of seeing leads to true understanding and contemplation.
It is the third way of seeing that is the rarest and most evolved. Whereas the first way of seeing is common, it produces little depth of experience, is more concrete and binds one to the immediate without nuance. The second way of seeing allows one to relish his or her power to conceive of the material disposition of the world. Ah, but the third way of seeing allows one to do more – it allows one to “taste” existence, to be in awe before the underlying mystery, coherence, and spaciousness that connects one with everything!
The third way of seeing is seeing as a mystic sees – seeing as God has designed us to see. This seeing exceeds the senses, does not rest on knowledge and intellect alone – but rather sees in a manner that expands his or her consciousness – and in this is transformed, made whole, lives in and above at the same time, is mortal and immortal, contented, whole and wise in ways that neither the senses nor intellect can offer.
In commenting on this Rohr says “I cannot emphasize strongly enough that the separation and loss of these three necessary eyes is at the basis of much of the short-sight-edness and religious crises in the Western world.” Hence the above quote that leads into today’s blog.
The view that Rohr shares, Dear Friends, highlights how and why “identity politics” is so destructive, so wrong-headed, so primitive, tribal, hostile, aggressive, hateful and unappetizing. Those with greater depth of human experience cannot abide that which pits one against another in a death struggle. We are, after all, not made to be enemies to one another but rather brothers and sisters to one another.
This historic moment requires us to see as the mystic sees.
Shalom.
Reclining at table with his disciples, Jesus was deeply troubled and testified, “Amen, amen, I say to you, one of you will betray me.”
John 13:21
+ + +
Betrayal. It is hard to imagine anything more disillusioning than violating a relationship.
Think about it, one has a trusted relationship and violates that trust. You can see it in a man who fathers a child but deserts his child and the woman with whom he fathered the child.
Imagine Judas who was mentored by Jesus. Think of what he did. He sat at the table with Jesus and his disciples and took his morsel given at the table and walked away … from Light to Darkness – that is betrayal. Judas choose alienation over sacred loyalty, over friendship, over duty and obligation, over faith, over honesty, over trust, evil over good, his own desires over God.
And then there is Peter. Pledging his loyalty to Jesus, he denied knowing Our Lord three times before the cock would crow. Yes, cowardice got the best of Peter. Yes, for Peter fear dominated faith. Yes, Peter, too, choose alienation. Yes, for Peter trust was abandoned, friendship was dishonored – God denied.
Look about you today. Are we a culture of trust? Or is betrayal more common?
Are we a culture of heroes or betrayers? One in which citizen is alienated from citizen? A culture of unity or division? Is division commonplace? Is it the way of a political party? Do women create division from men? Do father’s desert their children? Men and women divorce one another with ease?
Alienation. Betrayal. Distrust. Hero or coward? Loyal or not? Divisive or unifying? Neighbor or not? Friend or enemy? One alone or many together? God-full or Godless?
Shalom.
Spirlaw 