My otherwise bucolic Thanksgiving Day holiday was viciously punctuated by the actions of one of the players on the Detroit Lions football team. In Football-onia, it is the tradition to have the Lions and, usually, the Packers play on Thanksgiving Day; this tradition goes back quite some time. Indeed, it goes back to a time where such actions as I, and millions of others, witnessed might not have brought much more than, perhaps, a penalty. Those were the days when "piling on" was punishable by penalty but not "roughing the passer." If you saw the game, then you know that Suh, after having tackled the opponent, began banging his head on the turf and, when pulled off, stomped the arm of his opponent who was still lying on the ground. Just so you know, this is not a rant about how violent football is or anything like that; it is, however, a comment that takes pointed aim at how certain vocations unwittingly play into the hands of human temperament.
What I mean by this is that certain vocations seem to attract a cadre of individuals who have a temperament for that vocation that is eerily compatible with the vocation's demands. Take, for instance, the fact that police departments around the country are populated by ex-military people. Football, and other sports, seem to straddle the line because there are often people with violent tempers that take up tennis and very often "gentler, kinder" people who find themselves strangely talented for football.
I do not believe that there is anything inherent about any particular sport that makes it either violent or non-violent; I do, however, believe that individuals who have not had adequate expression of their temperament so that they could find a peaceful balance and harmony within themselves, seek out "benign" or "approved" ways of expressing that temperament. In this way, they get to express themselves in a way that is "hidden." What is unique about Thursday's performance by Suh is that his expressing was caught on camera and broadcast to the nation. He then had the temerity to say that he was just "catching his balance."
As of this writing, Suh has not received any punishment from the NFL and I don't really expect him to get much beyond, perhaps, a two game suspension; and that, despite the fact that he is a repeat offender. Situations like this are really quite difficult because, on the one hand, he could be rehabilitated if he could ever "get it all out" in a safe way--that is, safe for him and others; on the other hand, football is not that place and how do we send that message in a way that it can be "heard," "understood," and "complied with"?
Suh's actions were deliberate and vicious and he thinks it was ok to act like that; unless the NFL sends a serious "wake-up call" to Suh, we will see this behavior again, perhaps from even more individuals who think that they make enough money to be able to "afford" whatever penalty the NFL imposes. The athletes that act in this way do so on the basis of an economic calculation; they determine that they can "afford" to act the way they act because it wont "cost" them that much and they are willing to "pay" because getting to "express" whatever is bothering them is more valuable than what it would "cost" them.
Is a pre-signing psychiatric evaluation an option? Rumor has it that Suh will have to take "anger management" courses; that seems "too little, too late." The main concern for me is that there has been precious little said about what the coach should do; everyone seems to be waiting on the NFL to act. In my estimation, the coach is more to blame for his silence...and...here...the silence is the same deafening silence that we heard at Penn State. What is it that the coach is getting out of all of this; whatever it is, on Thursday it wasn't a win.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
It's Still a Rose
Although it seems the "bloom is off the rose,"
The Spring is near and this the blossom knows.
The harshness of the winter's snowy storms
Are soon forgotten when the sun of Flora warms.
The petals that have fallen by the way
Are taken up in merry springtime play.
The noble stems that naked stood and straight
Are blooming now and full at cottage gate.
The cares that weighed the former petals down
Have fertilized the newly blooming crown.
How queenly seems this brilliant, blazing flow'r
Regaled with wit and beauty, grace and power.
For hidden deep within its floral heart
It knows it cannot from itself depart.
And 'tis this radiant wisdom that it shows
Within the bloom that always is a rose.
The Spring is near and this the blossom knows.
The harshness of the winter's snowy storms
Are soon forgotten when the sun of Flora warms.
The petals that have fallen by the way
Are taken up in merry springtime play.
The noble stems that naked stood and straight
Are blooming now and full at cottage gate.
The cares that weighed the former petals down
Have fertilized the newly blooming crown.
How queenly seems this brilliant, blazing flow'r
Regaled with wit and beauty, grace and power.
For hidden deep within its floral heart
It knows it cannot from itself depart.
And 'tis this radiant wisdom that it shows
Within the bloom that always is a rose.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Cain's Disdain
The question of whether Cain sexually harassed, assaulted, or otherwise sexually offended the accusers in his past is settled by Cain himself. Cain's defense up to this point has been to cite his wife's remark to the effect that anyone making such an accusation clearly doesn't know him. This defense depends on the unspoken premise that there is an unimpeachable respect for women lying in the foundation of Cain's character. This premise has been defeated by Cain himself on two instances, the first is the demeaning and disrespectful reference to the previous holder of the office of Speaker of the House of Representatives and the second instance is the recent joke involving Anita Hill.
The office of Speaker of the House of Representatives is an august office and demands a certain modicum of respect. For Cain, during the recent debate, to slight that office by referring to the previous holder as "princess" lays bare his disdain for either the office or the holder. If it is the office, then he has not learned the requisite respect for that office of government and is, thereby, unworthy to serve in the government, therefore, he is, de facto, hardly presidential material and should immediately withdraw from the race before he also sullies the office of President of the United States; if it is the second, then he not only discloses the fact that he has precisely the character of someone who would do the very things he is accused of but he also reveals himself to be bereft of the very character traits of decency, honesty, and forthrightness that are wanted in a president. On those grounds he should, again, immediately remove himself from the race.
In the case of the joke involving Anita Hill, it should be clear to even the most casual observer that his cavalier attitude toward the obvious implications of the reference to Ms. Hill betrayed a sinister glee over discovering a similar "he said; she said" successful strategy. However, whereas Chief Justice Thomas has seen the wisdom of silence since his confirmation, Cain's arrogance about his gaffes is dancing on the weakness of the law in such cases. I daresay that, except for the few that confirmed Thomas, there were precious few who believed him; and, except for the fragmented and "troubled" individuals who continue to support Cain, the very fact that he is unable to either notice his disdain for women or take disdain for women seriously, demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that he has both the prerequisite character and had the opportunity, by virtue of his office, for behaving as his accusers have said he behaved. Furthermore, his refusal to give a complete answer to the question posed to him during the debate shows an equal disdain for the office of the President of the United States of America by treating it as unworthy of full disclosure in matters of character and that, as Churchill once said. is "something up with which I will not put." Let me just note that, insofar as he attempts to deface and mark the office of POTUS, he comes to that task with the right name.
And now a woman has come forth to say that she had a 13 year affair with Cain and last night he told Wolf Blitzer (aka "Blitz" to Cain) that he didn't have such an affair; and, by the way, Cain announced today that he will be "re-evaluating his campaign"; coincidence? I think not.
The office of Speaker of the House of Representatives is an august office and demands a certain modicum of respect. For Cain, during the recent debate, to slight that office by referring to the previous holder as "princess" lays bare his disdain for either the office or the holder. If it is the office, then he has not learned the requisite respect for that office of government and is, thereby, unworthy to serve in the government, therefore, he is, de facto, hardly presidential material and should immediately withdraw from the race before he also sullies the office of President of the United States; if it is the second, then he not only discloses the fact that he has precisely the character of someone who would do the very things he is accused of but he also reveals himself to be bereft of the very character traits of decency, honesty, and forthrightness that are wanted in a president. On those grounds he should, again, immediately remove himself from the race.
In the case of the joke involving Anita Hill, it should be clear to even the most casual observer that his cavalier attitude toward the obvious implications of the reference to Ms. Hill betrayed a sinister glee over discovering a similar "he said; she said" successful strategy. However, whereas Chief Justice Thomas has seen the wisdom of silence since his confirmation, Cain's arrogance about his gaffes is dancing on the weakness of the law in such cases. I daresay that, except for the few that confirmed Thomas, there were precious few who believed him; and, except for the fragmented and "troubled" individuals who continue to support Cain, the very fact that he is unable to either notice his disdain for women or take disdain for women seriously, demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that he has both the prerequisite character and had the opportunity, by virtue of his office, for behaving as his accusers have said he behaved. Furthermore, his refusal to give a complete answer to the question posed to him during the debate shows an equal disdain for the office of the President of the United States of America by treating it as unworthy of full disclosure in matters of character and that, as Churchill once said. is "something up with which I will not put." Let me just note that, insofar as he attempts to deface and mark the office of POTUS, he comes to that task with the right name.
And now a woman has come forth to say that she had a 13 year affair with Cain and last night he told Wolf Blitzer (aka "Blitz" to Cain) that he didn't have such an affair; and, by the way, Cain announced today that he will be "re-evaluating his campaign"; coincidence? I think not.
Monday, November 7, 2011
"Go away, I"m no good for you..."
In 1965, Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons released the hit, "Dawn" in which the phrase (and my title) "go away I'm no good for you..." appears. This phrase gives us a glimpse into a common psychological phenomenon in romantic love, namely, the phenomenon of self-sacrifice for the benefit of the beloved. But there is also another common theme here that is less talked about; and that is the theme of self-hatred. In the song, the singer is trying to persuade Dawn to leave him and stay with another guy and suggests:
Literature, poetry and songs are littered with references to the self-abasing lover who, in one breath, claims "I love you 'til my dying breath..." while in the next breath warns "I never want to hurt you..." Of course, in the latter phrase, the unspoken promise is: "in all likelihood I will hurt you, so beware." So, how is it that these two very strong feelings are able to co-exist in the same person?
Although we speak of the unconscious, it is not nearly so un- as we might think. In Freud's famous little book, "The Psychopathology of Everyday Life," we get a vivid introduction into how explicit our "sub-conscious" world really is. There he claims that there are no such things as accidents but only expertly planned events kept hidden from our waking mind. In other words, what we usually term "accidents" are actually self-inflicted wounds. He says we always know what we are thinking and how we will act; and we also have a pretty good handle on how willing we are to make changes to that script. In the song, neither character seems willing to give up the assumptions that undergird their positions; the girl is unwilling to relinquish her obvious affinity for the money, prestige, and travel; and the boy has the fear of the responsibility that Love ushers in and also the unwillingness to address the basic insecurity he has about himself that he is unwilling to abandon.
It is not uncommon for individuals to feel "embarrassed" by their "unworthiness" of someone whom they love deeply; in part, that is a function of the Love itself; but it also has something owing to the lack of psychological maturity of the individual. This usually shows up as a feeling of "not being enough" for the other person. The actual form that this feeling takes varies from person to person; women feel it as not being beautiful enough, thin enough, sexy enough, etc; while men experience it as not being strong enough, influential enough, rich enough, etc. In either case, it is a groundless fear because valuable, lasting relationships and authentic Love exist quite apart from all of those considerations.
This is actually the reason that such romantic "scripts" evoke a great deal of sadness in us. We really know that these tactics are false and that Love has no need of these extraneous considerations; yet we willfully abandon Love for some cheap piece of maudlinity and the resulting sadness we feel is the separation anxiety that Love feels for Itself; we fragment Love and split it up and this is grievous to Love.
Imagine, for a moment, the lives of the people in the song if the advice offered is actually heeded; and further imagine that this love they proclaimed for each other was, indeed, Love. Since Love cannot be denied, then no life built around the pretender to Love can ever be brought to Truth. This incongruity will be experienced by each not only in their minds, but in their feelings and body as well. Love is the bond holding all together; to deny its presence is to affirm self-fragmentation. As I wrote in a previous post, you can call a dog's tail a leg all you want, but that doesn't make it a leg; and you can protest that Love is not present, but that cannot make it go away; and no matter how much you call love, Love, it can never hold things together and collapse is unavoidable.
The cure for this, of course, is to grow up and discover the Love that lies behind Being; to discover the Bond uniting all of creation. Be still; know: "I AM" God. Be still; know: "I AM" Love.
Enjoy Frankie and the Four Seasons in this Youtube of the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE40KM4SGAY&feature=related
"Now think what the future would becompared with what the other fellow has to offer:
with a poor boy like me..."
'Think, what a big man he'll beThe thing is, although this song is sung by a boy to a girl, it could just as easily be a girl singing to a boy and trying to persuade him to "go away" because of some circumstances in her own life that she thinks are not good for him; or even for their relationship. On the surface it certainly seems as though the singer has the girl's "best interests" at heart when "wants" are subjugated to the assumed superior value of "money," "prestige," or "travel." Indeed, it is just this very juxtaposition that seems to give romantic love all the pathos and drama that make it popular and desirable.
Think, all the places you'll see."
Literature, poetry and songs are littered with references to the self-abasing lover who, in one breath, claims "I love you 'til my dying breath..." while in the next breath warns "I never want to hurt you..." Of course, in the latter phrase, the unspoken promise is: "in all likelihood I will hurt you, so beware." So, how is it that these two very strong feelings are able to co-exist in the same person?
Although we speak of the unconscious, it is not nearly so un- as we might think. In Freud's famous little book, "The Psychopathology of Everyday Life," we get a vivid introduction into how explicit our "sub-conscious" world really is. There he claims that there are no such things as accidents but only expertly planned events kept hidden from our waking mind. In other words, what we usually term "accidents" are actually self-inflicted wounds. He says we always know what we are thinking and how we will act; and we also have a pretty good handle on how willing we are to make changes to that script. In the song, neither character seems willing to give up the assumptions that undergird their positions; the girl is unwilling to relinquish her obvious affinity for the money, prestige, and travel; and the boy has the fear of the responsibility that Love ushers in and also the unwillingness to address the basic insecurity he has about himself that he is unwilling to abandon.
It is not uncommon for individuals to feel "embarrassed" by their "unworthiness" of someone whom they love deeply; in part, that is a function of the Love itself; but it also has something owing to the lack of psychological maturity of the individual. This usually shows up as a feeling of "not being enough" for the other person. The actual form that this feeling takes varies from person to person; women feel it as not being beautiful enough, thin enough, sexy enough, etc; while men experience it as not being strong enough, influential enough, rich enough, etc. In either case, it is a groundless fear because valuable, lasting relationships and authentic Love exist quite apart from all of those considerations.
This is actually the reason that such romantic "scripts" evoke a great deal of sadness in us. We really know that these tactics are false and that Love has no need of these extraneous considerations; yet we willfully abandon Love for some cheap piece of maudlinity and the resulting sadness we feel is the separation anxiety that Love feels for Itself; we fragment Love and split it up and this is grievous to Love.
Imagine, for a moment, the lives of the people in the song if the advice offered is actually heeded; and further imagine that this love they proclaimed for each other was, indeed, Love. Since Love cannot be denied, then no life built around the pretender to Love can ever be brought to Truth. This incongruity will be experienced by each not only in their minds, but in their feelings and body as well. Love is the bond holding all together; to deny its presence is to affirm self-fragmentation. As I wrote in a previous post, you can call a dog's tail a leg all you want, but that doesn't make it a leg; and you can protest that Love is not present, but that cannot make it go away; and no matter how much you call love, Love, it can never hold things together and collapse is unavoidable.
The cure for this, of course, is to grow up and discover the Love that lies behind Being; to discover the Bond uniting all of creation. Be still; know: "I AM" God. Be still; know: "I AM" Love.
Enjoy Frankie and the Four Seasons in this Youtube of the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bE40KM4SGAY&feature=related
Saturday, November 5, 2011
My "Wee bit heap o' leaves and stibble"
Oh, Mighty Presence of the "I AM," in desperation I call and come to Thee. I have come to see my world as it is, a tiny box of shards and rubble, hardly recognizable as having anything to do with a glorious child of God, least of all as the creation of such an exalted being. I see Thee in Thy Dazzling Light, Thy beautiful prismatic color; and I feel Thy Powerful Love and Presence; I hear the soothing, calming tones of Thy Music and I weep when I compare it to my current lot. In this vision I see the prodigal son who comes to himself while in the pigs' sty. I see Thy compassionate smile and hand reaching down to lift me up...I weep in repentance as I accept Thy Gracious Love and Light. Father, I open up my world to You; come and fill it entirely with Thy Presence, pushing out all unlike Itself. I forever renounce any power I have given to "outer" things and accept only Thy working and Thy activity. Take complete control of my mind and body; enter in, take Thy Dominion and hold it forever. My Beautiful Father, thank you for your Love and your Patience; thank You for drawing me to Thee; all I decree for myself I decree for every other in this world. Consume all human imperfection and replace it with the Unfed Flame forever sustained. How do I love Thee...How I do adore Thee...How Thou hast loved me even before the foundations of the earth. The Unfed Flame in my Heart calls to Thee, oh Mighty Presence, and I hear the Harmony of Your Answer reverberating within my Being. Even now, come forth and surge your Presence everywhere in my world; as the child of God I AM I command it as You prefer. Transform my "wee bit heap o' leaves and stibble" into the Glorious Mansion of Light and Love that is worthy of the "I AM" that "I AM."
Friday, November 4, 2011
"...Lest Thou Dash Thy Foot against a stone..." or Calling a Dog's Tail a Leg Doesn't Make it a Leg
In one of the temptations of Christ recorded in Matt 4:6, it is reported that Christ is tempted thusly: "'If you are the Son of God,' he said, 'throw yourself down. For it is written: 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" The passage referred to is in Psalms 91:11-12 where it is written: "For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone." This passage is meant to indicate the scope of care that God has for his children, i.e., it is so pervasive that they will be guarded so completely that they will not even stub their toe. In light of the many stubbed toes in the world, this scripture seems to be wanting; but the greater (and more significant) Truth is missed. That Truth is that we are never outside of God's attention; whatever the outer conditions of our life seem to indicate, we are held firmly in the grasp of God's attention; God is always watching. And what is in God's attention is in God's mind, hence, within God; and, since there is no evil in God, we have before us something of a paradox: how can something so apparently evil be in God?
When I was a boy, my minister asked me one day: "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does it have?" I'm embarrassed to say that I got it wrong because I confused the hypothetical conditions of the question with the reality demanded by the answer to the question. The answer, of course, is "four because calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." To be sure, we see much in our experience to warrant calling it "evil," but, in reality no evil can have been done because no evil can be in God.
This may seem a glib and cavalier answer to the problem of evil but it is only "glib" and "cavalier" because we ascribe "reality" status to separate individuals and we are willing to divide the essential Oneness of the Presence of the "I AM" in order to see each individual as separate from God, i.e., outside God. Calling a person "separate" doesn't make that person separate; and doing "harm" to the shadow of a hand doesn't affect the hand. You may dream that you are chased by a tiger and that during the chase you trip over a root, fall, and skin your knees, but when you awaken there is no blood on the sheets nor the pungent scent of the jungle hanging in the bedroom. But, still, how do we change such disruptive energy as what we have been calling "evil"?
All is in the "I AM" and it is by the "I AM" that we must change it. This means that we immediately rule out one of Hamlet's famous options, that is, we cannot "take arms against a sea of troubles and, by opposing, end them." But, paradoxically, we also do not have access to the other horn of his dilemma, i.e., "not to be," because we are already a focus of the "I AM" which guarantees our Life. We, therefore, must accept our role as that focus and daily decree: "I AM the Resurrection and the Life"; indeed, hourly if need be.
The "self" that thinks it is apart from the One must be brought back to sanity in the same way it was driven from it, namely, by repeated reminders of what is to be accepted as Truth. The "guard" that God has over each child to watch "lest Thou dash Thy foot against a stone" is not a guard over the illusion of the self but over the actual Self and that Self never stubs its toe. Once we return the seat of our identity to that Self, we will see and live in a completely different world--a world of Light and Love. It is strange to note that although it is impossible to steal what is free; it is not impossible to think you have stolen it and, subsequently, create a world of your own experience as though the impossible had actually happened and there live with all the attendant misery that such a false belief implies and creates.
The Beloved One is never out of mind; ever do thoughts of Love and Light stand guard.
When I was a boy, my minister asked me one day: "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does it have?" I'm embarrassed to say that I got it wrong because I confused the hypothetical conditions of the question with the reality demanded by the answer to the question. The answer, of course, is "four because calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." To be sure, we see much in our experience to warrant calling it "evil," but, in reality no evil can have been done because no evil can be in God.
This may seem a glib and cavalier answer to the problem of evil but it is only "glib" and "cavalier" because we ascribe "reality" status to separate individuals and we are willing to divide the essential Oneness of the Presence of the "I AM" in order to see each individual as separate from God, i.e., outside God. Calling a person "separate" doesn't make that person separate; and doing "harm" to the shadow of a hand doesn't affect the hand. You may dream that you are chased by a tiger and that during the chase you trip over a root, fall, and skin your knees, but when you awaken there is no blood on the sheets nor the pungent scent of the jungle hanging in the bedroom. But, still, how do we change such disruptive energy as what we have been calling "evil"?
All is in the "I AM" and it is by the "I AM" that we must change it. This means that we immediately rule out one of Hamlet's famous options, that is, we cannot "take arms against a sea of troubles and, by opposing, end them." But, paradoxically, we also do not have access to the other horn of his dilemma, i.e., "not to be," because we are already a focus of the "I AM" which guarantees our Life. We, therefore, must accept our role as that focus and daily decree: "I AM the Resurrection and the Life"; indeed, hourly if need be.
The "self" that thinks it is apart from the One must be brought back to sanity in the same way it was driven from it, namely, by repeated reminders of what is to be accepted as Truth. The "guard" that God has over each child to watch "lest Thou dash Thy foot against a stone" is not a guard over the illusion of the self but over the actual Self and that Self never stubs its toe. Once we return the seat of our identity to that Self, we will see and live in a completely different world--a world of Light and Love. It is strange to note that although it is impossible to steal what is free; it is not impossible to think you have stolen it and, subsequently, create a world of your own experience as though the impossible had actually happened and there live with all the attendant misery that such a false belief implies and creates.
The Beloved One is never out of mind; ever do thoughts of Love and Light stand guard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
