"There is one thing more powerful than the armies of the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo
No, I'm not at 'church' this morning. I decided it was time to pick up the Humanist reading program again instead. On the table for consideration were two books - The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, and How to Love.
The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness is a major work by Erich Fromm. I've owned it for some time, but have studiously avoided reading it. How to Love is a new mini-book by Gordon Livingston, M.D. that I came across at the library. Major tome on man's capacity for evil, or practical advice on how to have a better life? Hmm...
As much as I love everything I've ever read by Fromm, I had to go with Livingston. Naturally, I also had to over-think all my reasons for that decision. :)
Livingston wouldn't have won if I hadn't been impressed by something (besides the title) when I scanned his book. He had me with this... "Happiness, like art, can be difficult to define, but it is clear that an essential component of a fulfilling life is the quality of our closest relationships... One would think, therefore, that every high school curriculum would contain at least one course devoted to forming and sustaining close relationships." (Yes! Yes! Yes! Agree with me that more psychology should be taught in high school! You win!)
Still, this doesn't sufficiently address the reasons why I've put off reading The Anatomy for so long. In thinking about this decision, I discovered that I hold a somewhat conflicting set of beliefs.
First - You don't end evil/sin by talking about evil/sin. This is something that always bugged me about the Lutheran church services that I had to attend as a kid/teenager - if you keep telling me that I'm evil/sinful, instead of teaching me how to be better, how do you expect me to be a better person?
Second - It is necessary to recognize the warning signs that might lead someone to commit an evil act if you want to prevent such things from happening. This requires an extensive study of the history of such acts, with the aim of deconstructing and understanding them.
The second belief kicks us firmly into the realm of academics - people who have special training, and who can study such things with a degree of detachment. But what is the value/effect to the average person of immersing him/herself in such a 'study' of evil?
Perhaps I simply have no expectation of gaining something valuable/useful from reading The Anatomy. 500+ pages of man's inhumanity to man sounds fairly depressing. (Okay, the 40 pages on benign aggression sounds intriguing.) And how does having this knowledge make me a better person or help me exert a better influence within my limited sphere? Not seeing it.
Upon reflection, I also have to wonder what motivated Fromm to write The Anatomy... Published only seven years before his death (in 1980) at the age of 79, and followed only by To Have or To Be? and a work on Freud as works published during his lifetime, I have to wonder if he had grown increasingly disenchanted with humanity's prospects. Was he seeking personal understanding in writing this book, which would be understandable, given that his lifetime spanned two world wars and that this work was in progress during the Vietnam War? Perhaps he saw it as a necessary contribution to a world plagued by violence.
But when forced to make a decision about what to immerse myself in, I choose something more positive and hopeful. Again. Maybe The Anatomy will win out one of these days, but I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime, How To Love...
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Good Without God
"What do you call an atheist with children?
A Unitarian Universalist."
Something has been bugging me for awhile now. It started while I was reading Greg Epstein's new book on Humanism - Good Without God. (By the way, far and away the best book on Humanism I've read to date.) He describes humanism and atheism as evoking a negative image for a large segment of the population, simply because they are 'godless' and the assumption seems to follow that a godless person cannot be a good person.
The fact the Epstein relayed this perception didn't bother me as much as the fact that, despite being eager to read his book, I didn't feel comfortable taking it with me to my temp job and reading it there. That brought home to me that there is a serious PR problem with being seen as 'godless'. Now, I'm not saying that I would have been overtly harassed, as happened when I took The God Delusion to my previous job to read, but rather that I simply didn't want that 'strike' against me in developing/maintaining relationships with my coworkers.
The statement I quoted above was something that I heard during one of the UU services I attended a few weeks ago. The discussion had turned to a similar issue - making life easier for one's children by giving them a 'church' they could identify with when asked 'And where do you go to church?' It was simply easier than being known as the one who doesn't go to church, especially in more-conservative communities.
Whether we agree with it or not, the perception is out there that one can't be good without God, that we would digress to the very worst forms of selfishness and exploitation without some sort of threat to prevent us from doing so. How do you combat that perception? Is it necessary to form supportive communities that teach humanistic values (such as the Unitarian Universalists do)? Is it necessary to be seen publicly as someone who is actively trying to sublimate his/her baser instincts for the common good (perhaps by attending such 'churches')?
While public affiliation with a group that encourages good behavior is no guarantee of such behavior actually being displayed, it does seem to imbue upon the attendant of such congregations a sort of 'benefit of the doubt' when it comes to judgments about his/her capacity/willingness to behave morally. We simply don't like or trust someone who doesn't respect a common authority when it comes to determining what is moral.
What then is a humanist and/or atheist to do? What is as reassuring to others of our morality as the common fear of immortal vengeance? (We'll skip over the contradiction wherein the biggest part of Christianity is salvation from such vengeance without having to perform good works/be good. In light of that, this whole argument should go away, but the perception that godless people aren't as good is still with us.)
Maybe it's time to start treating this like a PR war. And I mean more than simply laying claim to now-dead famous people who were atheists/humanists/UUs/etc. I mean being examples of positive virtues, rather than of negative attitudes/actions. For some time now I've followed a catch-all humanist blog feed in hopes of finding something to inspire this blog. What I've found is largely simple repetition of the same stories/commentaries attacking religion in many of the individual blogs. So not inspiring. There are two ways to approach a PR war - attack your 'enemy', or paint a better picture of yourself. We regularly decry politicians who engage in 'attack ads' during political elections; why should people feel any differently about a 'humanism' or atheism that is perceived primarily through its attacks on religion?
Epstein's book was filled with examples of positive actions and organizations that are affiliated with humanism. I hope to explore a few of these and report on them in this blog. In the meantime, try to remember that people, like moths, are attracted to light. I've taken a couple of Christians with me to the UU 'church', and they were both impressed with the atmosphere and values it reflected, even though God was absent. Would that more of humanism and atheism put their emphasis on good, instead of God.
A Unitarian Universalist."
Something has been bugging me for awhile now. It started while I was reading Greg Epstein's new book on Humanism - Good Without God. (By the way, far and away the best book on Humanism I've read to date.) He describes humanism and atheism as evoking a negative image for a large segment of the population, simply because they are 'godless' and the assumption seems to follow that a godless person cannot be a good person.
The fact the Epstein relayed this perception didn't bother me as much as the fact that, despite being eager to read his book, I didn't feel comfortable taking it with me to my temp job and reading it there. That brought home to me that there is a serious PR problem with being seen as 'godless'. Now, I'm not saying that I would have been overtly harassed, as happened when I took The God Delusion to my previous job to read, but rather that I simply didn't want that 'strike' against me in developing/maintaining relationships with my coworkers.
The statement I quoted above was something that I heard during one of the UU services I attended a few weeks ago. The discussion had turned to a similar issue - making life easier for one's children by giving them a 'church' they could identify with when asked 'And where do you go to church?' It was simply easier than being known as the one who doesn't go to church, especially in more-conservative communities.
Whether we agree with it or not, the perception is out there that one can't be good without God, that we would digress to the very worst forms of selfishness and exploitation without some sort of threat to prevent us from doing so. How do you combat that perception? Is it necessary to form supportive communities that teach humanistic values (such as the Unitarian Universalists do)? Is it necessary to be seen publicly as someone who is actively trying to sublimate his/her baser instincts for the common good (perhaps by attending such 'churches')?
While public affiliation with a group that encourages good behavior is no guarantee of such behavior actually being displayed, it does seem to imbue upon the attendant of such congregations a sort of 'benefit of the doubt' when it comes to judgments about his/her capacity/willingness to behave morally. We simply don't like or trust someone who doesn't respect a common authority when it comes to determining what is moral.
What then is a humanist and/or atheist to do? What is as reassuring to others of our morality as the common fear of immortal vengeance? (We'll skip over the contradiction wherein the biggest part of Christianity is salvation from such vengeance without having to perform good works/be good. In light of that, this whole argument should go away, but the perception that godless people aren't as good is still with us.)
Maybe it's time to start treating this like a PR war. And I mean more than simply laying claim to now-dead famous people who were atheists/humanists/UUs/etc. I mean being examples of positive virtues, rather than of negative attitudes/actions. For some time now I've followed a catch-all humanist blog feed in hopes of finding something to inspire this blog. What I've found is largely simple repetition of the same stories/commentaries attacking religion in many of the individual blogs. So not inspiring. There are two ways to approach a PR war - attack your 'enemy', or paint a better picture of yourself. We regularly decry politicians who engage in 'attack ads' during political elections; why should people feel any differently about a 'humanism' or atheism that is perceived primarily through its attacks on religion?
Epstein's book was filled with examples of positive actions and organizations that are affiliated with humanism. I hope to explore a few of these and report on them in this blog. In the meantime, try to remember that people, like moths, are attracted to light. I've taken a couple of Christians with me to the UU 'church', and they were both impressed with the atmosphere and values it reflected, even though God was absent. Would that more of humanism and atheism put their emphasis on good, instead of God.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
The Winner Stands Alone
Trust me, I have enough charisma and ego to be dangerous.
This post relates to humanism in that it discusses (again) the perils of having any movement/idea be too-closely connected to a specific person. But first the set-up...
My search for local humanists took me to a local Unitarian Universalist Society where the humanists were meeting. Being the inquisitive sort (and having nothing better to do on a Sunday morning), I started attending this 'church' with no God. They have something that resembles a church service - meeting every Sunday morning, music, a choir, and a presentation on a particular topic. (Today's music was all Beatles songs, which is appropriate, I guess.)
Today's topic was the Maharishi Effect, as presented by someone who had first-hand experience with the TM (Transcendental Meditation) program. I know of the Maharishi Effect, but have no first-hand experience with the training, or real knowledge of the whole TM movement. (I should also point out that I have not read Gilpin's book, so I'm only going on what I understood of his opinions from what he said today.) Yours truly was completely unaware that the TM movement was largely the product of one person, or that said person came to have so much power as a result of his teaching/ideas. [Start keeping track of the irony points anytime...]
My question to Gilpin had to do with the modern-day TM/Maharishi movement, which is associated with scientists, and what ethics had (or had not) have been taught as a part of the TM training. After learning that the Maharishi had adopted a very authoritarian attitude towards ethical considerations, I guess I wasn't too surprised by all the other revelations about the Maharishi's accumulation of personal power. And I started to wonder which came first - the belief in one's own merit, or the desire for power?
I don't know anything about the Maharishi (other than what was told to me today), but the same pattern of 'teacher/leader accumulating influence leading to his/her own self-destruction' has been repeated often enough in history. You have to wonder if the whole thing is inevitable once you start down that path... The whole thing also reminded of something from a book I'd read - The Ways of the Mystic, by Joan Borysenko. While 'mystic' in this book is firmly associated with God, the points she makes about the varieties of mystical feeling are applicable even to humanistic mystics.
I profiled as someone whose secondary path was Path Three. I'll spare you all the details of what that means, and skip to what this whole thing reminded me of...
Suggestions for the Path-Three Mystic:
1) Beware of power. "It has been said that power has the ability to corrupt." (Nuf said there.)
2) Beware of charisma. "People are naturally attracted to charismatic, or gifted, individuals. If you take this attraction personally... you may end up in unwanted personal entanglements. The attraction that people feel for you may also take a sexual form." (No comment.)
3) Seek conscious communion with God. (Or something higher than yourself.)
4) Take time for yourself. "A person with passion and charisma is generally busy and in demand... but you will last longer if you take time out to rest and care for yourself physically and emotionally. ...Some of the best creative ideas come in leisure moments when our own minds are quiet..."
5) Nurture your relationships. "... Becoming isolated and out of touch is a hazard for a Path-Three mystic... [O]ur friends and loved ones are best able to give us feedback about where we may be going off-track."
6) Cultivate a sense of humor. "... Taking yourself too seriously is a growing is a sign of growing pride and conceit... No matter how wonderful your contribution may be, you are still just one more Bozo on the bus." (That last line should be a bumper sticker.)
7) Cultivate patience. "What most people consider patience is actually impatience stretched to the limit. Even dreams and ideas that are fully formed may take a long time to get into circulation. Have faith. ...Perhaps the hardest lesson to learn is not to be attached to the results of our actions." (I love that first line!)
Having reread/typed all this out just now, I have to wonder... Would this advice have saved the Maharishi (assuming he needed saving from something)? Would the impact of his teachings be any different today had they not been so closely associated with him personally? (I'm thinking of the ethics question again.) And perhaps the most disturbing question of all... Do we need to see our leaders/teachers fall, in order to remind us not to rely on others for truth/power?
This post relates to humanism in that it discusses (again) the perils of having any movement/idea be too-closely connected to a specific person. But first the set-up...
My search for local humanists took me to a local Unitarian Universalist Society where the humanists were meeting. Being the inquisitive sort (and having nothing better to do on a Sunday morning), I started attending this 'church' with no God. They have something that resembles a church service - meeting every Sunday morning, music, a choir, and a presentation on a particular topic. (Today's music was all Beatles songs, which is appropriate, I guess.)
Today's topic was the Maharishi Effect, as presented by someone who had first-hand experience with the TM (Transcendental Meditation) program. I know of the Maharishi Effect, but have no first-hand experience with the training, or real knowledge of the whole TM movement. (I should also point out that I have not read Gilpin's book, so I'm only going on what I understood of his opinions from what he said today.) Yours truly was completely unaware that the TM movement was largely the product of one person, or that said person came to have so much power as a result of his teaching/ideas. [Start keeping track of the irony points anytime...]
My question to Gilpin had to do with the modern-day TM/Maharishi movement, which is associated with scientists, and what ethics had (or had not) have been taught as a part of the TM training. After learning that the Maharishi had adopted a very authoritarian attitude towards ethical considerations, I guess I wasn't too surprised by all the other revelations about the Maharishi's accumulation of personal power. And I started to wonder which came first - the belief in one's own merit, or the desire for power?
I don't know anything about the Maharishi (other than what was told to me today), but the same pattern of 'teacher/leader accumulating influence leading to his/her own self-destruction' has been repeated often enough in history. You have to wonder if the whole thing is inevitable once you start down that path... The whole thing also reminded of something from a book I'd read - The Ways of the Mystic, by Joan Borysenko. While 'mystic' in this book is firmly associated with God, the points she makes about the varieties of mystical feeling are applicable even to humanistic mystics.
I profiled as someone whose secondary path was Path Three. I'll spare you all the details of what that means, and skip to what this whole thing reminded me of...
Suggestions for the Path-Three Mystic:
1) Beware of power. "It has been said that power has the ability to corrupt." (Nuf said there.)
2) Beware of charisma. "People are naturally attracted to charismatic, or gifted, individuals. If you take this attraction personally... you may end up in unwanted personal entanglements. The attraction that people feel for you may also take a sexual form." (No comment.)
3) Seek conscious communion with God. (Or something higher than yourself.)
4) Take time for yourself. "A person with passion and charisma is generally busy and in demand... but you will last longer if you take time out to rest and care for yourself physically and emotionally. ...Some of the best creative ideas come in leisure moments when our own minds are quiet..."
5) Nurture your relationships. "... Becoming isolated and out of touch is a hazard for a Path-Three mystic... [O]ur friends and loved ones are best able to give us feedback about where we may be going off-track."
6) Cultivate a sense of humor. "... Taking yourself too seriously is a growing is a sign of growing pride and conceit... No matter how wonderful your contribution may be, you are still just one more Bozo on the bus." (That last line should be a bumper sticker.)
7) Cultivate patience. "What most people consider patience is actually impatience stretched to the limit. Even dreams and ideas that are fully formed may take a long time to get into circulation. Have faith. ...Perhaps the hardest lesson to learn is not to be attached to the results of our actions." (I love that first line!)
Having reread/typed all this out just now, I have to wonder... Would this advice have saved the Maharishi (assuming he needed saving from something)? Would the impact of his teachings be any different today had they not been so closely associated with him personally? (I'm thinking of the ethics question again.) And perhaps the most disturbing question of all... Do we need to see our leaders/teachers fall, in order to remind us not to rely on others for truth/power?
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Art of Loving (Pt I)
"One other frequent error must be mentioned here. The illusion, namely, that love means necessarily the absence of conflict. Just as it is customary for people to believe that pain and sadness should be avoided under all circumstances, they believe that love means the absence of any conflict...
Real conflicts between two people, those which do not serve to cover up or to project, but which are experienced on the deep level of inner reality to which they belong, are not destructive. They lead to clarification, they produce a catharsis from which both persons emerge with more knowledge and more strength. This leads us to emphasize again something said above.
Love is possible only if two persons communicate with each other from the center of their existence, hence if each one of them experiences himself from the center of his existence. Only in this 'central experience' is human reality, only here is aliveness, only here is the basis for love. Love, experienced thus, is a constant challenge; it is not a resting place, but a moving, growing, working together; even whether there is harmony or conflict, joy or sadness, is secondary to the fundamental fact that two people experience themselves from the essence of their existence, that they are one with each other by being one with themselves, rather than by fleeing from themselves. There is only one proof for the presence of love: the depth of the relationship, and the aliveness and strength in each person concerned; this is the fruit by which love is recognized."
- The Art of Loving, by Erich Fromm
Real conflicts between two people, those which do not serve to cover up or to project, but which are experienced on the deep level of inner reality to which they belong, are not destructive. They lead to clarification, they produce a catharsis from which both persons emerge with more knowledge and more strength. This leads us to emphasize again something said above.
Love is possible only if two persons communicate with each other from the center of their existence, hence if each one of them experiences himself from the center of his existence. Only in this 'central experience' is human reality, only here is aliveness, only here is the basis for love. Love, experienced thus, is a constant challenge; it is not a resting place, but a moving, growing, working together; even whether there is harmony or conflict, joy or sadness, is secondary to the fundamental fact that two people experience themselves from the essence of their existence, that they are one with each other by being one with themselves, rather than by fleeing from themselves. There is only one proof for the presence of love: the depth of the relationship, and the aliveness and strength in each person concerned; this is the fruit by which love is recognized."
- The Art of Loving, by Erich Fromm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
