Forever versus Now

Why do they exert so much energy warning us about the downfall of worldliness? What do they fear?

They fear the breakdown of their fragile, synthetic plausibility structure and they fight tooth and nail to maintain its integrity when everything seen and heard once stepped outside this synthetic reality of theirs nullifies its integrity.

What can be done?

Never step outside this reality. Don’t question it. Not because they say to, but because questioning is self-sabotage. The snowball this causes is small at first, but tumbles downhill until you have no choice but to give way.

I question. I am not cut out to be a perpetual follower. I have seasons of devotion, at best. And then my allegiances fade to a distant memory.

So what do I do? Where can I find that beloved foundation of stability within we all seem to find such comfort?

I don’t. I am ultimately anchorless. I may find safe harbor for a fortnight, and I may want it to last eternally, but in the end, I let go.

The interminable…is in fact…terminable. We lie to ourselves and do ourselves wrong when we attempt to convince ourselves of the lies we fight so strongly to deny from others. Since when is a lie from ourselves less objectionable than a lie from another source? We are fools. The sacredness of eternal bonds cannot last any longer than the organic bodies it is placed within. Never get caught up in the false security of Forever.

We are animals obsessed with immortality. This obsession kills the only hope we do have in true salvation:

The simple truth is our greatest happiness is found in Now.

on the road to enlightenment

Goodness, it’s been so long this box no longer even feels like home.  How could I have forsaken you!

I’ve been so focused in my studies I haven’t taken the time to reflect upon what I’ve learned.  I get so tired, mentally, I just want to waste my free time away on things that don’t involve much critical thinking.

I’ve been fairly isolated.  I ventured out with a couple old friends a few weeks back and partook in activities I had not done in at least a year.  It was very strange.  I did a lot of talking and thinking as I always did, but I felt uncomfortable.  I had trouble engaging my peers and I preferred writing my ideas out in general concepts. When I read what I’d written, it was pretty much a review of topics covered in my classes.

What I tapped into during this altered experience just reified how focused I am within academia.  Sometimes it seems like I’m one of those “all or nothing” people.  The more I know myself, the less it seems that I am a multitasker.  Yes, I can do different things within the same period of time, but when it comes to doing something absolutely excellently, I can only focus on one thing.  So far.  My next goal will be to learn to balance all important aspects of my life.  Right now I am just so desperate to complete my BA I can barely think of anything else.

I just had a vision of life being densely packed with many opaque layers.  I’m envisioning it as a sort of flower or fruit.  In this momentary vision, I saw a layer removed.  Age does this.  Experience does this.  In reflection it seems as though my person, my essence, my soul (however you wish to classify it) is born as some thick, densely packed object.  My goal is to reach the center.  That center, to me, is Enlightenment.  But there are so many layers to get through and they are all opaque.  I have no idea what’s in the center (Tootsie Roll pop jokes will be checked at the door, please) and I don’t know how long it will take to get there.  But I know there is an imperative for me to get there.  I don’t know if the imperative is natural/instinctual or learned and it doesn’t seem to matter.  I need to get there.

The path to get there is curious.  I think I am over the attempt to arrive there religiously.  As in through an established world/organized religion.  Right now I’d say I’ve got most of my eggs in the Academic basket, but part of me knows it’s not that simple.  I think  I will spend the rest of my life stumbling along, slowly uncovering layers until that final glorious day.   I  have this feeling that  I may only  uncover that final stratum on the day I die, because no human could continue living life as we know it once the truth has been unmasked.

I often wonder if all my contemplation is alienating me or bringing me closer to the human community.  When I am in social situations, which has become rare these days, I feel as though I am a spectator.  Have I already become the anthropologist, the ethnographer? Being an insider has become difficult.  I feel awkward as a participator at times.  I’m not there right now, mentally.

I feel like a balloon that’s lost its anchor to the earth and is slowly ascending toward infinity.  I wonder when I shall lose grasp of my corporeal vessel.  (I hope it’s not soon.)

Occasionally, I think humans are predictable disappointments.  But I want to focus on what I don’t know about us.  I’m really sick of the world the media glorifies.  And it’s no surprise I am so disappointed in humanity if what I see on popular tv/film/etc is a reflection of society or of its ideals.  I think that’s why I’m so drawn to Anthropology.  I have a desire to learn about cultures that aren’t my own and through the study of other cultures, I hope to understand my own better.  But it doesn’t just stop at culture.  I want to know why we are the way we are.  It’s a pretty lofty ideal.  Maybe I’ll never achieve it, but I think I’ll have some fun traveling on that road.

Gilgamesh and Gandhi

 

How does ”wrestling with the stranger” function as an ethical theme in the story of Gilgamesh, so as to illustrate the positive side of “doubling”?
         
           Fasching and deChant claim that doubling most likely first occurred during humanity’s move from tribal communities to urban civilizations because of the extreme changes in social environment that went on during that time.  The Epic of Gilgamesh provides an example of a person who no longer identifies with the tribal collective, but is finding himself as an individual among other individuals and
coming to grips with mortality.        
          Gilgamesh embarks on an ethical journey when instead of understanding his identity from his perspective as a prince, he views himself with the eyes of his double, Enkidu.  Enkido becomes the ‘mirror for Gilgamesh’s soul’ and his reflection through Enkido allows him to “see and understand himself and his relationships to others”.  Through this relationship, Gilgamesh attains what Fasching and deChant call ‘reflexive self-awareness’ which allows him to obtain much needed humility and wisdom.     
          Gilgamesh’s doubling is thought to be positive because it permits him to reflect upon himself honestly through the eyes of another.  Fasching and deChant state, “doubling becomes demonic only when this capacity for self-reflection is avoided through self-deception, so that responsibility for the actions of the self in particular circumstances are denied”.  Gilgamesh’s doubling led to the transformation of an individual from egocentric to compassionate.  In losing his arrogance, he was motivated to pursue justice not only for himself, but for his kingdom as well.      

In what ways does the story of Socrates express an ethic of the holy?

          Socrates resided within the ‘holy community,’ though, he passed back and forth from the sacred to the holy because he also identified as a citizen of Athens.  He resided within the holy community because of his belief that recognizing ignorance is the beginning of wisdom, this being a characteristic of the ‘holy’.  Socrates’ teaching his students to question everything created a feeling of discomfort within the citizens of Athens because they felt he was threatening their sacred order.  
          The Athenians’ focus on the ‘cosmos writ small’ had them caged within the ‘little picture’.  They desired to maintain order as they knew it because they valued what was familiar and of ‘this world’.  They had all the answers they needed and were comfortable with the way things were because they believed it
was the way things should be.  Their understanding was sacred because the knowledge was passed on through customs and traditions and anyone who questioned it received a hostile reaction and became the ‘enemy’.  This is what eventually happened to Socrates.  He was accused of being an atheist because
Athenians were blinded by their sacred-centric views in such a way that they could not fathom the idea of an internal god because it was too different and other worldly.  As Fasching and deChant claim, “[Socrates] invented ethics as we now understand it, namely, ethics not as observance of the ”sacred customs” but rather as the questioning of sacred customs and sacred order”.

In what ways does Gandhi’s ethic violate the modernist paradigm of the privatization of religion?  
          
           With the emergence of secularization brought about by the Enlightenment, western civilization put God on the back burner to make way for scientific explanation.  Religion’s answers were no longer satisfactory in comparison to the scientific method’s appeal to reason and logic.  This event downgraded religion for westerners—their beliefs were removed from the holy sphere and placed within a sacred sphere.  Those who chose to maintain their beliefs had to do so within a private realm.            
          When Western society was promoting the marginalization of religion, Gandhi instead promoted his belief that religion and politics are intertwined:  “I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means”.  Religion and politics were one and the same for Gandhi.
          The merging of politics and religion Fasching and deChant state as follows, “For Gandhi, religion and politics became one through the practice of brahmacharya.  For only selfless compassion for the well-being of others can inspire the trust that makes political leadership possible”.  Gandhi’s aim was to
be selfless and live life for others.  He was not satisfied with the ‘cynicism of politics-as-usual;’ he desires to turn politics into a ‘spiritual and ethical enterprise’.  Gandhi found his ethics through his religion and believed if politics was to truly be honest and ethical as well, it would have to do it with the involvement of religion.  

Does the concept of human dignity play a role in Gandhi’s thought?  If so, how?
         
          The concept of human dignity does play a role in Gandhi’s thought because his drive for justice was sparked by experiences of humiliation that compromised his human dignity.  “Any conduct that is contrary to truth and ahimsa is to be eschewed and any book that violates these principles is not a shastra [sacred scripture]“.  
          The two experiences that changed Gandhi’s direction in life occurred when he was fresh out of law school.  They both involve him being physically thrown out of a place because of prejudice.  In the first situation, he tried to use his weight as a British-trained attorney with a British political agent, but it failed him, and in the second, he attempted to ride first-class in a train and was ordered to the baggage compartment, but when he refused he was thrown off the train.  
          These experiences coupled with his interpretation of the Gita allowed for Gandhi to move forward with his teachings of non-violence through soul force.  It was those brushes with humiliation that led him to understand the plight of the ‘untouchable’ or the ‘other’.  Because of this knowledge, he came to a new
understanding of what his life objective would be—to seek justice for all people through non-violent means.  His promotion of self-suffering over inflicting suffering on others was the way he believed justice could be reached.