About six months ago I told some people that I was going to write an essay about why I am a pacifist and the aforementioned people got very excited. The basic set up for the essay was that I was going to defend the pacifist stance Biblically and (at least in some way) go against what CS Lewis wrote in his essay "Why I Am Not A Pacifist." It was going to be bold, daring stuff. At least that is what I dreamed. But then I started doing some examining of the issue and of my own writing and came to the conclusion that I'm not all that bold of a writer. I rarely say anything that shakes things up. Generally I'd say that my thoughts are so obvious they sound new, but rarely do I write anything that would offend people. But no matter what I write here I am going to offend someone, which might be the reason people found this topic more interesting than most others that I have written.
While in Chicago I went to a theological conference where renowned professors examined different theologians' teachings on the Sermon on the Mount. One professor (I think he was from Duke or something like that) did his lecture on Karl Bart and Dietrich Bonhoeffer's pacifist agenda that they drew back to Christ's teachings in Matthew 5-7. This professor (who's name I am sure smarter people would remember) explained that, according to his understanding of both the theologians in question and his biblical understanding, a Christian has no Biblical support for responding in violence towards a violent attacker, especially if that attacker is not a Christian who's eternity is secure. It would be better for a Christian to die passively and go to Heaven then for that Christian to respond in violence and kill someone who would be damned to eternity. This included responding in violence should family members be attacked and their lives be in danger.
The interesting thing about hearing a committed pacifist explain his love for all people (inspired by care for their eternal souls) that inspires him to never respond in violence is that it made so many people angry. Most of the conference speakers read their papers, answered a few questions and then left the stage. After this session the question and answer time lasted nearly as long as the actual lecture. Granted, the professor probably prodded people a little, but all the same it was amazing to see people get so upset about pacifism. One attendee came up to the mic and looked visibly agitated and ready for a rhetorical brawl. he could hardly get out his question, his emotions were causing him to trip over his words as they made their way out his mouth. The professor seemed to be enjoying this. Finally (with some "ums" and "uhhhs" and a few deep exhales and guffaws) he asked "so what you're telling me is that if a man broke into YOUR house, while YOUR family was sleeping, and took YOUR children and YOUR wife, and knowing you had the ability to stop him, he put a gun to THEIR heads..." before he could finish the sentence the lecturer dropped this little bomb that sucked the air out of the room (it was more like a declaration): "Well I suppose they would have to die!" The guy tried to retort, but before he could the lecturer elaborated, "Listen, I know this isn't easy, that it goes against our instincts, but if we really believe that these people have souls that go onto eternity how can we as Christians, in good conscience, send them to hell?! Would it not be better to give up your own life than to take theirs?!"
Hearing that, the pacifist agenda made so much sense. Its a romantic, anti-cultural perspective that feels almost cool to hold. How much guts does it take to believe and say what that professor did? To have views that consistent, that unorthodox, and that grounded in conviction seems really bold and cool. Unfortunately I am just not that bold, or cool, or consistent, or grounded enough in my convictions, or able enough to see the world in black and white that I can't, in all honesty, hold this view. I want to, I really do, but there are just too many factors that I'm sure a professor from Duke can argue against, but I can't right now in my own heart.
The first major problem for me (and the main thing that made me nervous to write this essay for the last six or so months) is that I know a pacifist stance stands at odds with so many of my friends, at a very practical and personal level. Personally I can take this stance, but I can't mandate it on a universal level because then what do I say to my friends in the military, who are giving up parts of their lives for my country? Do I tell them it is sin to take the lives of those with whom our country is fighting when it is Biblical for them to honor their leaders and follow their directions? Does this force them into a moral dilemma where, under my convictions, they are forced to get out of the military? I don't think I could call anyone to that. I was fearful in writing this that I would alienate and insult them. They don't deserve that. This issue of pacifism and military action is not written in black and white, there are awkward shades of grey I am not fully able to process or help other to.
I suppose I can say that I decided a long time ago that I would not join the military, and if I were drafted I would even risk prison time and be a conscientious objector, rather than fight (or I could have become a Quaker, which would have saved me from prison but would have forced me to be a Quaker... no plan is perfect). But that is my personal conviction.
There are those who do not hold my view and I commend them for being consistent in their conviction to follow their government and defend their country, especially in the face of tyranny. That is another of the difficult things about this, while we're on the military aspect of this argument. I cannot speak badly against people fighting to save innocent lives from oppression and tyranny. Clearly God despises those things and calls the able to free the oppressed and deliver them. Sometimes this is accomplished through diplomacy, but I am not naive enough to say that military action is never needed or warranted. And I am sure that God can use Christians to this end (Bonhoeffer, himself a dedicated pacifist was a part of one of the assassination attempts to kill Hitler.). I just know that I am not one of those people. So while I am a pacifist when it comes to military action I do not believe pacifism can be mandated.
On to this issue of defending wives, kids, pets, etc. In my heart what that professor said makes so much sense to me. How can I take part in delivering a person to Hell, or even punishing him for his actions when the Lord so clearly states that that is His department and not mine? I want to believe that I would trust the Lord with my loved ones' souls and sacrifice them to give a potential murderer one more chance to understand the hope and joy that I have found, but I don't think I completely can. While I am not married and have no kids I know how I feel about my family and friends, and I am confident that I will brave Hell itself to keep them safe and unharmed. I will gladly die for any one of them, but I cannot give any one of them up passively, even if theologically it makes sense to do so. Perhaps its a natural instinct given to us by God, or maybe it is selfishness, I'm not sure, but I just couldn't bring myself to even think about standing and doing nothing while my family is taken from me. Life just isn't that simple for me to be able to say that. Even watching my family or friends get hurt in even the smallest of ways makes me capable of doing things I wouldn't do on a regular day, I just don't imagine that in that moment of my family being in danger I could be thinking about anything else other then protecting them from harm.
One professor I had spoke about pacifism in the Sermon on the Mount and said that the actions Jesus is talking about are not life threatening. We are told to turn the other cheek when someone slaps us or to give someone our shirt when they ask for our coat, but we are not told to give up our lives. I'm not sure if this totally makes sense to me. I still have a problem with the idea of sending a murderer to Hell by killing him myself, but it seems like something that needs to be mentioned in the exploration of pacifism: that Jesus' stance on pacifism was held on the basis of non-lethal violence. Why no apostle (who heard this sermon in person) fought back when they were lethally attacked wasn't really addressed in that lecture.
Onward we go to another issue, and that is when pacifism means letting yourself get walked all over by anyone and everyone. I admit I am kind of a passive person to begin with, which is probably why pacifism appeals to me in the first place. Proactive guys who dream of spearing boars in their free time probably don't think about it as nearly as much as I do (okay, there is probably no one who thinks about this as much as I do), good for them. But I hate being walked all over and taken for granted. This feeling has grown as I have gotten older and gotten sick of being taken advantage of. I have learned to fight for myself and make sure that I am not anyone's door mat. It is a horrible feeling to be objectified or used. And a person who is passive (which is not always the same as being a person who is a pacifist-who's stance comes from theological or philosophical conviction rather than from not having any spine to speak of) will never get anything and spend most of their lives bitter and disillusioned. This isn't what I want for myself or for anyone I love. When I think about my nephew getting picked on or mocked (even as an abstract concept) it gets me upset. I want him to know how to stand up to bullies and fight for truth and justice. I don't want him to go through the hurt that comes with never fighting for what he believes in or defending his own or his family's or loved one's honor.
If someone is trying to use me for their own gain without consideration of how that will affect me I have to stand up to them in order to save my own spine from becoming gelatinous. I, and every person, am deserving of more than that and I cannot allow it. It would be a horrible way to live if I did. I cannot be a person who takes every fight that is offered to me, but I also can't be a person who avoids every fight because I am afraid.
This view probably runs contrary to the true pacifist and I may be wrong in holding it, but I can not do otherwise. If someone is doing something wrong to a loved one it must be stopped. If someone is proclaiming false doctrine and misleading people then I cannot just allow it to happen, I have to call it out and fight against it. There is no option of saying "well he has his views, who am I to judge?" If someone is misleading innocent people they have to be called out (I'm looking at you emergent and health and wealth gospel people). If someone is taking advantage of me or my friends to get what they want I have to put my foot down and not allow that to happen ever again. I suppose that would make me a bad pacifist, or not a pacifist at all, and I'm okay with that.
I'm not sure where that leaves me. Maybe I can call myself a sight-specific-pacifist, where my pacifism ebbs and flows based on the circumstances. I know that isn't consistent or rock solid, but its the best that I have. In my heart I cannot imagine hurting anyone (although I am certainly capable, which is a different sort of issue all together), and I hope I am never forced to. But I can't be consistant in pacifism because its just too complex of an issue, with too many variables. You could, reasonably, respond "oh Tyler, I wish that you where either cold or hot, but since you are lukewarm I will spit you out of my mouth." Well said hypothetical person. I sit in the middle of men who are solid in their convictions: C.S. Lewis (among others) who was clearly no a pacifist and Dietrich Bonhoeffer (again, among others) who clearly was. Someday when I go home perhaps the three of us can talk it out.
A day later:
I have received some comments that show the shortcomings in my essay. I didn't think I was so much claiming pacifist dogma as much as I was showing my sympothy towards it while also showing some of its pit falls. I'm not a pacifist. I more wanted to examine the issue than write an essay that gave a solid answer about what position is right.
So here are some thoughts I received that might be helpful to consider as either an alternative to mine or a more complete thought (this first comment brings God's sovereignty into the issue, which is sadly something I didn't think of but it helps complete the argument and show the weakness in what that Duke professor was teaching:
As someone who believes in the sovereignty of God, I'd argue that we cannot send anyone to hell. When everyone stands before Christ at the final judgment, I do not believe anyone will be able to say, "If only I'd had a little longer. If only that person had spoke up. If only someone had told me. If only...." Rather as in the story of Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31), it would not matter what someone experienced or how much time they were given. In the story, Abraham is in the afterlife and responds to the rich man who is pleading with him to send a sign to his brothers who are living wrongly on the earth, and Abraham responds saying, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead" (Lk 16.31). If God loves someone enough to send His own Son to perish that they might be saved, then I believe He will do everything in His power to see to it that people freely respond to his gracious initiatives. In the end, the only reason people will truly go to hell is because "they refused to love the truth and so be saved" (2 Thes 2.10).
Here is someone going into military:
But since I'm joining the army, my ideals obviously differ. I understand the concept of letting yourself be harmed and not reacting with violence in order to promote a more peaceful world or not wanting to harm the individual. But I can not let myself refrain from killing another if that is the only way to stop them from killing another innocent individual. But it was nice to see a different point of view, don't want to always be hearing things I already agree with.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
A Moment of Self Disclosure
I'm not sure I have ever been in love before. I'm pretty sure I haven't. I mean, I am certain that I have loved before, as in I've cared more for other people more than myself and wanted their best above my own. But love in the romantic, marriage sense... I don't think so. Its been a long time and retrospect has a way of clouding the experience from how I felt at those moments but no... I haven't been in love with anyone up to this point in my life.
What I am certain about though is that I am completely, unashamedly, unquestionably, head-over-heals in love with myself. I'm crazy about me. I think I'm the greatest thing that ever existed and I spare no expense to make sure that I am taken care of, happy, and have everything I could possibly want or desire. I dote on myself, think about myself, and spoil myself more than anyone else in the world.
People I know may be surprised by this. Certainly I am not one to shy away from my defects or call my own shortcomings to everyone's attention. I know my flaws, and struggle with being disappointed and wishing I had done many things in my life differently. But none of that gets in the way of being absolutely crazy about me.
Rampant Materialism
This came to my attention this weekend as I took some time away to think and pray through some issues in my life. I was off in Newport wandering around different stores when I walked into a book store. I can't go into book stores without buying something. Its a problem. This summer I bought a plethora of books because so many good new books came out and there are a back list of books I've wanted to read, plus Amazon has that free shipping if you buy $25 worth of books thing so I figured I'd maximize my purchasing power with that. One thing led to another and I suddenly had a backlog of over a dozen books that sat on my bookshelf and were waiting to be enjoyed by the love of my life, yours truly. I was really just walking around the book store because it was something to do whilest I waited for hunger to set in and the heat to die down outside. Then I found a book that looked interesting. It was not a book that would change my life. It was not a book that was on my radar. But something inside of me reasoned: I must have this book. I had about 14 books at home that I had thought the same thing about too, I had another that I was in the middle of reading. But the child inside of me (or something more or less sinister, I can't say) wanted that immediate gratification. I saw something, I wanted it, I bought it. End of story. The real problem for me was the long trip down the escalator upon leaving my literary utopia-I felt no guilt. All logic told me I did not need this book. I had too many books waiting to entertain me as well as this book could. It would not help me in any way. It was clearly not a necessity to my life. But I needed to have it. And despite all logic that pointed me against it I bought myself a gift.
I'm supposing that's the only way to look at this. I bought myself a gift. You know what is annoying about that? In the last 6 months both my sisters, my brother, and four of my closets friends have had birthdays and I have gotten them nothing. My parents had a wedding anniversary, to celebrate I bought David Foster Wallace's Brief Interviews with Hideous Men for myself. For them? Nothing. That makes me feel like an awful person. But it doesn't stop me from buying myself more stuff I don't need. And it doesn't inspire me to dote on my loved ones as I should.
Its embarrassing to consider that I have hardly kept any (reasonable) pleasure from myself. I'm not hard to please. I just like having books and movies to adorn my shelves and a nice meatball sandwich every now and then. There is no delaying of gratification for me. When I see a book I buy it. When there is a movie I want to see I get it. No questions, no delay, no consideration. Its just three simple steps: want, obtain, repeat.
Me First and the Gimme Gimmes
Sometimes when I'm driving I get tripped out by the idea that each car has a person in it. Each person has a life, friends, family, ambitions, hardships, dreams, failures, character defects, moments of compassion. These are all fully realized human beings going about their lives just like I am. Its crazy to think about that. These aren't just numbers or people in my way, these are real people whom God loves and has created in His image.
Most of the time I don't think like that. While driving I don't see beings made in the image of God. I see cars blocking my ability to get to a location five minutes faster than I would have if they weren't in my way. If I am being honest they are road blocks, moronic people who don't drive nearly as well as my high standards dictate. I don't care about them, their dreams, the fight they just got into with someone they love. I just want them out of my way. I think that makes me a monster.
Now I know I can't know what is going on in each person's life, and it is impossible for me to practically care for each person sitting on the 91 freeway keeping me from my destination, but still... a heart of compassion is always hard to find in my Ford Taurus on any drive I'm on. I wish I could stop being so concerned with getting from point a to point b and instead be patient and caring for those around me. I can't verbally share Christ's love with these people, but I could do a better job of caring for them as Christ would. I would just have to stop caring about myself for a moment and care for someone else more. That's difficult.
In Conclusion
I was talking to a friend the other day, and perhaps because I was too tired or too comfortable (or a combination of the two) I had a moment of self disclosure I usually wouldn't. I admitted to all I said here: that I love myself and am embarrassed by that fact but I still can't seem to get over me. Then I said this "there is no way that a person can spend all day with themselves, thinking about themselves, caring for themselves, without being at least mildly (if not recklessly) in love with themselves." I spend all day with myself, as you spend all day with you. I can't get away from myself if I tried (and believe me I've tried!). That much time with one person brings about one of two things 1) outright hatred and rejection of that person, or 2) a love that is not matched by any other person.
In sin it is easy to love yourself, spoil yourself, put yourself first, at least it is for me. It comes naturally to think about myself first since I'm always with myself. That's not always a bad thing (at least in the interest of self preservation and a healthy amount of confidence), but it is when it prevents us from loving others, putting them first, and practicing the Christian discipline of dying to ourselves. Self gratification is a sinful thing, and I admit to it with shame. But until I admit it there isn't anything I can do about it. Until I realize this unfavorable characteristic there is no hope for change.
Now, who should I go buy a present for tomorrow?
What I am certain about though is that I am completely, unashamedly, unquestionably, head-over-heals in love with myself. I'm crazy about me. I think I'm the greatest thing that ever existed and I spare no expense to make sure that I am taken care of, happy, and have everything I could possibly want or desire. I dote on myself, think about myself, and spoil myself more than anyone else in the world.
People I know may be surprised by this. Certainly I am not one to shy away from my defects or call my own shortcomings to everyone's attention. I know my flaws, and struggle with being disappointed and wishing I had done many things in my life differently. But none of that gets in the way of being absolutely crazy about me.
Rampant Materialism
This came to my attention this weekend as I took some time away to think and pray through some issues in my life. I was off in Newport wandering around different stores when I walked into a book store. I can't go into book stores without buying something. Its a problem. This summer I bought a plethora of books because so many good new books came out and there are a back list of books I've wanted to read, plus Amazon has that free shipping if you buy $25 worth of books thing so I figured I'd maximize my purchasing power with that. One thing led to another and I suddenly had a backlog of over a dozen books that sat on my bookshelf and were waiting to be enjoyed by the love of my life, yours truly. I was really just walking around the book store because it was something to do whilest I waited for hunger to set in and the heat to die down outside. Then I found a book that looked interesting. It was not a book that would change my life. It was not a book that was on my radar. But something inside of me reasoned: I must have this book. I had about 14 books at home that I had thought the same thing about too, I had another that I was in the middle of reading. But the child inside of me (or something more or less sinister, I can't say) wanted that immediate gratification. I saw something, I wanted it, I bought it. End of story. The real problem for me was the long trip down the escalator upon leaving my literary utopia-I felt no guilt. All logic told me I did not need this book. I had too many books waiting to entertain me as well as this book could. It would not help me in any way. It was clearly not a necessity to my life. But I needed to have it. And despite all logic that pointed me against it I bought myself a gift.
I'm supposing that's the only way to look at this. I bought myself a gift. You know what is annoying about that? In the last 6 months both my sisters, my brother, and four of my closets friends have had birthdays and I have gotten them nothing. My parents had a wedding anniversary, to celebrate I bought David Foster Wallace's Brief Interviews with Hideous Men for myself. For them? Nothing. That makes me feel like an awful person. But it doesn't stop me from buying myself more stuff I don't need. And it doesn't inspire me to dote on my loved ones as I should.
Its embarrassing to consider that I have hardly kept any (reasonable) pleasure from myself. I'm not hard to please. I just like having books and movies to adorn my shelves and a nice meatball sandwich every now and then. There is no delaying of gratification for me. When I see a book I buy it. When there is a movie I want to see I get it. No questions, no delay, no consideration. Its just three simple steps: want, obtain, repeat.
Me First and the Gimme Gimmes
Sometimes when I'm driving I get tripped out by the idea that each car has a person in it. Each person has a life, friends, family, ambitions, hardships, dreams, failures, character defects, moments of compassion. These are all fully realized human beings going about their lives just like I am. Its crazy to think about that. These aren't just numbers or people in my way, these are real people whom God loves and has created in His image.
Most of the time I don't think like that. While driving I don't see beings made in the image of God. I see cars blocking my ability to get to a location five minutes faster than I would have if they weren't in my way. If I am being honest they are road blocks, moronic people who don't drive nearly as well as my high standards dictate. I don't care about them, their dreams, the fight they just got into with someone they love. I just want them out of my way. I think that makes me a monster.
Now I know I can't know what is going on in each person's life, and it is impossible for me to practically care for each person sitting on the 91 freeway keeping me from my destination, but still... a heart of compassion is always hard to find in my Ford Taurus on any drive I'm on. I wish I could stop being so concerned with getting from point a to point b and instead be patient and caring for those around me. I can't verbally share Christ's love with these people, but I could do a better job of caring for them as Christ would. I would just have to stop caring about myself for a moment and care for someone else more. That's difficult.
In Conclusion
I was talking to a friend the other day, and perhaps because I was too tired or too comfortable (or a combination of the two) I had a moment of self disclosure I usually wouldn't. I admitted to all I said here: that I love myself and am embarrassed by that fact but I still can't seem to get over me. Then I said this "there is no way that a person can spend all day with themselves, thinking about themselves, caring for themselves, without being at least mildly (if not recklessly) in love with themselves." I spend all day with myself, as you spend all day with you. I can't get away from myself if I tried (and believe me I've tried!). That much time with one person brings about one of two things 1) outright hatred and rejection of that person, or 2) a love that is not matched by any other person.
In sin it is easy to love yourself, spoil yourself, put yourself first, at least it is for me. It comes naturally to think about myself first since I'm always with myself. That's not always a bad thing (at least in the interest of self preservation and a healthy amount of confidence), but it is when it prevents us from loving others, putting them first, and practicing the Christian discipline of dying to ourselves. Self gratification is a sinful thing, and I admit to it with shame. But until I admit it there isn't anything I can do about it. Until I realize this unfavorable characteristic there is no hope for change.
Now, who should I go buy a present for tomorrow?
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Reflections on Post Modernity
I love post modernity in that it turns modernity on its ear. It is the movement that takes apart the modern ways of viewing things and deconstructs them. Everything that modernity takes for granted post modernity calls into question and shows the absurdity of it. Conan O'Brien is a great example of the post modern movement in his approach to comedy. He's not even a comedian in the traditional sense. He operates both outside and inside the system and mocks that system while also living off of it. Compare his approach to running a show against other talk show hosts, he's openly aware of the absurdity of the medium he operates in (both entertainment as a whole and the talk show genre) and of himself. That is what post modernity does. It creates something while at the same time deconstructing what its creating. That's an amazing thing when seen against modernity that often takes itself too seriously and loves the framework it has set itself in. But what makes post modernity great is also its great weakness. It is purely a reactionary movement that mocks the frame work of its predecessor rather than creating its own.
I find anyone who openly ascribes to the title of a post modern annoying, it seems like a desperate attempt to be relevant and in doing so the one who claims the title makes themselves cliche and, ironically, un post modern. But one mark of post modernity is self awareness (how can one deconstruct what they are building if one is not aware what they are building and the confines that are ascribed to that type of construction?), so how can one be post modern without claiming post modernity? Its a paradox; one cannot be post modern without being aware they are post modern, but claiming post modernity is entirely a modern idea that one who is post modern wouldn't ascribe to. So its safer perhaps to say that one operates in the world of post modernity, sharing its goals, while never being so presumptuous as to say they themselves fit the title. So that is what I am going to say. I am post modern in that I share the goals of post modernity while not wanting to confine myself to the modern understanding of the baggage that such a title comes with. I write, talk, and operate on a daily level as a post modern. I am aware of the system I am a part of, attempt to deconstruct it so as to find the good while removing all the cliches that it holds to. That to me is post modernity, and in a world of flexible definitions that should be sufficient for the context of this essay.
I find the pitfalls of modernity alive in my own life. The problem with post modernity is that it is purely reactionary. It is the free spirited little brother of its do-gooder elder sibling. It only exists to deconstruct what came before and call it into question. It plays the part of the artist: revealing the chinks in the armor but hardly ever providing assistance in how to improve the design. And that is why the movement will not last. It cannot until it gives birth to something new and constructive, until it becomes its own individual apart from its predecessor. And when it does that it will no longer be post modernity but something all together different that a whole other group of sociologists can give a title to that it probably won't appreciate or ascribe to itself.
I live reactionary to the confines of modernity, which is both freeing and confining at the same time. When everything is called into question there is nothing left to hold to. Love and affection has been polluted and contrived so much its hard to express those emotions verbally or physically, because of that I feel compelled to deconstruct them as contrived while also wishing to participate in them.
A simple example is hugging in Christian culture. EVERYONE wants to hug all the time, hugs hello, hugs goodbye, hugs because its Shark Week, hugs because you haven't seen said person in two hours. There is a hug for everything. When there is so much hugging it loses its value and becomes meaningless. Its less a display of something genuine and more an obligation. I know this because I think too much about everything (a clever way to avoid calling myself post modern). While others are free from that burden they get to hug free form whenever they feel like it, I have to be aware of the situation, assess its value, and consider in my own heart if the hug is genuine. That is, at the same time both freeing and crippling. Its freeing in that people know that my hugs are genuine, but crippling in that every hug comes with a whole process of thought that is time consuming and kind of exhausting. It is also crippling because anyone who knows me knows my apprehension to hug so they always question whether or not its genuine or done in apprehension so they are self conscious over the fact that any oncoming hug can either be done out of pure love for the person or begrudgingly out of obligation (but isn't it still done in love because, for the sake of the person I am overcoming my apprehension?). And the person can never be sure unless I tell them, and even then they might not believe me because I can either be sincere with my answer or I could just be polite. When everything is called into question is anything genuine? Sometimes I just want to hug someone, but it comes with so much baggage its more effort than its simplicity would originally dictate. And that is tragic. I hate that. I hate that sincerity has to be called into question.
I don't know how to end this essay in a clever manner. I suppose I said everything I need to say. I will point out a few things 1) I am sorry that I started five of these paragraphs with the letter I, anyone who writes with the intention of other people reading (especially blogs) is at least a minor egotist, and I think I was a bit overt in proving that by starting so many sentences setting myself up as the lead subject. 2) I hope hugging isn't the main thing you get from this. I long for genuine relationships, but I'm not cleverly trying to get more people to hug me. Hugging is not the subject of this essay, I am simply trying to at least address the pros and cons of the philosophical world we live in. Don't try to hug me because you read this essay, or think that I lack the appropriate level of hugging. 3) This essay is less of a doctrinal piece and more a conversation starter, in that way it is different than my essay on abortion or something like that because I am not saying anything concrete, I'm introducing an idea, there are no solutions here, only instigators to conversation (that is so post modern it almost makes me not like my own writing!). 4) If this didn't make sense its because I am running on very little sleep but felt compelled to write. I didn't have a lesson to bring across like I often do. 5) If you have read to this point I owe you a very genuine hug because you are a reading champion. 6) I hope I have not wasted your time.
I find anyone who openly ascribes to the title of a post modern annoying, it seems like a desperate attempt to be relevant and in doing so the one who claims the title makes themselves cliche and, ironically, un post modern. But one mark of post modernity is self awareness (how can one deconstruct what they are building if one is not aware what they are building and the confines that are ascribed to that type of construction?), so how can one be post modern without claiming post modernity? Its a paradox; one cannot be post modern without being aware they are post modern, but claiming post modernity is entirely a modern idea that one who is post modern wouldn't ascribe to. So its safer perhaps to say that one operates in the world of post modernity, sharing its goals, while never being so presumptuous as to say they themselves fit the title. So that is what I am going to say. I am post modern in that I share the goals of post modernity while not wanting to confine myself to the modern understanding of the baggage that such a title comes with. I write, talk, and operate on a daily level as a post modern. I am aware of the system I am a part of, attempt to deconstruct it so as to find the good while removing all the cliches that it holds to. That to me is post modernity, and in a world of flexible definitions that should be sufficient for the context of this essay.
I find the pitfalls of modernity alive in my own life. The problem with post modernity is that it is purely reactionary. It is the free spirited little brother of its do-gooder elder sibling. It only exists to deconstruct what came before and call it into question. It plays the part of the artist: revealing the chinks in the armor but hardly ever providing assistance in how to improve the design. And that is why the movement will not last. It cannot until it gives birth to something new and constructive, until it becomes its own individual apart from its predecessor. And when it does that it will no longer be post modernity but something all together different that a whole other group of sociologists can give a title to that it probably won't appreciate or ascribe to itself.
I live reactionary to the confines of modernity, which is both freeing and confining at the same time. When everything is called into question there is nothing left to hold to. Love and affection has been polluted and contrived so much its hard to express those emotions verbally or physically, because of that I feel compelled to deconstruct them as contrived while also wishing to participate in them.
A simple example is hugging in Christian culture. EVERYONE wants to hug all the time, hugs hello, hugs goodbye, hugs because its Shark Week, hugs because you haven't seen said person in two hours. There is a hug for everything. When there is so much hugging it loses its value and becomes meaningless. Its less a display of something genuine and more an obligation. I know this because I think too much about everything (a clever way to avoid calling myself post modern). While others are free from that burden they get to hug free form whenever they feel like it, I have to be aware of the situation, assess its value, and consider in my own heart if the hug is genuine. That is, at the same time both freeing and crippling. Its freeing in that people know that my hugs are genuine, but crippling in that every hug comes with a whole process of thought that is time consuming and kind of exhausting. It is also crippling because anyone who knows me knows my apprehension to hug so they always question whether or not its genuine or done in apprehension so they are self conscious over the fact that any oncoming hug can either be done out of pure love for the person or begrudgingly out of obligation (but isn't it still done in love because, for the sake of the person I am overcoming my apprehension?). And the person can never be sure unless I tell them, and even then they might not believe me because I can either be sincere with my answer or I could just be polite. When everything is called into question is anything genuine? Sometimes I just want to hug someone, but it comes with so much baggage its more effort than its simplicity would originally dictate. And that is tragic. I hate that. I hate that sincerity has to be called into question.
I don't know how to end this essay in a clever manner. I suppose I said everything I need to say. I will point out a few things 1) I am sorry that I started five of these paragraphs with the letter I, anyone who writes with the intention of other people reading (especially blogs) is at least a minor egotist, and I think I was a bit overt in proving that by starting so many sentences setting myself up as the lead subject. 2) I hope hugging isn't the main thing you get from this. I long for genuine relationships, but I'm not cleverly trying to get more people to hug me. Hugging is not the subject of this essay, I am simply trying to at least address the pros and cons of the philosophical world we live in. Don't try to hug me because you read this essay, or think that I lack the appropriate level of hugging. 3) This essay is less of a doctrinal piece and more a conversation starter, in that way it is different than my essay on abortion or something like that because I am not saying anything concrete, I'm introducing an idea, there are no solutions here, only instigators to conversation (that is so post modern it almost makes me not like my own writing!). 4) If this didn't make sense its because I am running on very little sleep but felt compelled to write. I didn't have a lesson to bring across like I often do. 5) If you have read to this point I owe you a very genuine hug because you are a reading champion. 6) I hope I have not wasted your time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)