Feminism

A Feminist is not necessarily a woman; a man can also be a feminist.  I am a Feminist. They say I belong more in the Ladies Parlor than in the men’s smoking room talking sports, cars, money etc.  I was told at a recent party in Colorado, that “if I was finished talking with the men, I should join the ladies on the patio, where I belong.” Lord Byron (the Poet), Thomas Taylor (the Neo-Platonist), and John Dewey (the Philosopher) were Feminists. I’m in good company in those three cases.  A feminist is simply one who believes in the God given equality of Men and Women.  So maybe I do belong more in the “Ladies Parlor” than in the smoking room, besides I no longer smoke.

***

One ought to have an insight into the predicament of lower class women.  I would point
out  that in a number of cases “working class” women “have” to work since their
economic status, or should we say the economic status of their family is at stake. 
It’s a difficult problem.  Today’s war on the middle class is only because the working
class has already been defeated.  I think choice does not fall to working class women
because they are stuck, so to speak, supplementing their family’s income in order to
have a roof over their head and food on their table, let alone clothes on their backs. 
I am deeply troubled by this, because I know a number of working class women who are smarter, more skilled and more hard working than many of their middle class counterparts.
I really think that if Feminism is to work in today’s society, they will have to come to
grips with the plight of the working class woman.  Many of the middle class women I
know are “trophy wives” and have little if any skills and knowledge other than their
ability to fulfill the role of “middle class wife”.  This of course is not true of everyone,
but it is true of far too many.  Frankly, I have found that “working class” people are
real and far too often “middle class” people are pretentious to a great degree. 
Maybe it’s the pretense that makes them “middle class”.  It is really up to the skilled, knowledgeable and hard working middle class women to help bring their working class counterparts up to a better life. 

Feminism is not an easy subject that everyone understands and if it were, everyone
would be a feminist or there would be no real feminists.  To notice how feminism changes, is something important.  It can change not only in a family, but also in one individual.  It is often said that men focus on an Ethics of Justice, while women focus
on an Ethics of care.  It is unfair to speak of issues that women face in today’s world as “gender issues”.  Gender is a matter of language and no amount of “Politically Correct” language can solve all these problems.  PC language can and often is used to mask the real feelings and prejudices of PC language speakers.  To really solve these issues, we need to come to a better understanding of the differences between men and women, which will lead to a more just, but also a more caring world.

The New Book

The first book of the Physicist called What Happened.

Before there was anything, the non-existent created all that is.   There were two parallel universes one was darkness and one was void.  And the non-existent thought: "what would happen if these two universes collided?"  And there was a big bang.  But since there was no one to hear it, it made no sound.  And silence was the order of things. Now none except the non-existent knew of that big bang, because it could not be seen.  So the non-existent thought "there ought to be light", and there were things that went out from the big bang in a random ever expanding array in all directions from the big-bang. And there was light. And the non-existent called the things that ever expanded substances and all else he called empty space. And the non- existent looked at what was now in the light and saw that it was valuable. And that was the first period of time itself.  ….

The first book of the Mystic called Souls

Before there was anything the Infinite Consciousness emanated from His consciousness other consciousnesses to share in what came to be known as souls. They were other consciousnesses and though they were aware of each other, they were other to each other and they did not come together.  And the Infinite Consciousness thought: “what would happen if these souls collided.”  So he directed some to push them in a direction that they would collide. And there was a spark.  But the spark did not ignite, so the Infinite Consciousness thought: “they ought to be enlightened” and ordained these souls to speak and feel with one another, and there was Love. And the Infinite consciousness called one soul man, and the other He called woman. And the Infinite Consciousness, because He was Love itself, stood back and looked at what had occurred and saw that it was beautiful.  And this was the beginning of all that would thereafter be for all eternity.  ….

Time

“…Time like an ever rolling stream,

bears all its sons away,….”  -  Isaac Watts.

This old Philosophy Professor was always fond of ending his lectures on Metaphysics by saying:

"As we push headlong through the curtain of the unknown that we call future, we carry all our times with us. We carry with us a vast load of our past experiences and those we have inherited from our ancestors.  Every future becoming present along the way, we add to our load until that time the load becomes too much for our inevitable frailty.  Since we will come to a place we can no longer carry the load, we must leave it to those who are younger and stronger, who will then pick up the load and carry on.  So you see, as we move on, we not only carry the past with us, but we collect the future to add to the burden of our descendents. Fortunately for us, yet unfortunately for our descendents, in the Now, we never can see beyond the horizon of our own existence to observe that tremendously large burden we will place on our children, and they on theirs. Therefore, it behooves us to push on into the future lightly with a cautious timidity, lest we make the burden we leave behind unbearable.  For the goal we seek can only be to leave to our descendents a burden with which they might be able to carry on into a farther future. Yet, we only come to realize this metaphysics of temporal existence, when the burden becomes extremely heavy, and we are near to the place where we will lay our load aside."

Curious isn’t it that time for us seems to move towards the future, or should I say we sentient beings feel ourselves moving towards what is to come.  So our experience of the arrow of time is directed towards (points to) the future.  But, if time is something real and not ideal or merely relational (earlier, later, simultaneous), then what was future becomes present (now) and will become, some time from that now, past.  So it would seem that time itself is bidirectional.  We experience its flow as from our past, through the now, to an ever new future. But time itself moves towards us and our experienced now.  What was once to come, becomes present (now) and will become past.

Time is indeed a curious thing.  So I offer my readers this post as something to think about.  We ought to think, it is what makes us real beings; it is our very essence.  But we change and move from where we were, to where we will be, while time moves from what was possible (future may be), to what is actual (now) and from hence to what is necessarily so - or what was and cannot be other than what it has been (past).

Three hallmarks of Grace.

"Drie keursteenen van genade alzoo.  De ééne gehell personlijk, de witte keursteen, waarop een naam gegraveerd staat, die allen Gode en unzelven bekend is.  Dat is de gansch particuliere genade.  De tweede een keursteen van Verbondsgenade, een zalig goed u gemeen met al Gods kinderen. En de derde een keursteen van algemeene menchelijke genade, u omdat gij kind des menschen zijt toegekomen, en u, niet alleen met al God kinderen, maar met alle kinderen der menschen gemeen."  A. Kuyper, De Gemeene Gratie I  (Kampen: J. H. Kok, n.d.) p.8

Calvinists and Neo-Calvinists are big on Grace, and I am puzzled by this passage.  So as a follow up of Yesterday’s post I should like to comment on what I find of interest here.

There seems to be three types (hallmarks, markers) of grace bestowed on humans from the Deity, and we ought to be familiar at least with the particular grace.  I experienced this one well, by being delivered from the throes of Cancer, and being allowed to again be with family and friends, whom I love and hold dear.  That grace cannot be denied and we all seem to have experienced it sometime in our lives.  Of course some don’t think about it, but if one meditates on the blessings received, one is bound to come up with some particular grace received. 

The second and third Kuyper mentions are difficult to distinguish, perhaps it is the wording, but the difference is obviously subtle, perhaps very subtle.  The second of course is the common grace we receive in community with our fellow human beings as children of God.  The third, however, comes not as merely common to all children of God, but as children of the common Humanity.  Here yesterday’s post and my friend’s insight are quite à propos.  Clearly as communities of God’s children we receive grace beyond measure and beyond what we often deserve.  That’s the thing about grace, we get it when we do not deserve it - it is an undeserved gift. But the third comes not from any experience of community, but from the insight that “we are all human”.  Humanity is here again the watchword of what the Christ and His message is about. 

In a sense, this grace comes as the grace of the Christ who by being that paradigm of Humanity we are given to follow Him as that paradigm, to love Him and cherish our humanness we have in Him.  To believe in the Christ is in some sense to believe in the paradigm of Humanity - perhaps to believe in Humanity itself.  My Neo-Calvinist friends may think I am turning Kuyper on his ear, but I think not. There is a categorical difference between this notion of Humanism and what has come to be known as “Secular Humanism”. From Justin Martyr to the Reformers, Humanism has played a role in explicating the Christian message. Discussing her insight with her, I discovered my friend’s thinking that the insight is clearly obvious, but often little talked about or realized, perhaps because it is so obvious.  Perhaps it is like the glasses on my face, they’re obviously there, but I do not see them, I look past (through) them and miss the fact that they are there.  The insight may likewise be so obvious that we look past (through) it and miss the fact of it all, right there in front of our mind’s eye.  Yes, our human faults are there, but much more, our human positives are also there in our humanness - our common heritage of rational beings, capable of choices, capable of love, capable of failure, and yes, with all our character flaws.  But those flaws of character are not the end or the defining characteristic of us, they are rather the initium of a learning experience and struggle to overcome our flaws and perfect ourselves.  This is our choice to overcome our faults and perfect our being in Christ, the paradigm of Humanity – to elevate ourselves in (with) God’s grace freely given.

It may be thought that I am advocating a form of Christian Humanism.  Yes I am, I remind the reader that the so called Northern Renaissance was tied to the Reformation and it was the Humanism of that Renaissance that gave birth to the Reformation.  So ought I advocate a form of Humanism?  Yes indeed, I ought and so ought every Christian with any thought to the meaning of Grace and the nature of Christ as “son of Man” (ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου). 

Today’s Gospel - June 26:

Today’s Gospel June 26

From the Revised Common Lectionary Matthew 10:40-42:

 ῾Ο δεχόμενος ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ δέχεται, καὶ ὁ ἐμὲ δεχόμενος δέχεται τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με.  ὁ δεχόμενος προφήτην εἰς ὄνομα προφήτου μισθὸν προφήτου λήψεται, καὶ ὁ δεχόμενος δίκαιον εἰς ὄνομα δικαίου μισθὸν δικαίου λήψεται.  καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ποτίσῃ ἕνα τῶν μικρῶν τούτων ποτήριον ψυχροῦ μόνον εἰς ὄνομα μαθητοῦ, ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ ἀπολέσῃ τὸν μισθὸν αὐτοῦ.

It is an interesting claim by Jesus that He is representative of even the lowliest.  Or maybe He is found amongst the lowliest, even the despised.  Perhaps the claim is a follow up to the name ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου.  It is not a claim by Jesus that He is the son of God, but that he is Humanity itself.  The accusation at the trial of Jesus is almost ridiculous by this, because the claim is not to divinity but to humanity.  To put it bluntly the Christ is claiming a larger humanism (Higher Humanism) for himself.  My friend’s insight that we are all human applies here, and makes one think that not only are we human, but Christ-like, since the claim is that Christ is Humanity itself.  So much so is this true, that the lowliest of persons (human beings) is also Christ-like by being an instantiation of Christ, who is the paradigm of humanity.

Although this pericope has a Semitic origin, it is not clear that such is of import to the notion of humanity itself, beyond being the source of such an idea.  Perhaps we go too far in claiming Jesus as son of God crucified/resurrected, when we ought to concentrate on the teaching that all humans are under Him as the universal and we are as such instantiations of Him in our humanness.  Curious isn’t it that the teaching of Jesus would be so much in line with Kant’s moral law (see earlier post on the subject). 

By the way, for those Feminists sensitive to the word ‘man’ it should be noted that ἄνθρωπος means “mankind” and not “male”, which is ἀνὴρ.  One ought to realize that for the Greek, ἄνθρωπος is a generic word meaning something more like human than man in the sense of a male person.  Even though ἄνθρωπος has a linguistic gender (all nouns do), it does not have an intensional gender.  Gender here is syntactic not semantic.

Some  logical consequences of this Higher Humanism Jesus affirms is not only that if one welcomes - δέχεται (with hospitality) - the lowliest human being, we welcome the Christ, but if we are truly human beings, we are also Children of God (πάντες γὰρ υἱοὶ Θεοῦ ἐστε διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ· Galatians 3:26), by our very being human, by our very belief in the Christ.  If we learn from the lowliest, we learn from Christ, if we admire the human body, we admire Christ’s body, not to offend. If we are humans, instantiations of the Christ, as Jesus is the Son of God, so are we, so in an important sense we all are Gods. Perhaps we are images of God Himself - the “I Am” of Exodus. Perhaps Menander was right when he said: Ὁ νοῦς γὰρ ἡμῶν ἐστιν ἐν ἑκάστῳ θεός.

Two Leaves and Incredible Grief

This poem requires some brief explanation.  Some time ago, between positions, I was working as a church custodian.  While I was working setting up chairs tables etc in a large room, a young gal, from a child care organization renting space in the church, came past me with the most tearful, sorrowful face.  I knew her mother, who was from the same area of New Jersey where I was raised.  I noticed the gal in the sanctuary crying and praying.  I went to her and asked what was wrong.  “I killed him Vern, just as surely as if I had done it myself.  You see I had two boyfriends, lovers to be honest, and one died in a construction accident, where the other was also involved.  I killed him. I should not have loved both of them.”  Not knowing what to do or say and overcome by the sadness of it all, I put my arm around her, cupped her praying hands in mine, and told her “There is no sin that God does not have the power to forgive, you merely need to ask.  I have some chores yet to do in the other room, so if you need me, you know where to find me.”  While she prayed for forgiveness, I prayed that I might be shown a way to ease her incredible pain.  When my chores were finished I checked on her and noticed that by now she was on her knees bitterly weeping as though inconsolable. So I went and got her mother and told her mother to take her home and leave someone to watch over her.  After work I went home and wrote this poem, which I gave to her a week later, when the initial pangs of grief had passed.

Two Leaves

Two leaves grew

upon an ancient oak

in a primal forest,

amid a carpet of ferns

and lichens green.

Sheltering an acorn,

they touched each other

and danced in a cool

enchanting summer breeze,

drinking in the light.

As the rains fell,

the droplets formed

upon these leaves are

felt as though they were

an Angel’s tears.

Replenished, Earth

took up these drops

to nurture the oak

and wash the ferns

upon the ground.

When autumn came,

one leaf turned red

and the other brown;

whereupon they fell

amid the ferns below.

And in the thicket,

a timid Doe came

to lay her fawn,

amid the soft bed,

where these leaves lay.

Sheltered in these leaves,

the fawn feels not

the winter cold and snow;

and grows into a doe

to birth some future fawn.

The acorn is protected

by the fawns warmth,

waiting until the spring

to emerge as a sprig

and grow into a mighty oak.

The oak falls to give

birth to a new ground

and mark the spot,

for the future fawn

and the newborn oak.

And so it goes,

as sad as it may seem,

infinite consciousness

has decreed a new

ever eternity of life.

             ***

Below a welkin arch

with Gothic niches,

this poet sees seated

a young tear-filled woman

with an angelic face.

Saddened and distraught

over her glimpse into Eternity,

she sheds her deep felt tears

as if they were jewels

in a heavenly necklace.

The poet touches her gently

to ease the pearl-drop tears

into the deeper recesses

of her angelic heart,

where they will forever stay;

Where they will keep alive

the memory of that him

who was the object of her distress,

and hence give birth to future him-s

as providence has decreed.

                                            November 24, 1996

Love - Song

From a German song:

“Wenn die Liebe ist ein Lied,  ….  und die Stimme frohlichein, dann mit Niemand einsamsein.”

“When Love is a song,  … and the voice is joyful,  then no-one shall be lonely.”

The trick is how to make one’s love a song.  One ought to wear one’s love on the face, so to speak, but more than that, we ought to sing it to one another. 

The real question is: Is that not the Christian Message?  According to St. John, one cannot know God, if one cannot love, because God IS Love.

I sing my love often, perhaps that is why I get hurt so often.  Are we afraid of hurt?  I obviously am not.  Love requires courage to face hurt and pain. “Love was never yet without the pang, the agony, the doubt.”  (Byron)

So we ought to show our love by singing it to one another, if only to eliminate the loneliness;  And endure the hurt whenever and wherever it comes.

***

ΠΝΕΥΜΑ ΘΕΟΥ β

Love is not a feeling

that I might experience.

Love is more or less a doing

of which I am conscious.

Love is an action,

performed to those others

for whom I have affection,

without any druthers.

Love is a duty,

performed with deep respect,

for our own integrity

our fellow man to effect.

The great imperative

is to love God and man.

Love is then clearly operative,

as that which we always can.

Love is divinely inspired,

wherever our feet have trod.

We are emotionally fired,

‘cause Love is the very breath of God.

                       

                        September 29, 1993

Should – Ought

For anyone familiar with Ancient Greek it is obvious that ‘should’ is Optative - that is, a word in the Optative mood implies options.  The Optative is a semi-subjunctive and represents what one might do rather than what one may (is permitted to) do (subjunctive).  ‘Should’ thereby implies options.  The paradigm of use for ‘should’ is: “given the options available (X,Y,Z), you should do X.”

‘Ought’ on the other hand is imperative, and implies a form of necessity – moral or legal necessity.  What one ought to do is thereby categorical and without options. One should use the word ‘ought’ in many cases to make it clear just exactly what one means.  One cannot mean what one says unless of course one says what one means.  There is a clear distinction between meaning and saying.  One can say anything even absurd things, but can one mean anything, say for instance absurd things?  One should say what one means, but one ought to mean what one says.

Optative is the verbal mood which typically is used to express wishes or hopes.  But it also has other uses, and I think the above is one of the more interesting.  One might consider the notion that what one should do is often an expression of what one wishes to prefer amongst the choices available.  By this what one should do is dependent on what one can and prefers to do, but one could leave that aside for the moment.  What one should do is a matter of prudent decision making. But what one ought to do is categorical and moral (or legal).  One ought to obey the law and that implies that one is obligated in some manner to legal and moral obedience.  An obligation is of course an internal matter.  It is not a matter of external compulsion.  One can be compelled to do what one is not obliged to do.  But that would entail that there is a reluctance upon the part of the one who is compelled.  If a person is compelled to do what he/she feels no obligation to do, there is resistance in the act.

Of course there is also the possibility of internal compulsion.  The mentally or emotionally disturbed individual may act in accordance with his/her diseased compulsion, and in that sense cannot help doing what they do.  This is obvious in the case of addiction.  But it is also true that one can overcome one’s addictions, because there is no obligation to continue with the addiction.  One is not obliged to what one is addicted to, but one is compelled to do so – internally compelled.  So in essence one should overcome one’s addictions, but there is no sense to the notion that one ought to do so, although we often use ‘ought’ in such cases.  Here there is a clear distinction between the necessity of an obligation and the necessity of a compulsion.  Clearly one is not obligated to adhere to one’s compulsions or addictions, and one should overcome them.

The distinction between ‘should’ and ‘ought’ is similar to the distinction Kant makes between hypothetical and categorical imperatives.  A hypothetical imperative always has, either expressed or implied, a protasis attached to it – an “if” clause; e. g. If one wants to be happy, do X, if one seeks pleasure, then do Y, etc.  The protasis defines what the end (desired result) of the imperative is.  Morality according to Kant though is categorical and not simply a matter of hypothetical imperatives which are more a matter of prudence.  Here morality is not a matter of desire, or happiness, pleasure or any other sort of hypothetical situation.  Morality is a categorical situation.  Morality is what one ought to do, and not merely what one should do, or what is prudent to do.  When we speak of morality we speak of what we are obliged to do, what we ought to do.  It may be prudent occasionally to do what we ought not, but that would be immoral.

Freiheit – Liberté

Freedom is an important concept for Western Civilization.  It is especially important to young people who are experiencing for the first time a new horizon free from the constraints of living under their parents’ roof.  But Freedom is a difficult concept also.

There are at least two notions of freedom, and the two differ categorically.  There is the negative sense of freedom, a liberty from external constraints.  This is the concept most young people intend when they speak of freedom.  But there is also a positive sense of freedom.  This sense is similar to the concept of ability.  To make it short, there is 1) a freedom from (negative freedom), and 2) a freedom to (positive freedom).  Under the former we are not restricted by rules and perhaps in modern political parlance free from government intrusion. Under the latter we are or have the ability and opportunity to do.  We are free to act in some way or take possession of something. 

Negative freedom is never total, unless of course one has no residence, no job, no friends, no relatives, no money, no property and no responsibilities.  But no one desires such a situation, so no one desires a total negative freedom.  Our young people are not aware of this when they have their first experience of liberty from parental control.  Only when one meets a totally destitute, homeless person does one realize that such a person is totally free in the negative sense.  The hobo and the homeless are free in this sense, but do we wish to be homeless, jobless and friendless, when we wish for freedom?

The positive sense of freedom is most important.  One cannot be really free unless one is able to be so - unless one has the opportunities available to him/her to act in accordance with what they desire.  Here freedom is even a more difficult  concept than freedom in the negative sense; perhaps this is why we often do not speak of it and concentrate on the negative sense of being free.  So, to enhance the liberty of persons we are required to open to those persons every opportunity to enhance their liberty.  This is in reality the task of governmental, educational, moral and legal institutions – to provide opportunity.  Freedom to travel, one of our fundamental freedoms, entails roads and other means of transport, and that entails government.  Freedom to know entails educational institutions where research and learning can take place, and that entails either government or other educational structures such as can be found in religious institutions.  Freedom to communicate with like minded individuals entails such things as radio, telephones and the internet, and that entails regulations in order that communication is adequate and orderly.  In fact one might argue, I think effectively, that in order to have a negative freedom, a positive freedom is required.  In other words, put simply, to be free from constraint, one requires an ability to be so constraint-less. Here governmental, legal and moral institutions are likewise required.

I distinguish ‘should’ from ‘ought’, but leaving that for another day. One of the most important of our positive freedoms is the freedom to do what we should/ought do.  Without the ability to do what one should/ought do, one requires the ability and opportunity to so do.  To be truly free one needs the ability to do what it is that one should/ought to do, and that entails legal and moral institutions.  It is not merely an ability to act according to our desires, but to act as one should/ought.  To be moral one must be able to act in accordance with what one should/ought.  This is the meaning of the proposition that ‘ought’ implies ‘can’.  We cannot and ought not hold someone responsible for not doing what one ought, unless one actually can (has the ability to) do what one ought.

The Moral Law

„Zwei Dinge erfüllen das Gemüt mit immer neuer und zunehmender Bewunderung, je öfter und anhaltender sich das Nachdenken damit beschäftigt: der bestirnte Himmel über mir und das moralische Gesetz in mir.“  („Two things fill me with constantly increasing admiration and awe, the longer and more earnestly I reflect on them: the starry heaven over me and the moral law within me.”)  Kant: Der Kritik der praktischen Vernunft.

To avoid conflicting notions as to what this quote says, I offer the German original to avoid getting hung up on semantics.  Philosophy begins with wonder Aristotle tells us, so if Kant is immersed in perpetually increasing wondering about this, we know that it is important.  The starry heaven is something which we immediately see on a clear dark night with the vastness of it all.  But a better look is through the Hubble telescope, where we learn that there are more galaxies than people.  Curious isn’t it we are not even a speck compared to the vastness of the universe.  Once one comes to that realization, one becomes very humbled by it all.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvabS630nIM

But in accordance with the purpose of Kant, we should concentrate on the latter wonder (Bewunderung) that Kant gives us – the Moral Law within.  One could pack the quotation with Theological concepts about the nature of Divine Transcendence and also Immanence, but clearly for Kant the moral law is internal.  To put Theological matters aside for a time, one is faced with the prospect of realizing one’s own morality internal to one’s own humanity.  A good friend once wrote in a speech that she came to the realization that we are all human, but what she meant by human was not the usual notion of our imperfection as human beings, but something more – something more in line with Kant.  Her realization was earth shaking – her earth. 

So what is the moral Law, Kant tells us in the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative:

„Handle so, daß du die Menschheit, sowohl in deiner Person, als in der Person eines jeden andern, jederzeit zugleich als Zweck, niemals bloß als Mittel brauchest“. (“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”)  - Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten.   This is often called the law of respect or the law of Humanity; I prefer the latter.

So my friend is absolutely right in her intuition, at least as far as Kant is concerned.  Although I have broken the moral law, in this sense, many times and forgot the humanness (Menschheit) of myself and others, my excuse has often been “I’m only human”.   But that’s not it is it?  The excuse uses a negative sense of humanness, while the moral law is humanness in a positive sense.  I of course recognize the moral law when I hear it or read it, but often in my weakness I fail to live up to it.  Many of us –too many- do not live up to it, perhaps because we don’t recognize it or can’t comprehend it.  We fail to recognize the humanness of each other, and we also fail to understand that we ought (it is imperative) to treat others as ends unto themselves and never solely as means to our own purposes.  It is difficult to obey and at times of increased desire for our own ends, more so, because we forget that others also have ends and are ends unto themselves.  SO, to conclude that is what it is, in essence, to be human - to be autonomous, free and have our own ends.  It is absolutely imperative to recognize that in ourselves and others.  Our humanness is something to be revered, or reverenced.  So if you fail, own up to your failures, and don’t use your human nature as an excuse, it is your human nature that gives you the moral law and we ought to reverence that fact - that law of morality.  Once we realize the humanness of each and every one of us, we become very humbled by it all.

My daughter's cat.

I wrote this poem years back, in the early morning hours, while visiting my daughter in Chicago:

My Daughter's Cat

She jumped up on the table and sprawled herself upon

the book of Ancient Philosophy I had been reading.

Did she know the argument Thrasymachus puts forth therein,

that Justice is to the advantage of the stronger?

Or was she just taking possession of that which was mine?

Perhaps, she intended to show me something more profound.

She jumped off the table, leaving the book to me,

and went to the French doors leading to the deck above the street.

She licked her paw and scrawled a sign upon the glass,

and the Black Labrador watch dog at the mechanic's shop

across the street, wagged his tail and looking up at her barked to announce

that a new day had begun and the parade of commerce could now commence.

She stared through the glass and pointed out to me the trail of ants,

crossing the deck with their heavy loads in their own form of commerce;

and pointed to the old haggard man wheeling his grocery cart loaded

with used pallets he hoped to sell for enough to gain his breakfast,

and the old black man begging for five to load and unload a truck

earning something to bring home to family living outside the agora.

The constant parade of tractor trailers, and single body trucks

moving fish, meat and eggs, transferring them from one warehouse to another,

dealing in the goods that would be used by others in other far off places.

I wonder; Is there a Socrates to dispute Thrasymachus in such a place?

Can Glaucon be the older brother to a Plato here, admiring the stonecutter–soldier,

expounding the verdict on the nature of Justice to those of us who would desire it?

Perhaps my feline friend is telling me that: "Each thing in its place is best;

And what seems but idle show Strengthens and supports the rest. ...".

But I doubt she heard of Longfellow, or ever been to New England.

She jumps upon the arm of the couch where I am seated and with a whirring motor

in her chest, she rubs her ears upon my arm and shoulder, in a language clear and distinct,

with an assertive "Meeow!" she announces her thesis that Love is twin sister to Justice.

"σ᾿ ἀγαπάω"

Gospel for today

From the common lectionary for today, Matthew 28: 16-20

Οἱ δὲ ἕνδεκα μαθηταὶ ἐπορεύθησαν εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν, εἰς τὸ ὄρος οὗ ἐτάξατο αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς.  καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν. καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς λέγων· ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς. πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ῾Αγίου Πνεύματος,  διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν· καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος. ᾿Αμήν.

The reader should note that the command of the Christ was not to preach or convert or force anyone to believe, but rather to teach - διδάσκοντες.  I think we have lost our way somewhat - that we are anxious to make converts of and demands on those with whom we come into contact.  But is not teaching in a totally different category from preaching, at least from preaching as we have come to know it?   Is not the object of teaching knowledge and not mere belief, no matter how correct that belief might be? Jesus asks us to teach others, but expects them to be free moral agents, who from their own freedom and autonomy come to know the truth as they see it in themselves.  He doesn't demand that we convert others to our way of thinking.

Die Sehnsucht

There is a longing for something in every conscious being. What that longing is directed towards is often misunderstood, even by the one who feels the longing itself.  Some long for more than our current existence, call that religion, but it is an ingredient part of consciousness to recognize that this life is transient and there must be something more.  The Ankh of the ancient Egyptians is the symbol of eternal life. Some say it was the earliest of Christian symbols.  It was the symbol of the Pharaoh which represented a key to eternal life held by the Pharaoh. 

Some say the longing is for love.  Some one other than one’s self to communicate with and satisfy the inner feeling of loneliness.  But isn’t that related to eternal life?  Is not in fact eternal life only found in Love?  When I am downcast I feel that need for living, that need for love and I can scarcely distinguish the two.  A man may search for love in a woman, so that his gender is completed by her presence, but a woman may also yearn for a man to complete and protect her self from harm. “Is that all there is to a fire” the song goes, and so one sees that there is a longing even in a passion. Perhaps the passion is the longing.  The orphan yearns for parents, the child yearns for adulthood, but once found, yearns for the innocence of childhood again.

I guess I’m just a child inside who lost his mother in his second year of life and has ever since searched (suchen) for her in every woman seen (sehen).

All Wrong

                        All Wrong

            A day begins all wrong

            and ends all right.

            angry words begin the trial

and loving words conclude it.

What a joy it is to live

life from day to day

worse to better rather

than better to worse.