About NEED ...

Gebara Chapter 2 – Evil and Gender

“What constitutes Humanity – the creative differences between the sexes – is one of the special locations in which Evil demonstrates its work . . . why have these men and women who need one another established a hierarchy based on their bodies and started a kind of war in their relationships?  And why does this relation between bodies, the site of good and evil, become, especially for women , a place of crucifixion and a place of exclusion?” (pg 67)

It is very interesting, indeed, to note that women and men actually NEED each other in order to continue our species.  We absolutely need each other in order to create another human being.  We need each other to survive.  So why do we oppress and villainize each other?

I suppose there’s maybe something to the thought that people like to feel like they don’t need anyone – that, in needing someone else, they’re admitting that they’re incapable in some way.  And  that, to assuage their feelings of impotence, they then put the blame of that feeling onto the person (gender) that they need – which, by necessity, leads to discord.

Could it be as simple as that?  I know that I really don’t like to feel like I need someone else to reach fulfillment in my life.  Yet I do know this:  without a man, I wouldn’t have my amazing children who make everything in life “worth it”.  Being divorced and single at the moment, I also don’t like to admit that I crave an intimate connection with a reciprocating man.  But I do.  Do I need one, though?  I dunno – does the need  (and I’m talking NEED, not "want") go beyond procreation?

Ok – then this question comes to me:  All of the “experts” on happiness also say that Humans need  a connection to God if they aspire to reach a true pinnacle of joy and satisfaction in their lives.  So, why, in the name of God, are we using institutions created for the sole purpose of building/strengthening a relationship with him/her as the very conduits of our crucifixion of each other?  (And although in the interest of being accountable I’m tempted to insist that the torture goes equally both ways, it’s pretty historically –and presently – apparent that the majority of the malevolent behavior is coming from men in that arena).

What gives?

Baddest vs. Goodest

I enjoyed the pleasure today of lunch with a good friend.  He was courteous enough to buy me a delicious Pot Roast Sandwich and to engage in delightful conversation.  (Lucky me, huh!)  Between chomps of the Incredible Beef and Onion Sensation that was mine to devour, I talked with him about duality/polarity.

It all started with the comment that "Bad" or "Evil" was a necessary force - that it was only through its existence that one could enjoy "Good" or "Pleasure".  Essentially, that a person is unable to define something without knowing its relational opposite and then comparing/contrasting it against said opposite.  My friend, whom we shall call 'da Doktor, held that without such comparison, true awareness could not be had - nay, could very probably not even be conceived of.  (Did I get that right, my friend?)

But ... eh ... I dunno ...

In the first place, that sounds a lot like "black or white" to me.  Granted, there would necessarily be a grey area between them, but said grey scale seems to exist only as a means of HOW black or HOW white rather than as a lens of its own.  Furthermore, I have mentioned before that I've prefered to see reality through the shades of grey rather than as a black and white contrast.  My other friend, Multi-B-To-'da-Three, though, broadened my vision by describing the vividly colorful tapestry that illustrates his life.  (Naturally, once I caught a glimpse of his, I immediately painted a gloriously-hued masterpiece of my own ).  And with THAT said, even the shades of grey seem archaic and wretchedly limited...

'da Dok presented a very well stated argument, however, by furthering that perhaps appreciating the world through the eyes of contrast may well be the *simplest* way to really get a satisfying bite of this juicy thing called Life.  The simplest to do, and the simplest to teach.

Hmmm.  I'm just not sure of how that's easier ... Doesn't it seem easier to just choose to enjoy (or not-enjoy as it were) something rather than to run it through some sort of comparison model to decide if it's "good" or "bad", or "gooder" or "badder"? Don't comparisons seem like a totally convoluted and unnecessary quagmire capable of making life much more complicated than it needs be?  Especially considering that one can simply choose to experience whatever is happening in the Now just as it is ... nicely and deeply and fully?  I tend to think that comparisons such as sweeter or more bitter are really irrelevant to whether or not right now is painful or pleasurable... 

In fact, I'll even go so far as to assert that requiring a comparison to define an experience will always leave that experience lacking - that it will  rob it of its authenticity by subjugating it to something else.

It seems to me that by taking something and determining its value based on how it relates to something else is to be in a dependent and reactive state of living - whereas to experience it at face value for nothing more or less than what it IS is to infuse life with independence and active appreciation...

What are your thoughts?

Aristotle: The Man With the Plan

Although I'm a Philosophy major in my senior year, I must confess that I am only in my second semester of the study of Philosophy.  I have almost 200 credit hours and am just a smidgen short of a 4.0 GPA, but the majority of those 200 credit hours are General Ed courses and classes that apply to my former major of (ugh!) Business Administration.

With that said, today was the first time -ever- that I have read anything by that Pillar of Philosophy, Aristotle.  Of course I have heard of him over the years, and especially in the last two semesters I've endured countless references to him and his writings, but for the most part I have been totally unaware of anything significant he said or did beyond the abstract "Father of Philosophy" title that he and Plato have monopolized.

So ... today I finally cracked open my first volume of Aristotle in the form of the Nicomachean Ethics.

And I'm in love.

Based on his reputation (and my experience of more contemporary Philosophers who have furthered his ideas) I had expected a dry, hard-to-read, pompous, pedantic and overly-intellectual read.  Much to my delight, he writes clearly, reasons easily and makes some really practical points.

My favorite statement of those I read today is:  "Choice is the starting point of action ... The starting point of choice, however, is desire and reasoning directed toward some end ...  Now thought alone moves nothing;  only thought which is directed to some end and concerned with action can do so ..."

One thing that bothers me about Philosophers as a stereotype is their propensity to analyze, dissect, discuss and argue everything down to the most specific of details (whether one is using the singular or plural meaning of the word "the" in his/her thesis, for example).  And they sit there in their armchairs posturing as the pinnacle of wisdom to their devoted followers seated at their feet.  And then that's all they ever do.  Sit and dissect.  Sit and analyze.  Sit and argue.  Maybe write something once in a while ...

Lame.

I'm reminded of a blog post my exceptionally brilliant sister wrote in which she wonders when  people are gonna actually DO something.  Her post is concerned more with the idea of social movements than with Pillsbury-Soft-Armchair-Philosophers, but her point resonates still... You can read it here: http://beerconomist.blogspot.com/2011/09/best-last-paragraphs-to-book-ever.html

I am also reminded of another correlating idea.  Although I "chose out of it" 25 years ago, I was raised in the Mormon (LDS) religion.  A common mantra repeated therein is "Faith without works is dead."  As in:  you can trust and believe all you want, but nothin's gonna HAPPEN if you don't do a little sumpin' about it. 

So, uh, what to do ... what to do ... what to do ...
What are YOU gonna do?

Evil.

Out of the Depths – Women’s Experience of Evil and Salvation - Ivone Gebara

Initially, I’m impressed at how well correlated this book is with what I read from Womanspirit Rising.  In reading WSR, I had several questions pop up in my mind – and many of them, by the first chapter of Out of the Depths, have been addressed.  Additionally, ideas that I formulated  as I was reading WSR have been confirmed.  This is cool.  KUDOS to my instructor for being so familiar with the literature to be able to correlated it so well!

So … Evil. 

Gebara seems to delineate the concept of Evil into two sub-sections … Evil that is given, and Evil that is received.  The way I read it, she removes “Evil” from the nebulous realm of concept and places it firmly into the physical world as something we can actually notice and act upon.  I like that.  She states, “Evil is so mixed in with our existence that we can live in it without even taking account of it as evil.” (pg 1)  “I’m thinking,” she continues as an example on pg 2, “of countless women who live in almost blind obedience in their homes or in religious institutions, without taking any notice of the exploitation that they endure and that, in a certain sense, they copy.”  (Remember, this is a feminist text.)

At first, I must admit, I struggled a bit with the very word “Evil”.  I prefer to think in the spectrum of greys as opposed to the duality of black an d white, and “Evil” seems so absolute – and so absolutely BAD.  But as I continue reading, I’m growing accustomed to the term encompassing much more than the blackest of “sins” or the darkest of hearts.  It is emerging as a part of everyday living that we all do to ourselves and to others.  “Some deeds become evil through excess; some through insufficiency.  Evil may result even when we have good intentions.” (pg 2)

Differentiating between Evil for Men and evil for Women, she states that Evil, as far as men are concerned, has always been viewed as some ‘thing’ that happens, that takes hold of human beings, surrounds them, attracts them and leads them to "sin" - yet is an act that one can undo/redeem … In the case of women, however … the prevailing thought in Theology is that  Evil is in a woman's very being. (pg 4)  (An example I thought of:  Original Sin:  Who’s traditionally blamed for the ultimate break of Humanity from God?  And how many women –at least through traditional Western Organized Religion- have been able to actually shake that blame?)  On the whole, she seems to classify Evil for Women as an allowing rather than as a action – ie:  allowing these thoughts of being “evil incarnate” and their consequent actions to happen - to continue to silently suffer, and to allow these things to continue generation after generation after generation.

She furthers to comment that Evil in women, at least as viewed by Organized Western Religion, seems un-redeemable.  “We know that the hard things men endure, especially their sufferings, can be redemptive,” she asserts, “but the evil women endure (suffering, self-sacrifice in favor of another) too often counts for nothing.  We need only to remember that in Christianity the aspect of sacrifice that is salvific is basically male.  Male sacrifice is the only kind that redeems and restores life;  male blood is the only blood of any value.  And this has been the case from the Old Testament to the New, right up to contemporary theologies.  Women’s bleeding is filthy, impure, dangerous.” (pg 7)

Ok  - my first thought as I read this is: I wonder how this correlates with the idea of Virgin Blood Sacrifice?  In this case, it seems, (aside from the one-time blood of Jesus Christ)it’s only the pure virgin’s blood that can bring redemption. 

And here’s where my brain is taking it:  BUT – note that she is only worthy if she is a virgin.  Interesting.  Note also, that her blood is used to redeem OTHERS – not herself.  Hm … More interesting.  Thirdly – she must actually DIE in order for redemption of others to occur.  –whoa- .  Notice from my previous paragraph the parenthetical description of what Gebara claims the “evil women endure” is … specifically:  suffering and self-sacrifice in favor of another.  Wow.  So, EVEN WHEN A WOMAN IS USED AS THE MEANS THROUGH REDEMPTION IS ACHIEVED, she is experiencing EVIL – is having it literally thrust upon her and is not given the option to refuse it. 

WAIT, THOUGH … I’ve gotta back-track a bit … it’s not Christians who do Virgin Blood Sacrifice.  Hm.  Aw, hell … that’s a whole new can of worms … SEE how it’s not only Organized Western Religion???  Shit.

Remembering that I’m not writing a dissertation here, nor offering any sort of formal argument, but rather fleshing out my thoughts and reflecting on what’s being offered by Gebara, what are your thoughts?

Fear and ...? So where does THAT lead?

The Human Situation:  A Feminine View  (Valerie Saiving, pp 25-42 – Womanspirit Rising)

Oh My!  This lady knows how to start an article right!  “It is,” she begins, “a well known fact that theology has been written almost exclusively by men.  This alone should put us on guard, especially since contemporary theologians constantly remind us that one of man’s strongest temptations is to identify his own limited perspective with universal truth.”  Yowza!  How do you like me now!?!?!

Theologians widely hold that the Human Condition is characterized by anxiety.  Man’s individuality –aka his singular ability to choose his path in life combined with his essential loneliness as an individual -  comes with a price:  “A pervasive fear for the survival of itself and its values.” (pg 26)  “Sin,” Saiving purports, “is the self’s attempt to overcome that anxiety by magnifying its own power, righteousness, or knowledge.” (pg 26).  I would suppose it’s a tactic to be scarier than what is so scary – to convince himself (and hopefully those around him) that he IS the whole … not merely just a part of it .  < insert note here:  by “man” I mean “person”.  My use of sexist pronouns is due to me wanting to keep my comments consistent with the way things are phrased in this article.  I fully acknowledge that Women do, most certainly, do this too! >

Now.  According to other myriad teachings I have enjoyed in the past, the opposite of fear is … wait for it … wait for it … can  you guess it … Love.  I’m not talking about the ooey gooey  twitterpation felt at the onset of a new romance, nor the blasé observing-things-from-on-high love of an “enlightened soul”, nor of the fierce and *specialized* love a mother has for her children.  I’m talking about “capital L” Love.  I think of it as this nebulous source energy that permeates … and indeed is the source of … all things.  Incidentally, I imagine it to be a pale sparkly yellow and to smell really good.   The Pre-Socratic philosopher Thales identified this base substance as Water.  Anaximenes figured it to be Air.  In  Early Modern times (you know, the 1600’s) Spinoza vaguely named it “the Infinite Substance”.  None of those fellas seemed overly concerned with its relation to humanity, though, beyond it being the source of all things.  I, also, think this prime source is comprised of one thing only … of the most powerful magic in existence:   Love.

So … with the opposite of Fear being Love, and the opposite of Love being Fear,  if someone is in Fear, it is impossible for them to be in Love.  Right?  And if being the embodiment of the very Source of all things (aka: God) means being Love, anyone IN Fear, or USING Fear as a means to anything is, in fact, the opposite of God.  (Here we go with that dualism again ...)

So, then, how do threats of being cast from Heaven, of being shunned by God, or of burning for eternity in a lake of fire and brimstone represent anything to do with God or God’s “plan” (if such a plan even exists, which I seriously doubt)? To put this into a simple syllogism:  Threats = Fear.  Fear = Opposite of God.  Therefore, Threats = Opposite of God.

Then, uh, would someone please tell me how Organized Western Religion can possibly have any true bearing as something from/of God? 

I must confess, this is not the point of Saiving’s article.  I have completely digressed.  I believe that I’ll leave off of commenting further, as my intention here is not to write a multi-page essay comprised of my thoughts on every single paragraph I read, nor do I actually have any sort of serious interest in discrediting Religion.

I will conclude with this, then (in a wild swing back to the actual topic of Saiving's article): Saiving makes a fascinating point about children first identifying themselves with their mother (having incubated in her and then nursing from her breast) and then having to grow into their separate selves … and that to do so is a tricky thing for boys since they not only have to recognize they’re not a woman, but to additionally become a “not-woman”.  By necessity, they have to pick out the parts of her that are NOT them to a much greater degree than little girls do.  Hell, even still these days, boys are condemned for “being a ‘pussy’.“  Maybe we women on the whole just let that pendulum swing too far too fast, and then waited too long to attempt to balance the swing.  Hm.  No, you  psycho-patriarchs and misogynists out there, this is not justification for you to say women must now lay in the bed we made ourselves while you continue being assholes, but it IS cause for those of us seeking change to look at what women are NOT doing as closely as we’re looking at what men ARE doing …

The Existence of a Supreme Being ... Patriarchal by Nature?

The Essential Challenge:  Does Theology Speak to Women’s Experience? (pp 19-24 Womanspirit Rising)

“The emancipation of women is finally impossible unless the Bible is understood from a feminist perspective and repudiated as revelation” (pg 19)

Well now.  Uh, that’s a pretty tall order.  I, personally, think that the bible is a lovely anthology of fairy tales used for the purpose of scaring people into specific behaviors.  Ok, actually, I think it’s a really dull anthology of fairy tales created by weak-yet-wealthy men to scare everyone but themselves and their closest peers into submission.  <phew – so glad to have THAT off my chest … >

So, word on the street is that in 1895, Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote and edited The Woman’s Bible.  It was ahead of its time, and was repudiated by feminists in 1896.  It was revived sometime in the mid 20^th century.  I, however, have never read it.  (As a general rule, BIBLE is a word that inspires me to turn away very quickly.)

At present, feminists hold that Theology is a product of male experience;  and many women legitimately feel that something is wrong with the way Religion views them.  Lesser.  Sinning.  Unclean.  Carnal.  Incapable. 

Here’s the thing:  an author mentioned in this section, Mary Daly, has asserted that the very concept of God being a Supreme Being (whether male or female) is a Patriarchal view in that it implies good vs bad … that it promotes dualism which, she says, is a complete construct of patriarchal mentality.  I find this really interesting!  I’m aware of dualism, and according to the spirituality I practice, it is dualism that traps us into our present reality – and that by being able to step outside of the dualistic world, we free ourselves to experience all-that-we-are in its most ecstatic form.  I had never considered it, however, as a construct of patriarchy.  I’m gonna have to give this some more consideration.  Of course, my knee jerk reaction is to shout, “DAMN PATRIARCHY … NOT HERE … NOT HERE …!”  But is it *really* a product of patriarchy, or just of human nature … or something else… 

Hmmmmm.

From "History" to "Herstory"?

Reflections on the Meaning of Herstory (Sheila Collins, pp 68-73 - Womanspirit Rising)

Spell check didn’t automatically like the word “herstory”.  I had to add it to my spell check dictionary so Microsoft would quit telling me there was something wrong with it.

History represents the views and values of the people who have “won”.  Of the conquerors.  So to take a look at events, systems and their “realities” from the perspective of those who “lost” may  ( I suggest most certainly WILL)  shift  “reality” entirely.  “Just as colors assume differing hues depending on the colors they are surrounded by,” comments Collins,  “so Judeo-Christian history and its authority systems take on a different gestalt when juxtaposed with the world view they sought to extinguish.” (pg 68) 

My mind has begun a frantic musing already of “what would this look like from that perspective … and what about this and this and THIS ?!?!?  And then I wonder if, by digging deep enough, one could actually FIND anything recorded by the “losers” in most cases.  I think maybe ….  At least, I hope so.

I took a drawing class once and was assigned a self portrait.  My sister, Holly, a very talented artist, upon hearing of the assignment, offered me one piece of advice.  “When you draw your teeth,” she instructed, “don’t focus on the teeth themselves.  Instead, focus on drawing the spaces between them.  Generally when someone tries to draw the actual teeth they turn out all sorts of disproportionate, oddly shaped and wacked-out.”  I suppose that can be wise advice when attempting to draw a clear picture of anything that seems at first to be a simple fact.  Rather than focus on what is glaring and white and in-your-face (pun intended), notice and record instead all of the little lines and shadows on the periphery – in doing so, the real image will emerge (in its perfection) on its own.

“Once the imperialism of the historical event has been relativized, the female historian … is freed to explore the rich heritage of myth and symbol – both biblical and extrabiblical – and to allow it to speak to her, rather than accepting an interpretation of it as given by scripture or authority.” (pg 70).  This is lovely.  We are trained to accept “authority” as the source of end-all truth.  My question is this:  who says that an authority is an authority?  Who voted them in, and under what circumstances?  In the religion that I was raised in, there is indeed a nominal “vote” before an “authority” is officially placed into his position.  What is ALWAYS lacking, however is more than one candidate … let alone a female one (at least in the critical and pivotal roles of leadership).  Furthermore, there is a *tremendous* social stigma with not finding worthy the very candidate that God, himself, selected.  How DARE one question such authority???  I have a professor, whom I adore, who regularly relates anecdotes from her life where she encounters children in the course of her research.  She regales me with delightful stories of their parents’ reactions when she states, boldly and clearly, to the child, “It’s ok to tell me exactly what you think and what you want.  I don’t like ‘well-behaved’ children much.”  Hee hee.  Just warms my heart thinking about it!  (And before you write me off as someone who doesn’t know any better … I have four very young children of my own.  For the record, there is NO “obeying” in our house – and it is a peaceful, happy home.)

Herstory, then.  A retelling of historical events as they appear among the spaces.  An emergence of white as it contrasts with varying shades of grey and black.  A disregard for undeserved Authority, and perhaps a long-due retelling of how the story really happened.

Intriguing, is it not?