Christian Life 32 - Wild Elephants
A week or so ago, I checked out a book from the library entitled How to Train a Wild Elephant (and Other Adventures in Mindfulness) by Jan Chozen Bays, MD. I've already decided that I'm going to have to buy a copy. It's a very simply written book with a simple but profound thesis.
As we've explored in previous posts, perfection comes through enlightenment, which, in turn, comes from mindfulness. Mindfulness, as it happens, occurs in the present. What Dr. Bays illustrates in her introduction is that we spend very little time living in the present. We spend almost all of our time mentally being in the past, the future, or Fantasyland. In the past, we find many regrets, in the future we find dreams, and in Fantasyland we work out how we should have done that job or how we're going to tell off the next goofball or any of a number of scenarios that, in all likelihood, will never come to pass.
Dr. Bays points out that there's nothing inherently wrong with this. We often learn our best lessons from looking at our pasts. We should plan for the future, writing out our grocery lists or contributing to our retirement accounts. Spending a little time in Fantasyland can relieve stress and provide little "mini-vacations" throughout the day. The problem stems from the fact that we often spend so much mental time in the past, the future and Fantasyland that we are barely even aware of Now. Have you ever gotten up in the morning, gotten dressed, gotten into the car, pulled out of the driveway and boom! you're pulling into the parking lot at work, with no idea what happened in the 15-20 minutes in between? You spent the time wishing you had flossed better or planning your workday or imagining the surprise party your coworkers have planned because today's your birthday. On one hand, it's great that you've mastered the art of driving to such an extent that you no longer have to even think about it. On the other hand, you've just lost 15-20 minutes of your life that you'll never get back.
The rest of the book is divided into 53 chapters, each dedicated to a simple exercise intended to make us more mindful in the present. Dr. Bays' suggestion is that we do one exercise per week throughout the course of a year. I've decided to try it. That's why I need to buy the book; the library will want theirs back in a couple of weeks.
I'm starting today on the first exercise: use your non-dominant hand as much as possible. She suggested putting a Band-Aid on your non-dominant hand as a reminder. I tried that for a couple of hours and found it too easy to ignore. I now have a wrist brace on my non-dominant wrist. We'll see how it goes.
Wanna play? I'm about to google the title and see what comes up. I'm sure it's available on Amazon. I'm going to find out where else.
See you next week.
Pax
UPDATE - the wrist brace didn't work much better than the Band-Aid; too easy to ignore. I swapped my watch to the other wrist, which I'm finding highly annoying. Fingers crossed!
Comments
I'm not convinced about the word "perfection" and I'm not sure I can leave no trace of myself in the kitchen to save my life. but I may download it and see what's what.
I've glanced at a few of the posts, but admittedly did not read them all in depth, so forgive me if I repeat something you have already written as I present my verbal diatribe.
I would think it depends on one's definition of "perfection" and how one sees the goal, or if one adopts the goalposts set by another. I dislike labeling ideas that are fluid and malleable and individualistic with loaded words like "perfection." It may be that this whole things is semantics, in which case feel free to go make a grilled cheese sandwich or something rather than read this. :)
I rarely look at things solely through a lens of individual action. Even the most reclusive are in some way affected by an environment and those who may be incidentally around. I recognize that one may, in one's individual existence, create a personal ideal of perfection and strive for it, but in reality there is always something to deal with from elsewhere. No matter how I structure my internal idea of perfection in thought and action, someone around me is going to act in a way that hurts or harms me or what I see as my bubble. If the subsequent stream of invective can be excused in my concept of perfection - let's say I didn't say it out loud - then have I achieved my goal? I really don't know. Whether I express my displeasure of not, the displeasure exists, and in some criteria for perfection can be seen as a bad thing. This is my standard vs other's standards vs the unknowable standards of a god.
I believe that the concepts of perfection, nirvana, heaven, ad nauseum...use the carrot and the stick to lead us to prove we are worthy. WE strive for perfection (however perfection is categorized in one's belief system), but if it doesn't happen for whatever reason WE are held to fail. Consequently, we continue to strive as we wish nothing more than what is held to us as possible - a way out of the morass of day to day life, a path to bliss, a way to be better. We are told by those around us that WE have failed, WE must do better, WE are imperfect. Guilt, whether put forth as the disappointment of a god or the anger of a god with one's failure to achieve is an incredibly powerful stimulus. This is the prosperity gospel, the Catholic saints, the Quaker's good works - individual worthiness for salvation, acceptance, wealth, a desirable life. No matter what the ideal of perfection is, when it is taken from religion it is ultimately something dictated by someone else through religious writings. I have spent a lifetime hearing how this or that religious text is "inspired" or "directed" by a god, but this smacks of an a priori argument - they were mostly written by men and no one walking the earth can agree on who or when or why or how, or even how to define what "the divinely inspired word of whichever god" is.
Part II follows :)
Striving for perfection, or even general human goodness, is certainly doable, and I think there is general agreement that overcoming the urge to smack the woman in line ahead of you to get out of the store more quickly is to be the goal (for example), but humans are selfish animals and that selfishness is our survival mechanism.
Some of us are basically nicer than others of us. Some of us have to deal with external and internal fights to remain socially acceptable, for lack of a better phrase. Some of us can not under any circumstance achieve this.
Homelessness is a huge problem where I live. Many housed individuals have reached the end of their ability to deal with their lives surrounded by this issue. At the same time, many activists still doggedly fight the courts, the municipalities, and the general population to try to assist those less fortunate, even when the battle is obviously unwinnable. At first the activists were held to be the saviors - to hold this idea of perfection - but that has changed. Now those fighting against the homeless are the saviors and hold the current righteousness. Societies' view of perfection has shifted with time and frustration. Californians have voted to establish mental health courts and to involuntarily commit individuals again. Ten years ago this would have been unthinkable, a violation of the state's ethos and yes, an imperfect action. Circumstances change, and people change with them. Internal thought or external action, it is the rare individual that can stand solidly along their ethos for a lifetime. Perfection is a principle, and principles can be compromised.
So, long story short (too late), if one is striving for a version of perfectionism that one creates and holds as a personal goal to be a better person or whatever, yes - I suppose I would agree with you with certain caveats, that this is desirable and possible. I would have an issue with calling that perfectionism in and of itself, but that is another conversation. If perfectionism is taken from a religious writing, organization, or another person and is meant to get you into heaven, improve your relationship, make you money, allow you to fly a flag, etc...then I would say no, because that version of perfectionism is in itself inherently selfish on some level, which will lead one on a merry go round of impossibility.
For me personally, perfection is not a desirable goal. If I can get through existence without destroying too much of my environment (people, places, things) I will be content. This is not perfectionism to me. So far I'm losing, I'm afraid, but I suspect that's part of the human existence.
I wrote this in pieces and rather quickly this morning. Normal caveats re: spelling and grammar apply. I would put one for possible rambling but I think you are intelligent enough to follow me even if I veer off occasionally.
Frankly, I find a lot in your words. It may take my some time to digest it all and return any sort of intelligent reflection. I beg for some patience here. I will definitely be getting back to you.
Again, I can't thank you enough. I look forward to continuing this conversation. My only regret at this point is that the blog names you as "Unknown," which does little to satisfy my curiosity! :-)
I fear that I may have you at a bit of a disadvantage in that I know the entire blog in ways that you as a gentle reader cannot. In the 4 1/2 years since its inception the intent and target audience have evolved in significant ways. This evolution may have inadvertently shaded your reactions (and, if so, I apologize).
Initially, I was writing as a former atheist to other atheists. When I found no audience among my atheist friends, I started writing to Christians as a fellow Christian. Having failed to gain much readership there either, I've since been writing notes to myself. If you were to scroll through the entirety of the blog starting with the post "First Things First" dated August 19, 2021 and read sequentially forward from there, it would become apparent. I admit that doing so would take a very long time, and, as you point out, pretty much nobody has that kind of time to commit to such an endeavor. Let me, therefore, save you the trouble.
8/19/21 ("First Things First") - 1/1/23 ("Why Not Atheism?") are written for atheists, as are the posts dated 7/5/23, 7/28/23, 11/7/23, 12/12/23, 12/14/23, 2/12/24, and 4/29/24. "History's Greatest Period" (5/26/23) is aimed at Christians, as are all posts from 8/10/23 - 8/20/24 (preceding dates notwithstanding). Everything posted since 9/17/24 ("Random Thoughts") are really self-reflections. (By way of incidence, your thoughts on homelessness are reflected in my posts dated July 18, 2024 and August 17, 2024.)
I do not point this out as a none-too-subtle suggestion that you should read the blog in its entirety. Rather, I point it out as a means by which to clarify what I've been discussing regarding perfection. All of those references (to perfection)are made to Christians and/or myself and they are intended to clarify an important fact of Western Christianity, to wit: we have reached a point in our Western theology that we are willing to settle for less and less morality and still call ourselves "good enough," when, in fact, our definition of "good enough" rarely comes close.
The Christian standard of "good enough" must be the example of Christ himself. It is not a standard to which I would hold the world by any means, but it is one to which I hold myself and one to which I should think my fellow Christians would as well. The concept comes from the passage in Matthew 5:48 in which Jesus admonishes his followers to "be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect."
I hope that helps a little. If I have somehow managed to miss your point entirely (which often happens, I'm afraid), please let me know.
Thanks again for your response. I look forward to further discussion.
Pax
The rock bottom difference between an atheist and a believer is where that effort is sourced from. You attempt to impose order through the framework of your belief system, and I attempt to impose it through the framework of my unbelief system. Peculiarly, neither of us will succeed.
Yes, this is a simplistic and one dimensional view, but it has served my purposes for quite a while now.
I did read the posts you indicated as relating to homelessness with interest. It slots nicely into the idea of the responsibility for one's fellow man, along with glancing handily off the idea of private v public responsibility. The complications are, of course, is the governmental infrastructure, the idea that another's rights end where mine begin, and why should a taxpaying homeowner in San Francisco have to ford through neighborhood sidewalks populated by homeless encampments and their associated detritus. I admit I have no answers, although I know who will ultimately prevail. It's already starting. Even people in California have compassion fatigue, and no amount of private or public money is affecting the problem. It is merely moving it on. In the short term we must house and clothe and cure, but none of us is more powerful than the United States economy, and that is where the ultimate solution lies. Unfortunately, the selfishness of the developer and the landlord are what make the rules, and no prayer will stop that.
I apologize for the absence. Unfortunately, I have several demands on my time, as does everyone else. :) Have a great week.
I hope you're having a great week, as well.
Pax
I will attempt to answer each of your comments in turn, but before I do so, let me reiterate a key point: everything I've typed here since the very beginning is intended to be helpful. If you find something to be so, then the purpose has been served. If not, then by no means consider it any further. Feel free to flush all or part of it down a toilet as you see fit. In fact, skip all of the following if you wish, except the last paragraph; that one could be important, if only to me. :)
"I am an atheist." That's okay by me. I see my role here are rather like the doorman in front of the Waldorf. If you have business inside, I'll hold the door for you. If you're idly curious about what goes on, I'll hold the door for you. If you've concluded your business and wish to leave, I'll hold the door for you and call you a taxi. If you have no interest at all and are merely walking by, I'll still provide a wave and a smile. Either way, my job is simply to hold the door, it's of no concern to me whether the person I'm holding it for is "eccentric" or "unorthodox" or "odd" or, more recently, "insane" or "stupid."
"You attempt to impose order through the framework of your belief system, and I attempt to impose it through the framework of my unbelief system. Peculiarly, neither of us will succeed."
This is the point I have given the most consideration to and the one I find most intriguing. I believe I've given it due consideration from every angle I can imagine. I shan't bog this down further with the details of my back-and-forth, but merely explain where I am at the moment (more than a day's thought needs to go into this, I'm sure). While I concur with your ideas regarding order v. chaos, I'm not yet completely convinced of the implication that chaos is the rule and order is an illusion. There seems to be an order to everything from DNA sequencing to produce another member of a given species to fish swimming in schools to planets and galaxies rotating in orbits. Obviously some chaos is involved: the odd genetic mutation, the individual fish in a school being eaten, the occasion collision of planets and galaxies even within "fixed" orbits. But it seems to me that these are the exceptions rather than the rules. I don't know. As said, a lot more thought needs to go into this before I settle on any conclusions.
Ironically, your point here echoes a conversation I had about a week ago with another friend who was basically bemoaning something to the effect of "I don't see why my tax dollars should be used to support a deadbeat." For what it may be worth to you, here is the reply I gave him:
"I can only partly agree with you on this one, Brother. I've studied this for several decades and here are my own (lay) conclusions: According to the principles of logic and the tenets of every major religion (including the one we share), it is the primary responsibility of the individual to care for the society in which they live. It is, in turn, the responsibility of the society to care for its individual members. In Mosaic Law, this responsibility extended beyond the society's citizens and includes foreigners as well (Lev. 19_33-34) If individuals or society (through its churches, synagogues, mosques and other benevolences) fail in their duties, I suppose the only recourse - albeit, as you point out, a very poor one - is for the society's government to intervene and do by force what society and individuals are unwilling to do voluntarily. Otherwise, the only option is for the poor and downtrodden, in the words of Ebenezer Scrooge, to hurry and die and reduce the surplus population. Anyway, those are the thoughts of one layman. I hope it wasn't too diatribic."
It's taken a long time for me to decide to type any of this. I really felt like (still do, really), that I ought not to have said anything. You are no doubt familiar with the cliche "the more you learn, the less you know." I have reached a point in my learning that compels me to wonder whether I know anything. I've spent many nights recently wondering where I get the gall to think I have anything to contribute to the world conversation. It is the greatest irony, then, that you have chosen to come into my little world at the exact moment when I had concluded to give the whole thing a miss. Well, if you've found anything here worth pondering, I'm glad. If not, I'm sorry to have wasted your time.
Pax
Order v Chaos
I do not see chaos as universally negative thing. It has been said - by whom I do not remember - that those who have the most insight and internal growth are those who deal with adversity. Or something to that effect. I do see order in the world, but I see little in the human mind. All humans have a dark side that is one less meal, one less shelter, or one threat to survival away from erupting. I believe that part of the reason we are in the societal situation we are in is because many of us thing we are facing threats to our existence. Change is hard. I believe this will be looked back on as yet another revolution like the industrial revolution - one of those points in human history where technology changed the world faster than our minds could change.
You pointed out, rightly, that the world contains significant points of order. Nature works in order until it doesn't, to be sure. While I realize our bodies work specifically, I don't think our minds do. My liver and your liver, illness notwithstanding, are identical. My brain and your brain and molded by experience and environment. I would imagine that even at the moment of birth our minds are not identical. This is the chaos within us, the chaos we can only marginally control.
As humans we impose our internal chaos on our external world. All the little pieces of chaos combine to create the societal chaos we live in. Even totalitarian systems can not control it - they contain the seeds of their own destruction from the start. The biggest mistakes we make as humans is not taking our own natures into account, thus removing the only - admittedly marginal - chance we have to mitigate.
Thank you for your clarifying response. I believe I actually do understand your statements better now. While I see your point regarding the chaos within, you will not be surprised that I cannot accept that it is an irrefutable point, lest this entire blog would be completely meaningless, and I would have had no motivation to start it in the first place.
Still, I can easily see how one (present company included) could come to that conclusion, and I would be the last to say that it is without validity. I do think, though, that, with training, the human mind can be taught to clear itself and "create order from the chaos," if we haven't overused that phrase already. I further believe that this orderliness is what we so often refer to as "peace."
My own personal journey toward peace is chronicled here in the posts dated March 18, 2024 - Jun 30, 2024, then Sept 21, 2024 to present (I admit to not having been too peaceful when I first started typing this blog). I have not yet reached this ultimate "peace, "enlightenment," or whatever else one may call it, but I've known others among my Buddhist, Hindu and, yes, even Christian friends and acquaintances who, if they haven't achieved it, certainly emit some sense that it close enough to it for me.
In my post titled "On Delusions" I conclude with a statement expressing the idea that, if this all proves to be a delusion, it will have been one I happily suffered from. (I personally don't think it is, but then, that's rather what "delusion" means, isn't it?) Even in the few months I've studied this concept, I can already say this is true. Maybe, on my deathbed, I'll decide I've gone down a wrong path. If so, that'll be okay. It was a path founded on the concept of "do no harm", and one with beauty, joy and splendor on every step. If delusional, that'll be just fine! :-)
I think my concern with the idea of the chaotic nature of human thought, when carried to its ultimate conclusion, is this: if all human thought, all our mental processes, were simply chaotic, how would we ever know them to be chaotic? By what standard of mental order are we comparing our chaotic ideas? Without some concept of orderliness, how could you and I be examining the idea of chaos? Without some standard of order, the word "chaos" wouldn't exist. That is to say that, if there were no light in the universe, and therefore no creatures with eyes, how would we ever know we were in the dark? "Darkness" would be a word without meaning.
My brain is currently going about 1000 mph. I hope this makes sense.