Christian Life 36 - In Response to a Comment

 Before I type anything here, I must once again remind the reader of two fundamental precepts behind this blog: (1) if there is a Master Class in wisdom, then I myself am a freshman.  I might allow myself the glory of a second-term freshman, but a freshman nonetheless.  (2) Everything I've written is intended to be helpful to this blog's readership.  If any part of it is not so, then by all means disregard it and no offense shall be taken.

This post is in response to a comment made (yes, they do happen from time to time!) regarding my previous post entitled "Solving for X."  I asked for (and received) that commentator's permission to address the thoughts expressed therein through a post rather than a further comment because (1) I hope some of my response will be helpful to others, and (2) as usual, I expect my response to be somewhat lengthy.  Bad enough to expect the general readership to slosh through one of my sermonettes in a post, far worse to expect any given individual to do so in a comment.  Before proceeding, however, one personal note to the commentator:  I clicked on your profile, which led me to click on your blog.  I really love your title!  I am encouraged now to go blow the dust from Juvenal, and, as you can see, I suffer the same affliction!☺  I look forward to reading your posts!

Let me begin by addressing a point that our commentator doesn't even mention, but that I believe might play a role in making my point clearer.  In "Solving for X," I delve into the possibility that life does not have any intrinsic value.  Anyone looking at my earlier posts may recall occasions on which I have quoted other writers who have espoused the opposing point of view.  So, what's up with that?  Do I believe A or B?  Why can't I simply make up my mind?  Well, there actually is no dichotomy between these two perspectives.  In "Solving for X," I specifically deny the concept of life's intrinsic meaning.  That is to say, I don't believe God or biology or the universe or whatever imbues our lives with meaning from the moment we start living, simply because we live.  Meaning is there, but only inasmuch as we all create our own.  As Richard Bach said so much more eloquently than I could hope to, "The world is your exercise-book, the pages on which you do your sums.  It is not reality, although you are free to express reality there if you wish.  You are also free to write nonsense, or lies, or tear the pages."

Now, there will be some who will read the preceding paragraph and protest that I am advocating for anarchy.  To them, I can only say that they haven't understood a single word I've said since the very beginning of this blog.  They are on the wrong road and, if they are to make any progress at all, they must first turn around and return to the start.

Now, on to my commentator's comments.  I must confess that, upon the first reading, I found myself a bit confused.  Some passages seem to be in agreement with my thesis, others in adamant disagreement. I had to read through the comment in toto several times to "get my bearings" as it were.  For the most part, I find it a reasonably articulate argument, but not one with which I can completely agree.  For example, the statement that "a purpose [in life] is a Western middle class luxury."  As I have mentioned numerous times here in the past, I was born and raised in the West and am unfamiliar with Eastern philosophy beyond my ability to read about it, so the "western" moniker may or may not be correct; I have no way of really addressing its accuracy.  As for the "middle class luxury," this is likely the point which I have pondered the most.  I think (but only so) that I disagree here on two levels - historically and personally.

Historically, it seems that those who have spent the greatest time pondering and teaching on the subject were either born into poverty (e.g. Jesus, Confucius) or else began their philosophical journeys only upon renouncing the wealth into which they were born (e.g. the Buddha, Muhammad).  From this historical perspective, then, one would surmise that great thoughts regarding life and its possible meanings are more the purview of the impoverished than the wealthy.

My own personal experience tends to bear this out.  Having at various points in my life lived in each of the economic positions available within a capitalist society (and having finally settled into a self-enforced existence riding the poverty point), I have found, in my own life at least, very little correlation between spiritual understanding and income.  In fact, if anything, I find it easier to contemplate reality - or a lack thereof - from a position of being poor than of being rich.  Virtually every rich person I personally know are easily among the most neurotic.  Their entire mental capacity is dedicated to the amassing and retention of wealth with few brain cells remaining to dedicate to spiritual questions.  By and large, I find that the impoverished, having fewer physical (i.e. fiscal) obligations to distract them, find the contemplation of spiritual matters far easier. Of course, these observations are my own.  Another person may find something completely different.

The second statement over which I had to pause was "This position assumes one thing in particular -  that humans, as a rule, have the luxury and bandwidth if you will to consider one's meaning and purpose. When one doesn't know where one's next meal is coming from, one does not have this luxury."  I was forced to pause here on the word "assumes."  As a fairly adamant rule, I seek to ferret out assumptions in my diatribes, so when someone points one out that I may have missed I tend to get rather excited.  In this particular case, I am not certain that I have made an assumption, although I'm willing to accept the statistical possibility of having done so.  Having spent quite some time sleeping in my car (if it had been capable of running, I couldn't have afforded to put gas in it) and having spent many hours since that time among the homeless and destitute, I have not found the concepts of deep thought and famishment to be mutually exclusive. On the contrary, my experience tends to make them appear correlative. Ultimately, it seems to me that economics are one of any number of smokescreens we create for ourselves to avoid seeing the Truth. However, again, my own experience in this regard is limited to a few thousand souls among the billions on the planet, so my sampling may be too sparse for statistical accuracy.  If there have been studies made on this question with a more statistically representative sampling, I am unaware of them, but would be delighted to have them brought to my attention.

As for "bandwidth," I suppose that probably varies from person to person, but again I haven't observed a correlation between intellect and cash flow. 

If I were to try to make distinctions here, I don't think they would be between economic classes or even food disparity.  They may be between Eastern and Western philosophy, although I again can't really say.  There is definitely a problem here in the West in that we look on life, and its possible meaning, as somehow being akin to a race or a to-do list or possibly a mathematical equation.  I find all of these to be rather poor allegories.  If I had to attempt a metaphor, I'd say that life is more like a crib mobile, or possibly a sock-hop at which everyone brings their own playlists.  Very few participants to such an event would end up enjoying themselves.  (1) Many participants will get annoyed at the cacophony.  Those country fans really hate hearing all the heavy metal.  Jazz aficionados find the K-pop to be insipid. Swifties think the classical sonatas are pretentious and stuffy.   (2) Other participants want to add rules that didn't exist when they walked in the door; things such as "try really hard to pair up with someone else listening to your same playlist," or "loose points whenever you bump into somebody else."  Rules that actually have no bearing on the event itself.  (3) A small number of participants will disparage at the sight of so much chaotic bumping and grinding and try their best to get everyone into a nice, symmetrical line dance. (4) A very few will understand the true point, which is simply to enjoy the dance.  Don't try to make something out of it; just dance!

There is another area, however, in which I fear that I may well have made an assumption, and a potentially grievous one at that. Implied within several sentences of the comment I detect a hint of anger, both at the circumstances of poverty and the society that not only allows it but often seems to perpetrate it.  That anger may, in fact, not be there at all; I admit to having made the assumption.  If I am wrong, I beg both your indulgence and forgiveness.  If I am right, then I must congratulate you.  Being angry at the improprieties within human societies - improprieties that would not occur save human pride - is to have stepped a foot into what the psalmist called the "valley of the shadow of death," a valley that I myself also currently traverse.  Dark and frightening though it is, it is only by crossing this valley that we can reach the foot of the mountain summited by Enlightenment, the only place where we can ever hope to find peace and understanding.  In this case, I must say, I welcome the company, and I hope we can teach and comfort one another as we continue down the trail.

Pax