Choices & Labels

Take peace, for example. Just as an example. There's something about it when you see it. Something that you could never quite put your finger on. It's not really clear what it is. 

Go ahead. Try to define it. Whether you do so from a flat materialistic point of view, or whether you do so from a mechanistic animist point of view, if you are honest, you will run into conceptual difficulties, and your definition will be easy to dismantle. But yet, despite all that, there's something about it, isn't there? Is it an emergent property  of  human thought, and therefore an emergent property of life and therefore an emergent property of matter? If so, can it then be said to be an ultimate property of the universe prior to and beyond human conceptualizing of it? If it's then an ultimate property of the universe, what is it? 

The atheists might declare its realness to be something of an illusion because it is derivative from lower levels of reality. But that doesn't work because there's no reference point for realness. It seems to exist in its own right. The animists might declare it to be a spirit, but that's an analysis that surrenders itself to labels. What does "spirit" mean?

Moreover, piety towards qualities of the universe--piety as in formal or ritualized acts of awe, reverence, and gratitude toward the aspects of the universe that you value and cherish--is a response that seems to match the human psyche very well. It makes for a psychologically balanced life.   

This is the most honest approach to reality that I can come up with. I don't feel that this is related to any choices I've made. It's how things actually are, as best as I can tell. I don't feel a fool for being haunted by the nature of reality; I ought to be.

I also really don't mind if I fit into a religious label or not. Fitting into other people's religious labels should never be my goal. What I think is honestly real should come first; categorization should always come second. 

Pax and Jesus

Peace, by George Herbert, a famous Christian poet whose life overlapped with William Shakespeare's, is a poem that I find significant in that it illustrates a point on which, though I respect Christianity very much, I must part ways with it. 

I would very much request that anyone who reads this understand that in this post, I am not criticizing Christianity--I am only telling how my own point of view differs.

The poem is about searching for peace. The speaker describes his quest in the form of a second-person address to a personified version of peace. This embodiment of peace in language--he uses a capital "P"--seems very similar to Roman religion, in that the personification serves as a vehicle for articulating a special aspect of the universe that isn't captured merely by the rote attaching of labels to features of reality, as we might do so in the contemporary era. The speaker of the poem doesn't specifically identify Pax the goddess, but the personification does so in its stead. 

The first three stanzas describe raised hopes in the search for peace in particular settings. Each time, the hopes are elevated only to be dashed. The "Peace" thought to be there turns out to be illusory. The remaining four stanzas are metaphorical descriptions of Jesus Christ, the twelve apostles, and the rise and spread of Christianity. The word peace again appears in the final stanza, but this time with a lowercase "p". Thus, upon the arrival of Christianity, peace is no longer personified, no longer deified, can no longer be spoken to or communicated with, has become an inanimate thing, a common noun.  Real peace, the author says, is only available through Jesus Christ.

I'm afraid this is a point on which I must part company with Christianity. 

I admire Christianity, but my opinions and feelings are different. That peace is only through Jesus--that has never been my intuition, and it also has never been my experience. Peace exists in a variety of life contexts: Peace sometimes prevails where specific human desires for peace are wholly absent. Peace sometimes appears in the complete absence of human beings. Peace is sometimes brought about by the planning, desire, or conscious intention of peace-seeking people. Peace often appears in non-Christian religious contexts. Peace is wherever it appears, however it appears, whenever it appears, and, if it appears due to the conscious actions of people, by whoever helps bring it about. 

I find the Roman conception of peace to be closer to my experience of reality. That being said, Jesus is a peace deity; I want him to receive respect, and I want his followers to be loved and to feel loved. 

Here's the poem: 

 

Peace

George Herbert

Sweet Peace, where dost thou dwell? I humbly crave,
Let me once know.
I sought thee in a secret cave,
And ask’d, if Peace were there.
A hollow winde did seem to answer, No:
Go seek elsewhere.

I did; and going did a rainbow note:
Surely, thought I,
This is the lace of Peaces coat:
I will search out the matter.
But while I lookt, the clouds immediately
Did break and scatter.

I went I to a garden, and did spy
A gallant flower,
The crown Imperiall: Sure, said I,
Peace at the root must dwell.
But when I digg’d, I saw a worm devoure
What show’d so well.

At length I met a rev’rend good old man:
Whom when of Peace
I did demand, he thus began;
There was a Prince of old
At Salem dwelt, who liv’d with good increase
Of flock and fold.

He sweetly liv’d; yet sweetnesse did not save
His life from foes.
But after death out of his grave
There sprang twelve stalks of wheat:
Which many wondring at, got some of those
To plant and set.

It prosper’d strangely, and did soon disperse
Through all the earth:
For they that taste it do rehearse,
That vertue lies therein;
A secret vertue bringing peace and mirth
By flight of sinne.

Take of this grain, which in my garden grows,
And grows for you;
Make bread of it: and that repose
And peace, which ev’ry where
With so much earnestnesse you do pursue
Is onely there.

Letter to President Obama

I submitted this letter on the White House e-mail form just now. I suspect they get more mail than most of us could imagine. My letter is probably a drop in the ocean of mail. I hope I didn't waste my time.

I also hope I don't sound like a crank. In any case, I listened to some pretty awesome music while I was writing it. Cheers. :)

Dear Mr. President,

In the media, one frequently encounters analysis of foreign policy by writers of various political orientations. To be sure, much of this analysis is, on its own terms, clever, well informed, and insightful. Yet, many writers avoid the looming elephant in the room--the existential threat to all humans: nuclear weapons.

Mundane foreign policy analysis is all but absurd in light of the existence of nuclear weapons. Some might object that after seven decades, we've accommodated them in some manner, that we no longer feel the absurdity they create because we've incorporated them in some fashion into our human existence. Nuclear weapons, they might say, are simply another fact of life, and if life doesn't end, then life goes on. However, it is precisely that normalization and conventional-ization that makes global circumstances so dangerous. 

A low probability over a short period of time becomes a much higher probability over a longer period of time. In other words, though on any given day, or in any given month or year, the risk of a nuclear war (or other nuclear event) might be small, the risk of a nuclear war happening across the course of a human lifetime is much greater. Moreover, a so-called "small" risk is not so small considering the consequences. A fifty megaton bomb is said to be capable of causing third degree burns 100 kilometers away and damaging windows 900 kilometers away. 

It is unclear what form a nuclear-free future would take--whether it would appeal to humanity's highest ideals in spite of human nature, or whether it would it somehow harness human nature and redirect it toward safer outcomes. But what is clear is that to feel our way toward a nuclear-free future and actually bring it into fruition, heads of state would be required to be statesmen of the highest principles. I urge you to use your opportunity as president to be this kind of statesman. 

Naysayers may deride the idea of a nuclear-free world as unrealistic and naive. The problem is, we have no choice but to try.

Sincerely,

[my real name]

Out of Control

What happens when a nuclear weapon detonates?

Offering of Incense for Peace in Ukraine

Offering of incense and prayer to Concordia that peace will prevail in Ukraine between all the participants, both direct and indirect.